Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Looking Inside and Outside the Law to Understand the Successes and Failures of Drug Reform
|
Friday, May 03, 2024
Looking Inside and Outside the Law to Understand the Successes and Failures of Drug Reform
Guest Blogger
For the Balkinization symposium on David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024). Kimani Paul-Emile Much
has been written about U.S drug prohibition over the years, so it is surprising
that no one until now has used the constitution as lens for examining it. In his excellent new book, The
Constitution of the War on Drugs, David Pozen exhumes the long-buried
history of constitutional challenges to punitive drug laws and masterfully
chronicles how the judiciary was used by reformers and the state to dispute, rationalize,
and ultimately enable the widely maligned war on drugs. After documenting the ways in which
constitutional law has failed to offer a path to more sensible and humane drug
laws, Pozen observes that drug reformers today “do not invoke our supreme law”[1]
and asks whether drug reformers even “need constitutional law at all to
dismantle the war on drugs.”[2]
Like Pozen, my response to his query is
an emphatic no. Pozen
makes clear that drug regulatory decision-making has been inconsistent and untethered
from scientific and medical data on the pharmacological properties of certain
drugs, yet constitutional law has been ineffective at providing a basis for
rolling back the resulting drug laws. In
a forthcoming book, I argue that activists use a different strategy to reform
oppressive drug laws, and this effort occurs well before advocates ever set
foot in a courtroom. Successful reform is
often achieved through what I call “drug framing,” which is the allocation of
meaning to a drug that precedes the drafting of laws or regulations. When there is disagreement over how a drug
should be regulated, corporate actors, reform advocates, drug consumers,
government entities, and others engage in drug framing -- a kind of rhetorical
strategizing -- to ensure that the drug will be regulated in ways that satisfy
their preferences. More specifically, these stakeholders battle to have the
drug classified within one of three broad categories: consumer product,
medicine, or social threat.
These categories are important because although their boundaries are neither
neat nor fixed, these categories have important implications for how the drug
will be regulated. Medicine category
drugs are regulated in ways that center individual and public health, consumer product
category drugs receive minimal regulation, and social threat category drugs are
subject to criminal rules and penalties.
To get a drug classified within one of these
categories, the stakeholders who engage in drug framing associate the drug with
one of three distinct principles: “(1) consumer disclosure, which
focuses on drug users as rational consumers who assume the risks of drug use,
with a corresponding emphasis on the disclosure of such risks by drug-makers,
(2) safety, which centers individual and public health, and (3) moral
judgment, which presumes that certain drug use transgresses the boundaries
of civil society.”[3]
In light of how much is at stake for
those who seek to use and sell drugs, and for those punished for doing so, drug
framing is most accurately described as a winner-take-all battle among
interested parties who use these principles persuasively to shape public
perception of a contested drug as appropriately belonging within one of the
three categories: consumer product, medicine, or social threat. These interested parties do so because each
of these categories is associated with one of the three principles, which work
to give its companion category meaning and coherence: consumer product
category framing instantiates consumer disclosure principles, medicine
category framing corresponds to safety principles, and social threat
framing reflects moral judgments.
Indeed, the well-known terms “personal responsibility,” “harm
reduction,” and “war on drugs” are not only integral parts of the consumer
product, medicine, and social threat categories, respectively. They are also “rhetorical manifestations” of
the principles: consumer disclosure, safety, and moral judgement.[4] Although the categories themselves have clear
meaning, the drugs placed in the categories lack inherent meaning. Drugs are substances onto which meaning is
conferred. Consequently, a drug framed
as being in one category need not have the pharmacological properties typically
associated with the category. For
example, tobacco is popularly understood to be a consumer product, but it is
still a dangerous substance. Likewise,
the characterization of cannabis as a health hazard does not mean that it is,
in fact, dangerous or that is does not offer significant medicinal benefits. Thus, the association of particular drugs with
particular categories is not based on a drug’s innate qualities but is instead
a result of which principles are used successfully in the framing of the drug. This is why drug framing matters. The drug framing process is about assigning meaning and
significance to a drug to prompt individuals to think and feel about the drug
in ways that enable or preclude certain regulatory actions. This
helps explain how drugs can be regulated in ways that that defy sound medical evidence
of their health effects. Drug framing
can involve lobbying, activism, and direct appeals to consumers through
advertising, among other tactics; and the consequences of prevailing in these
framing battles are considerable since the eventual drug regulation can lead to
billions of dollars in profits for private companies or result in the incarceration
of hundreds of thousands of people. What makes drug framing even more consequential
is that the principles used in the drug framing process frequently serve as
symbols for contested, but often unspoken, cultural flashpoint issues,
including concern about the political power of marginalized populations, anxiety about women’s
reproductive autonomy, and disagreement about the proper role of government and market forces in people’s
daily lives.
Drug framing
debates, for example, have invoked notions of immorality to justify the genocide of native peoples, discrimination
against certain European immigrants, and the disenfranchisement of Black Americans in the interest of
regulating alcohol. Ideas of immorality
have also been associated with sexuality and then deployed in framing debates
over birth control drugs to restrict women’s place in social and economic
life. Consumer disclosure, in contrast, has
been used in drug framing debates as a surrogate for capitalist norms and
values: minimal governmental regulation, personal liberty, and free enterprise.[5] Pozen’s
interests dovetail with my own as he seeks to illuminate the law’s failure to
bring about drug reform and, focusing largely on cannabis, he demonstrates the
seeming irrationality of using criminal laws to govern the drug. His careful research documents how prior to
1915, lawyers and jurists took it for granted that the Constitution protected
drug consumers, particularly imbibers, and that the law could not be used to
deprive citizens of their “preferred intoxicants.”[6] In just a few decades, however, the tide
would turn in favor of drug prohibition.
During the 1960s and 70s, reformers challenged harsh and discriminatory
drug laws under several constitutional provisions, including the First
Amendment, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and the Cruel and
Unusual Punishment Clause. Pozen identifies
and examines reformers’ few victories but observes that they were “overturned,
minimized, or ignored” by subsequent courts even though most of the claims
sought to enforce constitutionally exalted negative rights or the right to be
let alone in instances where one’s conduct does not infringe upon the rights
and freedoms of others.[7] During this period, however, other drug makers
– the producers of some licit drugs -- were winning constitutional claims based
on negative rights and their cases were facilitated by drug framing. Consider tobacco. It is the second most popular recreational
drug in the U.S. after alcohol, despite being the number-one cause of
preventable death. Notwithstanding tobacco’s
high death toll and damaging health effects, tobacco companies have survived
hundreds of lawsuits challenging their promotion and distribution of a deadly
drug, including Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, where the Supreme court
invalidated restrictions on tobacco products on First Amendment grounds.[8] One might assume that tobacco products have avoided
meaningful regulation because of their widespread use and lobbying by
politically powerful tobacco companies.
While these justifications may be accurate, they do not fully explain
why tobacco is subject to relatively light regulation compared to other deadly
drugs. A more compelling justification is that
tobacco makers have spent more than a century successfully framing the sale of
tobacco products and consumers’ desire to buy and use them as a manifestation
of fundamental American negative rights: individual liberty and autonomy. Capitalizing on a deep strain of classical
liberalism in American society, cigarette companies have long used consumer
disclosure principles to argue that consumers have the right to make rational
choices about their conduct without undue government interference and assume
the risks of their behavior so long as they have received certain disclosures and do not burden the rights of others. During
the late 19th century, for example, the temperance movement targeted
both alcohol and cigarettes, framing them as social threats: “dirty habits”
that caused social and moral decay.
While alcohol was eventually criminalized with passage of the 19th
Amendment, which prohibited the sale of alcohol, tobacco companies spent
millions of dollars on advertising to frame their product in terms of consumer disclosure principles, shifting
public perception of smoking from a “dirty habit” to a manifestation of
independence, sophistication, and freedom.[9] Promotions like the iconic Marlboro man
advertising campaign, which is still considered to be among the most profitable
marketing strategies of all time, emphasized freedom and rugged individualism,
while the Philip Morris company’s successful Virginia Slims cigarette marketing
campaign, directed specifically at female consumers, featured stylishly dressed
women smoking and included slogans that suggested independence, liberation, and
empowerment, such as the popular and long-running tagline, “You’ve come a long
way, baby.” Within a matter of years,
the public came to view tobacco as appropriately belonging in the consumer
product category. In short, tobacco
companies effectively argued that their product was “no different from other
hazardous but enjoyable products that were generally tolerated and regulated
with moderation, such as knives, chainsaws, and snowmobiles” and that consumers
understood tobacco’s inherent dangers and were thus able to decide whether the
risks eclipsed the joys of smoking.”[10] The cannabis reform advocates of today
have taken a page from tobacco companies’ framing playbook, initially framing cannabis
as a medicine. This framing gained momentum in part because it undercut earlier framing of the drug in terms of allegedly morally suspect groups -- such as “sexually deviant” hippies or Mexican “dope fiends” (a once common racist trope) -- to instead frame the drug in terms of safety and consumption by middle class, White people suffering from serious medical conditions.[11] By the mid-1990s, California became the first
state to legalize the medical use of marijuana with passage of the
Compassionate Use Act. Reform efforts then
shifted to consumer disclosure framing as activists persuasively underscored the
personal liberty interests of cannabis users and producers, which has
culminated in several states enacting laws legalizing the drug, beginning with
Colorado in 2014. No book can cover every drug and thus Pozen
was wise to focus on constitutional challenges to criminal drug laws, which he discusses
with depth and clarity. For his next
book, he should consider examining the constitutional challenges that have
helped keep a lethal drug like tobacco available for purchase over-the-counter
to anyone over the
age of 18, while cannabis, a significantly safer drug, remains subject to the
highest level of drug control on the federal level after decades of activists’
fruitless constitutional litigation. Although answering this
question may require looking outside the law, I am curious to learn what
Pozen’s critical evaluation of judicial
doctrines and constitutional principles might yield when applied to troublingly
dangerous licit drugs. Until then, David Pozen’s
engaging new book is an important and necessary addition to the drug policy canon,
and it serves as a welcome compliment to my drug framing hypothesis. By expertly mapping decades’ worth of efforts
to use constitutional provisions to challenge draconian drug laws, Pozen
captivatingly illuminates the reasons why activists and advocates have found
more success using drug-framing rather than constitutional law to achieve their
drug reform aims. Kimani
Paul-Emile is Professor
of Law and Robert
L. Levine Distinguished Research Scholar at Fordham
University School of Law. You can reach her by e-mail at paulemile@law.fordham.edu. [1] David Pozen, The Constitution
of the War on Drugs, 15 (2024). [2] Id. at 160. [3] Kimani Paul-Emile, The Real War on Drugs: Battles Over Drug
Regulation and How They Changed America (unpublished manuscript on file with the author) [4] Id. at 3. [5] Id. at 4. [6] Pozen, supra note 1, at
3. [7] Id. at 6-7. [8] 533 U.S. 525 (2001). [9] Paul-Emile, supra note 3,
at 48-57. [10] Kimani Paul-Emile, Making Sense of Drug
Regulation, 19 Cornell J.L. & Pub.
Pol’y 691, 722 (2010). [11] Id. at 713.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |