Inching The Scream Physician John Marks Is Quoted As Saying

Inchasing The Screamphysician John Marks Is Quoted As Saying That Many

In Chasing the Scream, physician John Marks is quoted as saying that many “of the harms of drugs are to do with the laws around them, not the drugs themselves” (Hari, 2015, p. 210). The thought process surrounding the idea that drugs are not the problem but the laws surrounding drugs is very complicated for me. I do agree with the idea Britain originally backed in the beginning of the drug wars: they said addicts were ill and that it was immoral to leave them to suffer or die (Hari, 2015, p. 207). However, when John Marks started his journey with prescribing drugs to addicts with heroin, he stated, they were “maybe a few dozen lads, the occasional girl, who came and got their tot of junk... Railwaymen, bargemen, all walks of life really” (Hari, 2015, p. 208). My problem with his concept is: many of these people he was prescribing to were laborers who were potentially under the influence of heroin while working, putting many others in mortal risk.

Sure, prescribing pure heroin may reduce the number and severity of addicts, which could be beneficial. But how does this affect other innocents around these people? It is my belief that prescribing heroin to addicts is not a valid option for the United States from a legality angle. Currently, Nevada law states: “Although employers may create workplace policies prohibiting recreational marijuana use, employers need to remain cognizant of their obligations to accommodate medical marijuana users. As of April 1, 2014, Nevada employers must, in certain circumstances, make reasonable accommodations for the medical needs of an employee who holds a valid medical marijuana registry card” (Lane & Hall, 2017). Obviously, there is a difference between medical marijuana and medical heroin; however, how would one differentiate which one is acceptable and which one is not?

How do we enforce workplace safety? Is it not our goal to get the addicts back into the world and make them productive citizens again? Under John Marks’s ideas, this could include prescribing medicinal heroin for use in the workplace. But how would we protect the innocent? These questions highlight the complexities of implementing drug liberalization policies that involve potent substances like heroin, especially within the context of societal safety and legality.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over drug policy reform, particularly in the context of the War on Drugs, has evolved significantly over recent decades, emphasizing harm reduction and public health approaches. Central to this discourse is the controversial proposition of legalizing or prescribing substances like heroin to addicted individuals. John Marks, cited in Hari’s “Chasing the Scream,” advocates for a nuanced understanding of drug harms, suggesting that many issues are attributable more to the legal frameworks than the substances themselves. While this perspective challenges traditional prohibition, it raises complex ethical, legal, and societal questions about the safety of others, workplace implications, and societal norms.

Historically, the shift began with Britain’s initial approach, perceiving addiction as an illness, which justified compassionate treatment rather than criminal punishment (Hari, 2015). This philosophy aligns with the modern harm reduction movement, emphasizing treatment and de-stigmatization over incarceration. However, applying this to heroin prescription programs in the United States, such as those advocated by Marks, introduces concerns about public safety, especially regarding alcohol and drug use in workplaces and public spaces. For instance, Nevada’s laws allowing medical marijuana accommodations illustrate the difficulty in determining which controlled substances can be safely integrated into society without endangering others (Lane & Hall, 2017).

The argument for prescribing heroin centers on reducing overdose deaths, curbing criminal activity associated with drug procurement, and stabilizing addicts through medical supervision. Studies support that supervised consumption and prescription programs can reduce harm, as they eliminate the risks associated with contaminated or adulterated street drugs (Degenhardt et al., 2017). Nonetheless, critics argue that widespread legalization or medical prescription of heroin could normalize drug use, increase availability, and potentially lead to higher rates of impaired individuals in workplaces or public domains (MacCoun & Reuter, 2017). The primary concern remains: how do we regulate and enforce safety standards to prevent harm to innocent bystanders?

Workplace safety presents a particularly complex challenge. Employers have a duty to maintain a safe environment, but with drug liberalization efforts, balancing individual treatment needs against public safety is difficult. Current laws, such as Nevada’s medical marijuana accommodations, attempt to strike this balance but do not address substances like heroin, which carry higher risks of impairment (Lane & Hall, 2017). Implementing drug prescription programs would necessitate comprehensive policies, including regular drug testing, clear guidelines for impairment, and safety protocols. Yet, monitoring and enforcement can be resource-intensive, raising questions about feasibility and privacy.

From a societal perspective, the goal is to reintegrate addicts into the community as productive members. Harm reduction strategies, including prescriptive heroin, aim to stabilize individuals and reduce crime linked to drug dependency. Countries such as Switzerland and Portugal have demonstrated that regulated heroin-assisted treatment can decrease overdose deaths, reduce criminal activity, and improve social functioning (MacCoun & Reuter, 2017). However, societal acceptance varies widely, and cultural norms influence policy decisions. The United States, with its fragmented legal landscape, faces additional hurdles in implementing such programs nationwide.

Ethically, the idea of prescribing heroin raises questions about medical morality, informed consent, and societal responsibility. If addicts are considered patients deserving help, then harm reduction provides a compassionate framework. Conversely, the potential for increased accessibility and normalization must be carefully managed. Implementing strict regulatory controls, education, and public health campaigns can mitigate risks. Additionally, exploring alternative therapies and treatment modalities — such as buprenorphine, methadone, or injectable hydromorphone — might offer safer pathways toward managing addiction (Luterek et al., 2020).

Legal and policy considerations are pivotal. The current prohibitionist stance in the U.S. aligns with the focus on preventing drug abuse, yet evidence indicates that criminalization often exacerbates harm by stigmatizing users and discouraging treatment (Carpenter & Reuter, 2014). Moving toward legalization or medical prescription models necessitates robust frameworks for oversight, equitable access, and harm minimization. Moreover, public education campaigns are essential to destigmatize addiction, emphasizing it as a medical condition rather than moral failing.

In conclusion, while John Marks’s perspective highlights important considerations regarding the roots of drug harm and potential paths toward reform, implementing such approaches in the United States requires careful balancing of societal safety, legal constraints, and individual rights. Harm reduction strategies, including supervised heroin prescription, can be effective in decreasing overdose mortality and criminal activity, but they must be accompanied by strong regulatory systems, public education, and societal acceptance. The challenge lies in safeguarding innocents while providing compassionate care to those suffering from addiction, ultimately aiming for a more humane and effective drug policy.

References

• Carpenter, C., & Reuter, P. (2014). Testing Drugs in the United States: The Role of Evidence and Policy. Crime & Justice, 43(1), 221-259.
• Degenhardt, L., et al. (2017). The risks of heroin overdose in the context of recent policy reforms. The Lancet, 390(10109), 1901–1902.
• Lane, D., & Hall, A. (2017). Working Through the Haze: What Legal Marijuana Means for Nevada Employers. Employee Relations Law Journal, 43(1), 69–74.
• Luterek, J. A., et al. (2020). Alternative treatments for opioid use disorder: New directions. Current Psychiatry Reports, 22(4), 22.
• MacCoun, R. J., & Reuter, P. (2017). Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places. Cambridge University Press.
• Hari, J. (2015). Chasing the Scream: The first and last days of the war on drugs. Bloomsbury.