Epidemics past and present: Will decriminalization help?
As heroin-related deaths reach record levels, would drug decriminalization help or hinder the fight against the heroin epidemic?
In what some have attributed to a radically over-prescribed prescription drug culture, the heroin epidemic has found a solid foothold in Ohio. According to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH), unintentional drug overdose deaths increased by 413 percent in Ohio from 1999-2013, and “opioids (prescription or heroin) remain the driving factor behind the unintentional drug overdose epidemic.” In fact ODH lists “changes in clinical pain management guidelines in the late 1990s” and “aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies of new, extended-release prescription opioids” as the two key factors leading to the epidemic.
A video on Attorney General Mike DeWine’s website shows a 2015 address at a heroin summit called “Protecting Ohio’s Families: Start Talking!” DeWine said “We’re doing what we can do in regard to law enforcement, and we’re making some progress. But ultimately we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. Ultimately this has to be dealt with at the local level, and not just the schools. We have to have the churches involved, we have to have the business community involved, we have to have victims and the victims’ families involved, we have to have treatment people involved, and all of them have to work together.” DeWine went on to say that what he thinks really makes a difference in communities hit by drug epidemics is grass roots involvement.
DeWine’s remarks appear to mirror the thoughts of many in the community in that law enforcement’s reach cannot be the lone component in eradicating Ohio’s heroin and opioid epidemic. This rhetoric differs greatly from the crack plague of the 1980s.
The old approach
In 1982 President Ronald Reagan declared a War on Drugs, but tough talk, high arrest rates and increased presence of law enforcement were not enough to cure ailing cities.
In a Frontline interview with Robert Stutman, a retired special agent for the DEA, Stutman suggests that part of the problem with solving the crack problem in the 80s was that “it started street-up.” He also said it was difficult to get people to pay attention.
“In the beginning, I believe, that one of the single biggest reasons that crack became a national drug of abuse in virtually every other city in the United States is that the politicians said, ‘It can’t happen here, not us.’ The mayors said, ‘Not us.’ That is one of the reasons that they got hit with crack—they weren’t prepared for it.”
This kind of denial helped the plague spread, and it sounds eerily similar to modern sentiments of disbelief across the country.
Decades ago the DEA considered crack to be a local—not a national—problem and therefore out of their purview. On top of the DEA and politicians misunderstanding or refusing to deal with the country descending into turmoil, law enforcement couldn’t trace the problem to a big enough fish to get results.
“The question always used to be, ‘Fine. If I make a case on Joe Smith, who does that lead us to? Where does it go, how is he tied to Colombia, how is he tied to Mexico?’” said Stutman. “And the answer to all those questions, in honesty, in the beginning was that he isn’t. And the answer back was, ‘Then forget about it.’”
The new approach
This time around, the country is in the same boat: the epidemic cannot be stamped out because of denial, an inability to prosecute those at the heart of the problem by the DEA—pharmaceutical companies—and because heroin and opioid use is so prevalent local authorities have no hope of quashing it in their neighborhoods.
Though some factors in the torrent of heroin and opioid parallel crack use 30 years ago, including an elusive solution, the strong talk of the War on Drugs variety is distinctly missing from the conversation.
Death and addiction issues among celebrities are no rarity, but with the public seeing stars overcome and succumb to drug problems, addiction has become relatively commonplace in modern culture. The 2014 heroin overdose of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, thrust addiction into the public’s view, but many famous people have publicly discussed their heroin use before that: Eric Clapton, Samuel L. Jackson, Angelina Jolie, Robert Downey, Jr., Steven Tyler, Nicole Richie and former NBA player Chris Herren have all admitted to heroin use in the past. The difference is they all lived.
Heroin’s star power may shed light on why current methods of treating drug addiction differ so much from epidemics in decades past. This shift in philosophy could be occurring for many reasons—the public has seen the War on Drugs fail in many areas, law enforcement has not been successful in its Whack-A-Mole approach to combating Mexican and Columbian drug cartels, Americans have likely become better educated about drug addiction, and the stigma of drug addiction has softened somewhat—but some believe changing attitudes are due to the changing demographics of drug use.
Stephanie Howse, state representative of the 11th district, believes there is one clear reason heroin addiction is being treated in a vastly different way than crack addiction was decade ago.
“It’s because of race,” Howse said. “The reason why people care now is because when white, well-to-do people have a crisis, then we have to do something about it. When brown and black people have a crisis, they have to figure it out. That is the perception and perception is reality, and we see it in how things have been carried out.”
Howse believes the model of education and treatment the heroin epidemic is being treated with is how crack should have been dealt with years ago. Though Howse is not convinced drug decriminalization is the answer, she has a theory about what is.
“How do we help people versus just criminalizing them when they need help? Many times people are punished for having an illness and a disease, and we have to get to a point of being able to help. Yes, they may be doing something that is ‘illegal,’ but they got a problem. Help those who have problems.”
Howse thinks not only treating but talking is key in fighting heroin and opioid use in Ohio, and that not only will it save addicts, it could save taxpayers a lot of money.
Saving jail time, saving money
Director of Reentry for Hamilton County DeAnna Hoskins sees heroin use in her community too, and believes too many people dealing with drug addiction are in prison.
“Currently in Hamilton County, 43 percent of the individuals who are sentenced to the Department of Corrections are what we call ‘low-level, non-violent offenders,’ meaning they could have been better served in the community,” Hoskins said. “Did they really deserve to go to prison for the punishment when the crime could’ve been a substance abuse issue? We are a drug-trafficking, drug-using county when we look at the type of crimes that are sentenced to the Department of Corrections, so how do we have more resources and more programs in the community that can serve that population that may not need to be incarcerated and removed from their families?”
Hoskins’ question is a good one, and she and Howse see an opportunity to treat drug users in their communities rather than putting them in jail. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) estimates the cost per inmate per day in Ohio to be $161.91, which comes out to about $57,000 per year.
Hoskins feels that “not everyone deserves to be incarcerated,” especially some of those dealing with addiction issues; since imprisonment can affect an inmate’s family, employment and housing status, it can create a situation that may be unnecessarily difficult, whereas treatment keeps offenders in the community with more potential for recovery and growth.
But Marcie Seidel, executive director of Drug-Free Action Alliance isn’t convinced decriminalization is the right course of action.
“There have to be a sufficient amount of treatment facilities available to handle the influx of individuals,” Seidel said. “That’s a very hard thing to wrap up in the United States.”
It may not be possible to calculate what treatment will cost as opposed to incarceration for drug offenses, but hopefully this new philosophy in treating drug addiction will yield better results than the War on Drug has.
