Drugs and Crime in Hawai`i
By Donald Topping
		
Social Science Research Institute

		University of Hawai`i at Manoa

		Reproduced by permission of author

		
To most people the association of drugs and crime is a natural
		one. In our minds they go together, hand in glove, like 'bacon
		and eggs', 'lox and bagels' , or 'spam and rice'. Implicit in
		this association of words is that certain drugs are the cause
		of crime, and if we are to reduce crime we must eliminate the
		drugs that cause it.

		
That there is a relationship between drugs and crime is undeniable.
		However, the relationship is one that needs to be carefully analyzed.
		It may well be that the popular notion described above is the
		result of our social/psychological conditioning by several different
		forces, including a considerable number of government agencies,
		the media, and a small army of moral crusaders who broadcast the
		simplistic message that if we can eliminate certain drugs from
		our society, we will drastically reduce the associated crime.
		It may well be that the drugs themselves have been erroneously
		blamed for the problem.

		
What I will attempt to do in this paper is re-examine the cause-effect
		relationship between drugs and crime. In the process, I hope to
		show that our laws and attitudes, owing to a long history of misguided
		efforts, outright deception, and the control of billions of dollars,
		may be pointing to the wrong culprit. In the following discussion
		we will look briefly at the major federal anti-drug laws (all
		of which apply to Hawai`i), the monies appropriated to enforce
		them, and the parallel increase in drug-related crime and imprisonment.

		
The Drug Laws

		
Since crimes are defined by laws, we need to look briefly at some
		of the anti-drug legislation of Hawai`i and the United States,
		whose laws applied automatically to Hawai`i after 1900, when the
		Kingdom of Hawai`i was transformed into a territory.

		
The first anti-drug law in the Kigdom of Hawai`i was passed in
		1856, long before there was any such legislation in the U.S. It
		was a law prohibiting the sale of opium, and, according to Lily
		Lim-Chong and Harry V. Ball, it was ostensibly motivated by concern
		for the health of the Chinese laborers, as well as that of the
		Hawaiians, who had "a sociable nature and readiness to acquire
		any new thing."1

		
During the next forty-four years thirteen amendments were added
		to the law. Interestingly, some of the amendments, such as the
		Moreno Bill (1880) included the proposal "to have the Kingdom
		of Hawai`i replace Hong Kong as the opium manufacturing and exporting
		center of the Pacific." Among the provisions of this bill was
		one to sell opium dispensing licenses to physicians for $30,000
		each. Obviously, there was already a black market drug trade on
		which the law-makers sought to capitalize.

		
After 1900, the Territory of Hawai`i followed the progressively
		prohibitive and punitive anti-drug laws of the United States.
		Some of the landmark legislation is briefly reviewed here.

		
1914 - The Harrison Act was the first federal legislation outlawing
		the non-medical use of the opiates, heroin and morphine, and cocaine. Until this
		time, these drugs were available from physicians and pharmacies,
		and were widely used as pain-killers and as a treatment for, among
		other medical disorders, angina pectoris, alcoholism and opiate
		addiction. Ironically, the intent of the law, as expressed in
		its official title2, was to provide for the orderly marketing and taxation of the
		drugs. However, law enforcement officials interpreted it to mean
		that a physician could not prescribe any of the drugs to an addict
		to maintain the addiction, since drug addiction was not considered
		by them to be a disease.

		
After the arrests of a number of physicians, some of whom were
		convicted and imprisoned, the prescription of these drugs came
		to an abrupt halt. The Harrison Act marked the beginning of the
		black market in the United States by forcing drug addicts into
		the underworld to obtain their drugs.

		
Another fallout of this legislation was the police harrassment
		of heroin treatment clinics to the extent that by 1920 they were
		all closed. No longer able to get prescribed heroin, drug addicts
		were left on the streets to fend for themselves.

		
1930 - This year marked the establishment of the Federal Bureau
		of Narcotics within the Treasury Department. The noted anti-drug
		crusader Henry J. Anslinger, was appointed to be its first director,
		a post he held until 1962, when he was fired by President John
		F. Kennedy. In addition to being a highly vocal lobbyist and crusader
		for prohibition of alcohol as well as drugs, Mr. Anslinger was
		very successful in establishing a solid foundation for teh development
		of an anti-drug bureaucratic empire. (He is also reported to have
		arranged for a regular supply of heroin to a "senior U.S. senator,"
		identified by some as Senator Joseph McCarthy.3)

		
1937 - The Marijuana Tax Act criminalized the unauthorized possession
		of marijuana, but still permitted medicinal use. This Act wsa
		passed in spite of vigorous opposition of the American Medical
		Association, and it marked the beginning of the concerted effort
		to demonize the plant cannabis sativa, and the people who were
		identified as its purveyors and users, especially Mexicans. The
		infamous film "Reefer Madness," in which people smoking marijuana
		were portrayed as disheveled, wasted vagrants, was also produced
		in this same year. Just as the anti-opium laws were racially motivated,
		so was the Marijuana Tax Act.

		
1951 - The Boggs Act, introduced and pushed through the U.S. Congress
		by Representative Hale Boggs, one of Anslinger's strongest supporters,
		introduced mandatory sentencing for drug offenses. It also made
		penalties for violations of Marijuana laws the same as those for
		narcotic drugs.

		
1956 - The Narcotic Control Act was passed, which raised mandatory
		minimum sentences and fines for drug offenses. 1970 - The Comprehensive
		Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act established the system of
		drug scheduling (Levels I through V). According to Brecher, "The
		misclassifications built into this Act were not the results of
		scientific study but represented compromises between Senate and
		House committees, between Republican and Democratic legislators,
		between Congress and the Nixon administration. Worse yet, the
		Act authorizes the Attorney General of the U.S. to alter the classifications
		from time to time."4

		
By this Act the classification and control of drugs was taken
		entirely out of the hands of physicians and pharmacologists, and
		given over to politicians and law enforcement officials. 

		
1973 - This year marks the establishment of the Drug Enforcement
		Administration as a separate agency. It is also the year that
		President Richard Nixon made his public declaration of "victory"
		in the War on Drugs.

		
1982 - The Attorney General reorganized the Department of Justice
		so that the Drug Enforcement Administration was responsible to
		the FBI. Also, during the 1982 congressional session, legislation
		was quietly passed which revised the Posse Comitatus Act in order
		to permit the use of the U.S. Military for the interdiction of
		drugs, and was later revised (1986) to provide emergency assistance
		to civilian law enforcement agencies involved in domestic drug
		control.

		
1986-88 - Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts which restored
		mandatory sentences, adding assets forfeiture penalties, and a
		panoply of other prosecution weapons. These Acts also enlarged
		the status offense of being a drug entrepreneur, with discretionary
		death for major participants. According to Theodore Vallance,
		"This omnibus drug control bill contains provisions relating to
		virtually every aspect of federal effort to curb abuse of narcotics
		and other dangerous drugs."5

		
Between 1961 and 1992, eighty-two federal laws were enacted in
		some part to the drug problem. Hawai`i has followed the same pattern:
		the Hawai`i Revised Statutes lists ten pages of references to
		drug laws, compared with only one page for divorce. The addition
		of new laws has not abated. In recent years, Fourth Amendment
		protection against unlawful search and seizure have been set aside
		to permit entry and search without warrant when there is "reason
		to suspect" that illegal drugs might be present.

		
What motivated these progressively harsh laws against people who
		use drugs? Could it have been increased drug use, which the laws
		were designed to eliminate? Could it have been the never-ending
		list of new drugs on the markeg (e.g. crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine,
		MDMA)? Has racism played a major role, as claimed and documented
		by many scholars of drug policy in America? Or, perhaps a combination
		of all?

		
Whatever the motivation, one thing is obvious: none of the anti-drug
		laws was motivated by concerns for public health or safety. Rather,
		they were motivated by racism, an imposed morality, and power,
		as is reflected in the growing budgets of the increasing number,
		and size of the drug-control agencies.

		
The Cost

		
The growing Federal budgets in support of the proliferating anti-drug
		laws form an interesting parallel, and suggest the enormity of
		the business of prohibition. It is claimed by the economist Roger
		Leroy Miller, that the international drug trade is the second
		largest economy in the world, second only to the international
		arms trade, with petroleum coming in third.

		
Following is a list of federal appropriations over the years,
		starting with the year 1969.

		
1969 - $81.4 million

		1971 - $212.5 million (250% increase)

		1972 - $418 million (100% increase)

		1974 - $760 million (75% increase)

		1981 - $1.5 billion (100% increase)

		1988 - $6.4 billion (400% increase)

		1991 - $10.5 billion (65% increase)

		1994 - $14.6 billion (40% increase)

		One can readily see the parallel between the progressively punitive
		laws and the steady increase in federal budget allocations to
		implement the laws. It would appear that the sky is the limit.
		An obvious question is: Where does the money go?6

		
According to The Nation m(6/29/92), there are fifty-four federal
		agencies involved in the effort in one way or another. (There
		are at least ten in the State of Hawai`i.) Their budgets are allocated
		by the Office of Drug Control Policy, and are generally divided
		up in such a way that 70% goes for law enforcement, while the
		remaining 30% goes to support prevention and treatment. Law enforcement
		expenditures cover such things as radar systems, airplanes, and
		patrol boats for interdiction and eradication, as well as the
		staffing of the many agencies responsible for arrests (including
		the expensive "sting" operations), prosecution, courts, incarceration,
		parole, drug testing, etc.

		
Millions of federal funds also support prevention programs in
		the schools, public service announcements on TV and in the print
		media, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, mega-conferences
		held throughout the U.S., and many other efforts to prevent people
		from using illegal drugs.

		
Drug treatment programs - a growth industry, thanks to court-mandated
		treatment - are reported to be badly underfunded. Their plea for
		more funding for treatment slots is based, perhaps falsely, on
		the claim that there are waiting lists for people who want to
		get into treatmet, while more than half of those in treatment
		facilities don't want to be there. The "success" rate for the
		involuntary clients in treatment programs is abysmally low. The
		implementation of Drug Courts in many parts of the country has
		added pressure to provide more treatement slots for people who
		would otherwise be sent directly to prison.

		
The Results

		
It seems fair to ask what have been the results of the steady
		increase in anti-drug laws and the funding to implement them.
		One corollary and obvious result of the proliferation of anti-drug
		laws, and the skyrocketing federal and state budgets, is the growth
		in the nation's prison population, largely as a result of the
		mandatroy minimum prison sentences for violations of the anti-drug
		laws. The following figures are telling:

		
1979 - 290,000 inmates in federal and state prisons

		1987 - 580,000 inmates in federal and state prisons

		1993 - 1,300,000 inmates in federal and state prisons

		Nationwide, approximately one-third of the prison population are
		there for non-violent drug crimes. The same ratio holds true for
		Hawaii's inmate population.

		
As a result of this four-fold increase in the prison population
		during a fourteen-year period, the United States now has a larger
		percentage of its citizens behind bars than any other country
		in the world.

		
This burgeoning prison population has had serious ramifications.
		On the plus side, it has created a growth industry in prison architecture
		and construction, and increased employment of corrections and
		parole officers, drug-testing laboratory technicians, substance-abuse
		counselors and police. In one sense, the growth in prisons and
		related employment has been good for the economy.

		
On the other hand, there are some negative consequences, not the
		least of which is the cost to the taxpayers, who pay somewhere
		between $30-40,000 per annum to house one inmate -- far more than
		it costs to send someone to one of the country's most expensive
		universities.

		
Much more serious and damaging are the social costs. Of the 1.3
		million current inmates, nearly half of them are African-American.
		At the present time, 25% of African Americans between 20-29 years
		old are either in prison, on parole or probation. If the present
		trends continue, by the year 2000, six out of ten African-American
		men will be in prison, addicted or dead before the age of 25!
		Clearly, the current laws and the arrest patterns in the United
		States are discriminatory against people of color.

		
Hawai`i offers no exception to the percentage of inmates for drug-law
		violations and the disproportionate confinement of minorities.
		The data from fiscal years 1991 through 1994 show that approximately
		one-third of the stock inmate population in Hawaii's prisons and
		jails are there for drug law violations; forty percent of the
		inmate population are Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian.7

		
In short, the dramatic increase in the country's prison population
		- an obvious corollary to the increases in laws and monies - has
		created serious problems: prison overcrowding, clogged courts,
		and a disenfranchised population, few of whom, as a result of
		their prison experience, are able to successfully re-enter society.

		
The question that needs to be asked is whether the increases in
		laws, expenditures and prison population have achieved the desired
		goals? Have we won the War on Drugs? Are we winning the War on
		Drugs? According to all accounts, the illegal drugs against which
		the war is being waged are as plentiful as ever, and at cheaper
		prices. There are reports that the number of users of illegal
		drugs has declined somewhat in recent years, but that the number
		of hard-core addicts has remained constant, and the amount of
		illegal drugs on the streets has even increased. Have the policies
		and tactics described above been effective in dealing with the
		drug "problem"? Or have they possibly contributed to it?

		
It may be helpful at this point to return to the relationship
		between drugs and crime and take a closer look.

		
Drugs and Crime The drug-related crimes for which people are arrested
		and imprisoned are varied, and range from the non-violent, consensual
		acts to violent crimes against property and person. The role of
		drugs in these crimes is also varied, and needs to be critically
		examined.

		
The most common drug crime is possession "with intent to distribute."
		The definition of "intent to distribute" is usually based upon
		the amount of drugs that the arrestee possesses. In such crimes,
		the government is the only plaintiff, and frequently is involved
		in setting up the conditions for the arrest ("sting operation",
		paid informant).

		
The offense of "drug trafficking" is committed when someone is
		apprehended in the act of selling or purchasing illegal drugs.
		Again, such arrests are nearly always set upby police officers
		posing as fellow traffickers or users. In neither case - possession
		or trafficking - is violence or property crime a factor.

		
Offenses against property and persons are more likely to occur
		as a result of the high costs of illegal drugs. The most violent
		offenses are usually associated with "turf battles" or "bad debts."
		Since the drug trade is so lucrative, and the profits so high,
		the competition is often fierce, both on the level of the Cali
		Cartel as well as the street corner dealer. Property crimes, such
		as burglary, theft and robbery, are often committed by unemployed
		drug addicts who need money to pay the exhorbitant prices for
		their illegal drugs.

		
There is no question that there is a relationship between illegal
		drugs and crime. A popular belief is that the ingestion of drugs
		leads to crime. The image of the crazed "dope fiend" has been
		created and demonized over the years by some of the more strident
		anti-drug crusaders, such as Henry Anslinger and, more recently,
		William Bennett. The popular media have also contributed to the
		stereotypical, criminal image of the drug addict through films
		such as "Reefer Madness" and "The Man With The Golden Arm," the
		many action shows on television (e.g. "Cops") and the press. This
		tendency to blame the crime on the drugs needs a second look.

		
It is important to distinguish between drugs that are criminogenic
		(those that tend to generate criminal-like behavior) and drugs
		that are not. Although there may not be complete accord among
		specialists on the following simplified categorization, most police
		officers who deal directly with substance abusers would agree.

		
Drug Effects

		
cannabinoids (marijuana, hashish) euphoria, lassitude (non-addictive)

		opiates (heroin, codeine, opium) euphoria, lassitude (addictive)

		barbituates (phenobarbital) sedation, hypnotic (addictive)

		benzodiazepines (valium, lithium) sedation, hypnotic (addictive)

		hallucinogens (LSD, mushrooms, peyote, mescaline, MDMA) euphoria,
		hallucinations (non-addictive)

		stimulants (amphetamines, cocaine) hyperactivity, restlessness,
		insomnia (addictive)

		alcohol giddiness, disorientation, blackout (addictive)

		
This list is by no means a complete list of all mind-altering
		drugs, but it represents the more common ones.

		
The first five types of drugs listed above can safely be categorized
		as non-criminogenic. That is, the drugs are not known to generate
		violent, anti-social behavior in the people who use them. The
		likelihood of someone who is "high" on cannabis or one of the
		opiates being a threat to others is quite remote.

		
The stimulants and alcohol present quite a different picture.
		It is well known that people coming down from a cocaine or "speed"
		high are likely to experience paranoia and hostility, and may
		become physically aggressive. The disturbing effects of alcohol,
		and the resulting paths to violence are well-known and thoroughly
		documented. The most frequent cause, by far, of domestic violence
		(child and spouse abuse) is alcohol.

		
The presumed cause-effect relationship between drugs and crime
		is important when establishing drug policy. Before we demonize
		the drugs themselves - in some cases a natural plant - for being
		the root cause of crime, we need to have a clear understanding
		of their psycho-pharmacological properties. The brief list above
		suggests that at least some of the illegal drugs have been falsely
		characterized as criminogenic. At the same time, the drug which
		precipitates the most violence in our society continues to be
		legally available as well as glorified through tax-deductible
		advertizing in the popular media.

		
As stated earlier, there are two kinds of crimes associated with
		the illegal drugs: (1) hustling, usually by theft or robbery,
		to get money for drugs; (2) turf wars over the profits from drug
		sales. It is not the drugs themselves that generate this crime;
		it is the absenceof them, and the addiction to money. However
		, these are not the crimes that are responsible for the ever increasing
		drug-war budgets and the overcrowded prisons. To explain that
		phenomenon, we need to look further, by asking three questions:
		Who is the victim? Who is the plaintiff? What is the crime?

		
Many people will argue that in possessing or selling drugs, there
		is no victim. All transactions are entered into willfully at terms
		that are mutually agreeable. Others would argue that the person
		who takes drugs is, by definition, a victim.

		
The plaintiff is invariably the government, whose representative
		is never a sincere buyer or seller.

		
The crime, if it has no victim or injured plaintiff, is obviously
		one that has been devised by the government. What we have, in
		effect, is government subsidized crime, since it is the laws of
		the government and the public financing to support them that create
		the crime and the prosecution of it. In short, the "crime wave"
		responsible for incarcerating more than 300,000 of our one-million
		plus inmates is one that has been generated and supported through
		the anti-drug policies of our federal and state governments.8

		
Conclusion

		
I have tried to show that there is a relationship between drugs
		and crime, but that it is not the relationship that the prohibitionists
		would have us believe, namely that drugs cause crime. What I am
		suggesting is that the crimes responsible for our exploding criminal
		population are of three kinds: hustling (crimes to obtain money
		for drugs), turf wars, and those against the government policy
		of prohibiting certain drugs. It is the latter of the three that
		contributes most to our soaring number of felons in prison.

		
This pattern is not too different from that which resulted from
		an earlier experience in prohibition, from 1920 to 1933, when
		alcohol was the designated illegal substance. After only 13 years
		of that war against the demon rum, the American public demanded
		a truce by ratifying the twenty-first amendment to the Constitution.
		The fact that prohibition didn't work became painfully obvious.
		Yet we find ourselves taking that same road once again rather
		than looking for alternatives.

		
Are there any viable alternatives to our current drug policies
		which have already filled all of our prisons, with more on the
		drawing board? Is there any other way to deal with the problem
		of drugs and crime?

		
Some alternatives have been suggested. There is the libertarian,
		laissez-faire marketplace approach, as advocated by Nobel Laureate
		Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley, Jr., and former Secretary
		of State George Schulz. Their approach would basically legalize
		all drugs, and let the marketplace determine the price. The result,
		according to them, would be virtual elimination of drug-related
		crime, since the enormous black market prices would be undercut.
		They admittedly don't worry about the possibility of increased
		addiction in the society.

		
Another approach, advocated by some, is one of controlled availability.
		Under this approach, people who are addicted to drugs would be
		able to get them for very little cost from a registered supplier,
		possibly a physician or a pharmacist. Again, such an approach
		would undercut the black market, and reduce dramatically one of
		the causes of property and violent crime. Critics of this approach
		point out that there is still a potential for diverting the controlled
		drugs to a black market, admittedly a smaller one.

		
Another approach, which incorporates some aspects of controlled
		availability, is "harm reduction," which is gaining broad acceptance
		in Europe, Australia, Canada and other communities. Its aim is
		inherent in the title: reduce the drug-related harm to the individual
		and to society as a whole. 

		
Harm Reduction takes a public health rather than a law enforcement
		approach to drug policy. It views drug abuse and addiction as
		a health problem, not a crime. It aims to help people with problems
		stemming from drug abuse, to bring them back into society as functioning
		and contributing members of it. In this respect, it runs counter
		to the prohibition approach of marginalizing the drug abuser,
		and ultimately removing him/her from society. The harm reduction
		advocates argue for a shift in public policy from that of law
		enforcement and punishment to one that shows a genuine concern
		for public health and safety.

		
Before we can effectively deal with the problem of drugs and crime
		in Hawai`i, as elsewhere, we must first be willing to admit that
		prohibition has not worked, and look for an alternative approach.
		For those who insist that prohibition will work if we only give
		it enough time and money I would invite them to reflect on the
		experience of alcohol prohibition, the Vietnam War, and the words
		of Abraham Lincoln, spoken over 150 years ago:

		
Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance.
		It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond
		the bounds of reason in that it attempts ot control a mans appetite
		by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.
		A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which
		our government was founded.9

		
1. Lim-Chong, Lily and Ball, Harry V., (1988) "Opium and the Law:
		Hawai`i, 1865 - 1900." Unpublished ms., p. 4.-Back to article-

		
2. "an Act to provide for the registration of, with collectors
		of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax upon all persons
		who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense,
		sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts,
		derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes."-Back to article-

		
3. Brecher, Edward M. et al. (1972) Licit and Illicit Drugs. Boston:
		Little Brown & Co., p. 36-Back to article-

		
4. Brecher, pp. 525-26.-Back to article-

		
5. Vallance, Theodore R. (1993) Prohibition's Second Failure:
		The Quest For a Rational and Humane Drug Policy. Westport, CN:
		Praeger.-Back to article-

		
6. The costs of the War on Drugs in Hawai`i is not known, in spite
		of the efforts of researchers at the University of Hawai`i. Many
		of the agencies involved (e.g. the National Guard, DEA) have refused
		to honor requests for information. The Office of National Drug
		Control Policy estimated the State of Hawaii's costs for drug
		enforcement in 1993 to be $35 million. This is an unlikely figure,
		since the costs for incarceration alone probably exceed $20 million.-Back to article-

		
7. Source of data: Corrections Information System and Weekly Population
		Reports (courtesy of Professor Gene Kassebaum).-Back to article-

		
8. According to sociologist William Chambliss of American University,
		the crime rate in America has remained constant from 1973 through
		1992, while the prison rate quadrupled, owing to the increase
		in drug law violations.-Back to article-

		
9. Speech, 18 December 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives.-Back to article-

		
NEWS! | ABOUT | DRUG FAQ | RESOURCES | ACTIVITIES | ARCHIVES | EMAIL LIST | GUESTBOOK | DrugSense