Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (620,000)
York (40,000)
SOSC (3,000)
SOSC 2350 (200)
Lecture

SOSC 2350 Lecture Notes - Dodgy, Emily Murphy, Fetus


Department
Social Science
Course Code
SOSC 2350
Professor
Dena Demos

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 8 pages of the document.
SOSC 2350 Note 20
Moral Panic and The War on Drugs
Problem with Metaphors
- There is a problem of rhetoric and particular images and descriptions
- The War on Terror look at the similarities between this and the war on
drugs.
o Even after many years after 9/11 this characteristics has come to
dominate western thought processes in an unprecedented way
o Is this a real war?
No it’s different from the way we traditionally look at wars.
There is no obvious enemy. There is no specific attacking force.
There is also no clear objective when this war would be over
Conflict isn’t understood or seen normally – it is not something
to be negotiated or mediated. It’s a conflict between absolute
good and absolute evil
Therefore, the war on terror is like a metaphor, and like most
metaphors it tends to mislead
- One could argue that on 9/11 it was a result of 9/20.
o It was on 9/20 that Bush delivers his address on TV, he reveals the
following incites on the enemy on who we’re facing and the timetable.
o Bush claims that it is a new time of evil.
o This war will not end until every terrorist group within the global
reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
This shows how impossible the goal is it suggests that people
will be living in a state of war forever.
War on Drugs
- Reagan addressed that his generation will remember how America “swung”
into action in WWII. They’re in another war for their freedom. They must
unite.
- The threat of drugs isn’t just in the act – the threat is also in the response that
the state takes in attempt to prevent behaviour (drugs)
John Stuart Mill
- The principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted in
interfering the liberty of action of any member is self-protection. This is to
prevent harm to others. His own wellbeing, either physical or moral, is not a
sufficient warrant.
o The scope of criminal law is limited acts can only be made criminal if
they are made concrete (objectively identifiable harm)
If something is found offensive, we cannot simply criminalize
it.
- Each Drug using Mill’s logic, must be considered on its own merits:
o What are the particular drugs? What’s its potential for social and
personal harm? How can we limit the drug?
o We need a policy that is tailor-made for each drug.

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

o Intervention is limited to action that causes harm to society.
Weber on Modern Law
- Modern law is premised on logical and consistent rules
- Emblematic instance of rationalization
o Decision-making based on reason and efficiency concerns replaces
patterns of thinking based on customs, emotion, etc.
o There must be a scientific method that applies specific logic.
- Modern law:
o With its logical consistent rules and procedures
o Provides a means for rational social control in a democratic self-
determining society
- Modern law is said to be emblematic in Weber’s sense of rationalization.
o Do Canada’s drug policies conflict with this idea?
o Does Canada’s drug policy consist with this theory?
Canadian Drug Policy
- It makes little sense there is no reliable correlation between the level of
harm of a drug and its legal status
o Le Dain Commission shows disproportionate amount of money and
time spent on convictions compared to the amount of harm from
cannabis; reform laws to allow for the regulation of its possession and
cultivation (like the regular use of alcohol)
The final report recommended that Cannabis be removed from
the narcotic patrol act.
3/5 commissioners endorsed the majority of the report.
They wanted to combine treatment and criminal
punishments retaining criminal status, but because
weed has low toxicity, they demanded that weed should
be decriminalized, but not legalized.
o There was still a need to deter young people
from potential harms.
o There was a disproportionate amount of money and convictions spent
as opposed to what the government spent the government should
reform its laws in a manner that is very similar to the selling of
alcohol.
o The report is quite thoughtful and thorough however, its
conclusions were largely ignored.
o It subscribes to the view that criminal law has a paternalistic function
that is embedded and justifies certain things. It justified restricting
individual rights so as to restrict individual’s rights so as to prevent
harms and keep social order.
The state has a right to restrict drugs to prevent harm to
themselves, as well as to prevent harm to society.
o The Le Dain Commission had two sharply contrasting positions
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Commissioner Camble wrote against the decriminalization of
drugs due to conservative views
The state has a role to play in safeguarding social
morality.
The state is responsible for enforcing conventional
morality on drug use, regardless of the actual harm.
Since drugs pose a concern on societal morality, the
criminal sanctions on weed use are kept.
Since Canadian Drug laws haven’t changed that much even for
Cannabis even despite the Le Dain commission, there seems to
be an embodiment of a view about supporting legislated
morality.
o Bertrand’s position went to limiting state intervention to the sale of
addictive drugs only, while suggesting that any intervention at all of
private drug use is intolerable and is a clear violation of citizen’s
rights
- From a Human Right POV, drug use and drug laws are highly problematic
laws against Cannabis are abuse, they’re abusive of the powers bestowed on
the state by the people.
- Both of these approaches are useful they’re not taking us very far, instead
we should focus on civil rights
o Both efficiency and effectiveness are no longer worth discussing, now
we must discuss the specific civil rights
- Current criminalization approach is ineffective: is that a deterrent?
o The harm that a law seeks to prevent has to be greater than the pain
associated with its prosecution
o Part of trying to prevent a particular action the harm has to be much
more significant than the cost of the result of the prosecution
THIS IS THE EFFICIENCY ARGUMENT.
- Criminalization adds substantial aggravating social harm
- Efficiency Argument: the nature of the war on drugs is such that the more
vigorously a nation wages it, the more catastrophic are the social
consequences inflicted upon it
Loic Wacquant he’s a professor of Sociology at Bolt Law
School, and he focuses on social harm and drug policy.
o The US has achieved the highest rate of imprisonment in the world at
the cost of 55$ billion per year
o Almost 1/3 of almost people behind bars in the world are in the U.S.
prison. However, the U.S. constitutes only 1/20 of the world
population
This only talks about the continental U.S. property
o In the U.S. federal system alone, 62 percent of inmates are drug
offenders.
- In the U.S. although it is the drug use that cuts across racial lines, it is
primarily young black males who are placed in carceral institutions.
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version