1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

Is Congress Steering the Country towards an All-Drug Decriminalization Policy?

  1. Beenthere2Hippie
    View attachment 52069 Will all mind-altering drugs eventually be decriminalized by the federal government? With its decision to regard drug addiction as an “disease” and “epidemic” and to thereby emphasize treatment over personal responsibility and the deterrence provided by the criminal law, has Congress laid the groundwork?

    Before the break for the party conventions and the annual August recess, Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law the almost unanimously approved Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. Democrats and Obama have complained of insufficient funding for the programs in the new law, but that can be taken up in the new session of Congress starting in September. and in the rump, post-election session. The public emphasis of the members of Congress in advocating for the law has been on helping blameless people in need of drug treatment, that is, a kind of constituent service. So, with the upcoming elections, will Congress increase funding this fall?

    The new law, enthusiastically celebrated as a showpiece of bi-partisanship, is long and full of details, almost all of which were never discussed or addressed publicly in Congress and never reported on by the media. In advocating for the proposed legislation, many members of Congress brought forth pathetic stories of drug addiction of some of their constituents. Apparently, this act of legislating by an appeal to pity was considered sufficient “consideration” of legislation that is going to have far-reaching consequences that the public has no ability to understand. Since support was overwhelming, there apparently was no need to publish a detailed summary or comprehensive committee report. And neither house did. In the on-the-record discussion of the bill, the possible benefits of enforcing the extant laws on illegal drugs was put way into the background, and, indeed, essentially repudiated.

    The fundamental transformation away from personal responsibility and drug prosecution has now been put into place. As Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), the leading advocate for the new consensus, recently stated at a Senate hearing, “This is an illness, this is to be treated as a disease.” In agreement, Representative John Conyers (D-MI) said on the House floor that: “We now have a better way of addressing issues of addiction, and we know that incarceration is not the answer.” In citing President Obama’s strong support for the new approach, the White House has stated that “science demonstrates that addiction is a disease of the brain” and that “prevention and access to treatment” should be emphasized over incarceration.” Virtually all national organizations involved in drug addiction issues, that is, organizations who have a self-interest not only in “treatment” but in prolonged treatment, are in agreement.

    The centerpiece of the new law is the broad expansion of the prescribing of substitute drugs for drug addiction, or, as the new law euphemistically states, “medication-assisted treatment for recovery from addiction.” Methadone, itself an opioid, has been prescribed by doctors for years as a treatment for addiction to the opiate heroin and other narcotic drugs. Thus: opium as an antidote to opium. Methadone does not cure the addiction but is supposed to control it – with a lesser “high.” Although it is never mentioned in public discussion, methadone itself is a highly abused drug, and is now, in fact, a leading cause of drug deaths. But the new law goes beyond methadone. Whereas methadone is dispensed only in clinics as part of a structured program, the new law provides for a dramatic increase in the use of another opioid, buprenorphine, to be prescribed and used individually, outside of clinics, by direct prescription in a physician’s office, thus greatly increasing its dissemination. What is more, the new law allows physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners to write the prescriptions. And, separately from the new law and in anticipation of it, the Obama Administration recently issued a new regulation allowing practitioners to nearly triple the number of patients they can be prescribe buprenorphine. Like methadone, buprenorphine causes its own high, and its abuse has been associated with drug deaths.

    In its main sections replacing criminal prosecution and procedures with treatment and “alternatives to incarceration,” the new law provides for a general creation and extension of already existing “alternatives to incarceration.” A specific example is the diversion from prosecution of some arrestees to the relatively new phenomenon of “mental health courts.” In such courts, those who are arrested for drug crimes (defined as “misdemeanors or nonviolent offenses”) and who have apparent mental disorders may have their charges dismissed or sentences reduced if they agree to mental health treatment. This, then, includes the kind of drug felonies that are nowadays being called “nonviolent.”

    The new law also promotes the increasingly used drug courts. Under current law (passed in 2008), a “violent offender” is excluded from drug courts; but a “violent offender” is defined only as a person who commits a felony act of violence, normally with a possible imprisonment of more than one year. So, serious but misdemeanor assaults by persons on drugs could be dealt with and possibly dismissed in drug courts. Reinforcing this trend to define violence down, the new law extends the therapeutic goals of mental health and drug courts.

    In addition to the several sections of the law that put into place the new procedures and methods of dealing with drug addition, the new law contains the highly unusual and perhaps unprecedented section: “It is the sense of the Congress that decades of experience and research have demonstrated that a fiscally responsible approach to addressing the opioid abuse epidemic and other substance abuse epidemics requires treating such epidemics as a public health emergency emphasizing prevention, treatment, and recovery.” This is quite obviously an open-ended license – or actually an order -- now written into law to minimize or eliminate drug prosecutions across the board. And with the usual enticements of federal funding, it will apply not only to federal and but also to state criminal proceedings.

    Another section provides for a study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) which makes the further decriminalization of all drugs more likely. The study will critique the social consequences, excluding the actual criminal sentences, of convictions for “nonviolent related offenses,” which obviously includes drug-trafficking felonies. In addition to providing another rationale for the non-prosecution of drug crimes, the preordained results of this “study” will set the stage for the elimination of criminal records. Employers, including, for instance, schools and churches, and landlords will not be able to use checks of criminal records as a basis for hiring, firing, and renting.

    The Addiction and Recovery Act substituting treatment for criminal prosecution is in harmony with the cutting back of drug sentences proposed by the pending and also bi-partisan legislation, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. Under that bill, the definition of prior drug convictions would be re-defined and liberalized, and mandatory minimum sentences for second and third drug convictions would be reduced. In addition, already-incarcerated drug offenders who trafficked in “crackcocaine would be allowed ex post facto reductions in their sentences. What is more, another provision would allow supposedly “nonviolent” drug offenders to receive newly-reduced sentences. With a new definition of the “manufacture” of illegal drugs, another provision would make it more difficult to prosecute such crimes. And the proposed law would reduce the applicable mandatory minimum sentence from ten to five years by minimizing prior drug convictions.

    The new law emerged primarily out of public concern and widespread publicity about the abuse of prescription pain drugs, especially oxycodone, hydrocodone, and fentanyl. But there has been no public discussion of the fact that the entire “epidemic” has been initiated in and revolves around the medical field. The key persons are doctors, that is, the only persons legally authorized to distribute controlled drugs. They over-prescribe painkilling drugs to their patients and thus start other chains of events like their patients’ sale of those drugs to addicts. Abusers of pain killers know that they can shop for a doctor who will prescribe the painkillers that they want. It is market driven. If one doctor declines, another will prescribe. Congress did not have the fortitude to confront the medical establishment about this underlying foundation of the prescription drug epidemic. And in fact, the medical specialty of “pain management” (first recognized only in 1978) is actually incorporated into the new law and the new federal programs established by the new law. The new federal task force on pain management not only includes pain specialist doctors but also “pain management professional organizations,” which, to state it again, have a self-interest, a financial stake, in almost all provisions of the new law.

    By unassailable logic in agreement with the new law, the pot lobby, NORML, has helpfully suggested that marijuana be legalized as a treatment for opioid addiction. If we have opium as a treatment for opium, we may as well have marijuana as a treatment for opium.

    Deliberately obscured in all the therapeutic rhetoric about “treatment” and supposed “recovery” is the basic reality that there is no cure for drug addiction. No studies show that drug addiction can be “cured” in the sense that numerous diseases and medical conditions are cured. All studies and evaluations of treatment programs are limited by the short time span in contact with the subjects. Because drug patients are “clean” for one year has nothing to say about whether they were clean for two years or about the lifelong effect of drug addiction.

    Congress has now set the country on a course of decriminalizing all or most hard drugs. The new law concerns itself not at all with personal responsibility and the deterrence and moral correction provided by prosecution, criminal penalties, a criminal record, and public shame. If drug addiction is a disease, it is a unique one. The common understanding is that a disease happens to a person and is not initiated and assisted by the active choices and knowing acts of the person diseased. And the new availability of “treatment” for the disease may turn out to be an incentive, a safety valve, for beginning or continuing the use of drugs.

    Other consequences and implications of decriminalizing hard drugs are as yet unknown, but the country will find out soon enough.

    Thomas R. Ascik recently retired as a federal prosecutor.

    By Thomas R. Ascik - The Hill/Sept. 4, 2016
    Photo: DF montage (hpr, newhealthadvisor)
    Newshawk Crew

    Author Bio

    BT2H is a retired news editor and writer from the NYC area who, for health reasons, retired to a southern US state early, and where BT2H continues to write and to post drug-related news to DF.


  1. CaptainTripps
    Wow! This this guy is a real piece of work. I love this article as it shows what the Captain has been saying all along. The drug war is a religious war based on "morality" and not common sense.

    Imagine destroying lives and families for your entire career (it did say retired federal prosecutor) by advocating extreme sentences for what in many cases are victimless crimes, just to see that your life work is not only going down the drain, but is being viewed as one big huge cluster fuck! That's right, that "white hat" is being ripped right off your head and a "black hat" put in its place. You are no longer the good guy and worse you never were.

    Cognitive dissonance theory basically says that us humans cannot deal very well when our thoughts and actions are not in sync. When allowed to, people will act the way they think. That is because it causes us stress at a very deep and profound level to think one way and act another. ( This is very different from hypocrisy where we say one thing and do another. People seem comfortable this that.)

    Cognitive dissonance has been used to change thought by changing behavior. In other words, if you force someone to behave in a way that is contrary to their belief system this will cause so much stress they will change their belief system to match. Example: suppose you are drafted into the German Army in WWII but you are basically a "live and let live" kinda guy. You are then assigned to an extermination camp. You are appalled to have to escort innocent men, women and even children to their deaths. You go to bed and have nightmares, you cant eat and find it difficult to concentrate. You ask for a new assignment, "hell even send me to the Russian Front", but the answer is 'no". You now know too much and if you don't go along with the program not only will you join the prisoners in the showers, but your family will get a not so friendly visit from the gestapo. So you do what you have to. :( But as the days go by it gets easier. You say to yourself, hey "I have no choice", but that only helps a little. But after a while you start to find yourself believing that what you are doing is not so bad, it may be hard but there is a bigger purpose, right? Finally you end up not only believing that but you are actually doing your victims a favor. :rolleyes: Ahhhh sleep at last :)

    I kind of feel sorry for the guy as his whole world view is being flushed down the toilet, by reason and compassion. What I see in the legislation is a good "first step" down the right path, but a long way from where we need to be.

    This really says it all.

    "Congress has now set the country on a course of decriminalizing all or most hard drugs. The new law concerns itself not at all with personal responsibility and the deterrence and moral correction provided by prosecution, criminal penalties, a criminal record, and public shame. If drug addiction is a disease, it is a unique one. The common understanding is that a disease happens to a person and is not initiated and assisted by the active choices and knowing acts of the person diseased. And the new availability of “treatment” for the disease may turn out to be an incentive, a safety valve, for beginning or continuing the use of drugs."

    The law should always have been about the well being of people, not to make some kind of moral stance. But how could he think otherwise, because to do so he would have to face the fact that the real criminal is the man in the mirror.

    If addiction has no "cure" then what is the answer? Life sentences for addicts, cause the alternative is a life of crime? Also if someone has a legitimate pain issue and innocently becomes addicted, how is this a moral failing and not a disease? Methadone is extremely dangerous, but became the substitute drug of choice simply because it was viewed being less "fun" than safer opioids. Again fucking morality shows it ugly head. Methadone clinics often are so strict that patients have to come virtually every day at a certain time. which is ok if you have good transportation and don't have a job or other obligations. But I guess people who make mistakes don't deserve jobs or a second chance. But God forbid if they apply for welfare!

    I am not suggesting that the drug kingpins who bring billions of dollars of drugs into the country don't deserve long harsh sentences, but those folks are not the ones filling our prisons and draining our tax dollars. People are complex chemical reactions, that is what we are. Because we have intelligence we are actually able to alter those reactions in ways that sometimes make us more productive and happy so we do them. But there are consequences. One is that when you allow drugs like opioids to do the work your body should be doing itself, like making endorphins, your body gets lazy and does not work right. Sometimes for years, sometimes for ever. :( I know people who were very on top of their game when on opioids and now have been off them for years. The problem is they are now just shells of the people they once were. They are experiencing the "big empty". Endorphins really make us who we are. If we cannot balance ourselves without help, why should we be denied help, just because we made a mistake and screwed our systems over? Hmmmmm, what would Jesus do?

    The kind of thought process(or lack there of) of Ascik makes me sick!:mad:

    I need to take a shower to wash off the stench of this.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!