ASSIGNMENT REPORT FORM

Student ID Tutor ID Date Student sent

assignment:

58117156 Name:Charles Brand

Date Received by

tutor:
Date Sent to

Oscail:25/03/11
Overall Mark Obtained:
Module: Soc 3A Group: 1 TMA No:3
1. Summary of Performance*

Performance Bands

Components
Excellent Very Good Fair Weak Poor Not

(H1) Good (H2.2) (H3) applicable

(H2.1)

Marks

Marks Marks Marks Marks Marks range:

range: range: range: range: range: below

70-100% 60- 50- 40- 35-39% 35%

69% 59% 49%

Attention to
assignment task
Analysis
Structure
Use of sources
References
Introduction
Conclusion
Spelling/Grammar
Presentation (Style)
* This table facilitates the assessment of your performance in selected components of your assignment, and is

designed to alert you to the general areas of strength and/ or in need of improvement in your work. Please note that
the components are not equal in terms of contribution to your overall mark. Attention to Assignment Task,

Analysis and Structure are the three most important criteria for assessment. Please note that the total mark

indicated is based on an evaluation of your overall performance in the set assignment.

Summary Comments

ADVICE FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS

Annotated Feedback

(Refer to Assignment for the sections relating to the following comments)

1.

2.
 Despite the efforts of law enforcement agencies the availability of illegal drugs in Ireland continues to
be a major social problem and one which requires new and innovative solutions, such as
decriminalisation or legalisation. Discuss

Introduction
Despite the best efforts of the Gardaí in general and the Garda National Drugs Unit (GDNU) in

particular, illegal drugs are still entering Ireland. Even though official reports clearly state that the

number of seizures or quantities of drugs within those seizures cannot be relied upon as any indication of

the availability on the Irish market (O'Brien, 2001), seizure statistics are continually referenced as

evidence for the actual quantities for sale on the streets (See Charleton, 1995). This misrepresentation of

reality is regularly found within drug related discourse related to crime, prohibition, decriminalisation,

legalisation and other related topics and highlights the complexity of the issues involved in the debate.

This essay will examine a number of macro-sociological theories relating to crime in general

including those of Robert Merton from a functionalist stance, Jock Young from a left realist perspective,

the development of Merton's theory by Edward Sutherland. There will also be an examination of the

critiques of Merton's theory of Anomie by Stan Cohen and David Downes and their explorations of

subculture. The history of how current drug policy in Ireland came to be formed will will also be traced

and finally, it will be argued that selective decriminalisation is the only effective method of dealing with

the social harm that drug availability may cause since

“...prohibitionist policies that are given force by the criminal law have failed to prevent the

use of drugs, and that efforts to restrict drug use have created a plethora of social evils far

worse than the problem of drug use itself”. (Bayer, 1991:341)

The morality based “war on Drugs”, a stance adopted by the Irish state authorities, assumes that

demand for illegal drugs can be reduced through a coercive prohibitionist drug policy. However, this point

is disputed by many including the World Health Organisation (Degenhardt et al, 2008). Implicit in the title

of this essay is that law enforcement agencies are active in an attempt to limit or cease the availability of

drugs in Ireland and that in so doing will limit or curtail the perceived social harm caused by drugs. This

implies that as far as policing policy is concerned, it is the the availability of certain illegal drugs that

contributes to major social problems. This position on drug policy is demonstrated within the criminal

justice system in Ireland but according to O'Mahony (2002) is driven by an overly simplistic causal

determination between the presence and consumption of illicit drugs and crime. Some posit that it is the

fact that these substances are prescribed as illegal by the state and not their availability or consumption

per se, that contributes to social harm and impacts negatively on the lives of many members of society

(O'Mahony, 2002), while others contend that prohibition is the only method capable of minimising the
supply of drugs that are directly responsible for causing harm that is an intrinsic element of a drug

culture (Charleton, 1995). In order to fully understand the prohibitionist ethos regarding certain drugs in

Ireland and trace the decriminalisation and legalisation debates, it is useful to firstly identify the

underlying philosophy of the Irish criminal justice system and elucidate its purpose; the prevention of

social harm, since it is this element of the state structure that implements drug legislation.

Protection of the State

Crime, from a point of legal definition, is committed by members of society against the State and

is viewed by the State as an attack on the stability of society in general and as such is dealt with through

the state's legal system (McCullagh, 2010). Therefore there is no occurrence, in the eyes of the law as a

“victimless” crime, the victim is always and primarily the state. In relation to crime related to drugs,

possessing or injecting morphine in ones private home is deemed in the eyes of the law, as illegal and

threatening the preservation of order in society. The actions or conditions that constitute this crime then

seem initially clear-cut, however legal definitions of a criminal act are prone to conditions of relativism;

e.g. time and space. Before the introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 possession of

amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD or cannabis was not a legally criminal offence in Ireland (Murphy,

1996). However, the enactment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 criminalised certain behaviour that

heretofore had been just a matter of personal choice. For example a car accident victim could self

administer morphine while recovering in hospital, but to do so in the hospital car park was now

considered a criminal act.

This phenomenon is comparable to the situation created by the introduction of the Harrison

Narcotics Act of 1914 in the United States where, according to Goode (cited in Beirne and Messerschmidt,

2000:310) “The law itself created a new class of criminals”. Therefore criminal behaviour from the legal

perspective, is subject to definitive change. The possibility of implementing changes to law is dependent

on a variety of factors and actors within society according to O'Mahony (2002), who posits that changes

can be initiated by shifting societal attitudes and practices within official bodies and can also be effected

by those who exercise power within society. In relation to the availability and consumption of drugs in

Irish society, the criminal justice system determined no discernible issue until the late 1970's. After this

point certain substances and crime became inextricably linked and encompassed users and abusers

collectively primarily because to simply possess certain substances in certain circumstances was deemed

to be illegal. This demonstrates that crime, as a social construct is also relative in time. How then, does

sociology account for the presence of crime within society and specifically drug related crime?

Merton (1938), in his theory of Anomie, defined 4 methods of adjustment for those who could

not participate fully in the societal process of occupational mobility and acquisition of material goods. One
of these definitions, retreatism, pertained to those who neither accepted the cultural goals espoused by

society, or the socially legitimate means of attaining those goals vis normal social participation (Mc

Cullagh 2010). Drug addicts as described by Merton (1938) were retreatists and as such were

“...strictly speaking, in the society but not of it. Sociologically, these constitute the true

"aliens."” (1938:677).

Here Merton highlights a triple marginalisation effect indicative of the position of chronic drug addicts in

Irish society; 1) social marginalisation through a process of stratification, 2) the stigmatisation and

ostracising from society of those convicted of drug offences and 3) the marginalisation within the criminal

justice system itself ensured by 1977 Misuse of Drugs Act which specified the separation of the category

of drug offenders from other categories of criminals (O'Mahony, 2002).

Merton's theory of Anomie was supported and extended by left realist criminologist Young (1999)

who claimed that working class people are surrounded by constant reminders i.e. advertising and

marketing, of the importance of consumption and material gains but are denied by society the of

legitimate means by which to acquire these gains. Thus, the working classes feel deprived and frustrated

and turn to criminal behaviour to satisfy the needs created by a modern consumer culture. Merton's

theory has also been modified and critiqued by Sutherland of the Chicago School of Sociology who sought

to explain why some people within working areas were involved in criminal behaviour and some were not.

He began by placing greater emphasis on the influence of social relationships on different courses of

behaviour chosen by people, a factor ignored by Merton. Sutherland then introduced a finer level of

granularity and detail to the proposed determinants of criminal behaviour therefore rejecting the

biological basis or focus on individual pathology as explanations of criminal behaviour (O'Brien & Yar,

2008). This lack of emphasis on the effect of personal and social relationships by Merton was also

highlighted by Cohen (1958) who criticised his over-emphasis on the material goods he considered

essential for individuals to acquire. According to Choen (1958), it was the inability to attain status or

recognition in a society predominated by middle-class ideas that led to the sense of frustration in working

class youths. Therefore in order to gain some status and esteem within their own communities, working

class youths turned to behaviour that demonstrated their power to subvert or contest the societal norms,

e.g. drug dealing, drug taking or property damage.

During the 1960's however Downes had argued from a different perspective which converged

with sociological theories of a more contemporary notion of the inter-relatedness of drug use, class and

legal enforcement. Downes (1966) contested the relevance of status frustration as espoused by Cohen

and instead argued that it was through engagement with leisure pursuits i.e. those considered normative

ways of engaging in leisurely activity within the particular social strata, that working-class chose to
distance themselves from mainstream society. As observed earlier, it is only when certain behaviour is

deemed criminal that it becomes problematic for those engaging in it. According to Downes (1966) it is

when certain behaviour becomes a concern of the middle-class that it usually finds its way into the

legislative domain. This concern can sometimes develop into a “moral panic”, a label that when applied

means

“ ...that the “thing's” extent and significance has been exaggerated (a) in itself (compared

with other more reliable , valid and objective sources) and/or (b) compared with other more

serious problems” (Cohen, 1985:viii).

There also appears to be an association between class and involvement in drug crime and

this appears to influence the structure of drug policy and legislation insofar as drug offenders, in

comparison to other criminals e.g. those engaged in white collar crime receive particularly severe

treatment by the legal system (O'Mahony, 2002). It is of benefit to this overall discussion to briefly

outline the micro-sociological perspective of labelling theory and how this theory accounts for

particularly high rate of recidivism among drug offenders. Labelling theory emphasises how

behaviour is affected by the emotional and internal mechanisms of the social actor and the nature

of this interaction with society (Harrington, 2005). It is the social audience and the behaviour of

the criminal that are of importance in explaining crime, not social structure or political systems.

Labelling of the individual occurs when aspects of their behaviour interact with and are

reacted to by the social audience and other elements in society e.g. lawmakers and enforcers

(Kennedy, 2010) and this can lead to a process whereby offenders are ostracised by others within

society. The effect of this on the individual has been shown to contribute to a sense of

stigmatisation (Goffman, 1963). In relation to drug crime then, once convicted of a drug related

offence and labelled as such it has been shown methods of re-integration into mainstream society

e.g. obtaining a job can, be difficult due to the attitudes of potential employers to hire convicted

drug offenders (LeBell, 2010). This scenario leads to an increased likelihood of re-offending, an

occurrence supported by the recidivism rates in Irish prisons (O'Mahony, 2000) and a phenomenon

that should influence the view of the function of drug policy if only to reduce the already inflated

prison population. It is difficult to envisage how a continuation of the current policy to attempt to

curtail the availability of drugs can alleviate the financial impact of “revolving door” prisons on the

state or the collateral damage of incarceration on the individual. This is even more relevant when it

has been demonstrated that over emphasis on reducing the supply of drugs to the Irish market is

shown to be at the expense of more holistic and effective approaches involving recognition of social

elements e.g. deprivation (Murphy, 1996).

 It is possible to implicate a number of factors that contributed to the composition of current drug

policy in Ireland; 1) a number of incidents of moral panic concerning drug use and availability are

believed to have accelerated the introduction numerous pieces of legislation e.g. the murder of journalist

Veronica Guerin in 1996 (O'Mahoney, 2000; Kennedy, 2010) and 2) a carbon copy approach of demand

reduction adopted by Irish government and endorsed by the U.S. Drugs Czar Lee P. Brown who declared

“The formula is simple: no demand, no supply” (Brown, 2008). This intention was echoed by the Irish

Minister for Justice Pat Rabbitte who led a government task force specifically to deal with reducing the

demand for drugs in Ireland (See Rabbitte, 1996). Supporters of prohibitionist policies also point to

countries like Sweden, where there is strict enforcement of deterrent measures are the overriding policy

and seem to have returned the intended results. However, what is not generally heralded by prohibition

advocates is that Sweden spends the second highest percentage of GDP in Europe on drug control, after

The Netherlands (Source: UNOCD).

What's the Problem-Drugs or Prohibition?

Drug policy in Ireland both past and present advocates the criminalisation of certain drugs and all

associated activities i.e. possession and consumption. This stance is justified by a prohibitionist

perspective and based in the belief that by trying to stop illegal drugs getting into the hands of people in

society, social harm will be minimised. The medical-legal position was the reasoning behind drug policy in

Ireland was based in a “medical” model. This position held that certain drugs will definitely produce

dependency issues (addiction) in users and therefore should be withheld from the public for its own

safety. A later influence in the formation of drug policy was the moralistic point of view regarding the use

of illicit drugs. This is very much influenced by the “war on drugs” adopted by the United States and was

incorporated into Irish political and social attitudes about the individuals who consumed illegal drugs, the

effects on those individuals and the social harms caused by the very presence of these substances in

society (O'Mahony, 2002). The demonisation of illegal drugs and drug culture was evident in the recent

moral panics induced by the mass media in relation to Dublin crime gangs and their leaders. The ensuing

panic resulted in the fast tracking of several new pieces of legislation dealing specifically with drug crime

with little to no public involvement or debate on alternative measure such as decriminalisation and in any

case (see the Criminal Justice Surveillance Act 2009; Criminal Justice Act 2006 and Criminal Justice Act

2007) did nothing to address the underlying social problems associated with drug abuse (Kennedy,

2010).

The view of the drug addict as the victim of a disease was a common portrayal until relatively

recently. Interestingly, it appears that only sufferers of the disease of drug addiction are directly linked to

crime as we can observe by comments made by Charleton (1995) states

 “Indictable crime has increased by 56,000 reported acts between 1973 and 1991, the vast

majority of which can be put down to an increase in theft Stealing, as an overall category of

crime, has doubled over 18 years. The: nature of the particular increases points to the addict

as the cause. From 1973 over a period of 18 years robbery has increased in levels of

commission by more than four times and burglary by almost six times. The cause of this is

drug abuse.” (p. 1)

The causal link between drug use and crime is strongly contested and on a number of fronts; firstly it

appears fallacious to assume that because people take drugs they will also commit crime. This is

illustrated shown by the fact that most drug users in prison in both the U.K and Ireland were offenders of

another kind before they began using drugs (Bean, 2010; O'Brien, 2001). Secondly the vast majority of

people who use drugs do so casually or recreationally and do not come to the attention of law

enforcement agencies for any other reason (Cassin and O'Mahony, 2006). This fact which strengthens the

argument for decriminalisation since these are the vast majority of cases occupying the lower courts in

Ireland (Cassin and O'Mahony, 2006).

There are additional criticisms of the medical-legal viewpoint; in focussing entirely on the

pharmacological aspect of drug taking, other factors are ignored as highlighted by Zinberg (1986). He

argued that in order to properly assess the reasons for drug addiction in society one must examine 3

determinants; 1) the drug itself, 2) the set (the psychological make-up of the user) and 3) the setting

(both physical and social) (Zinberg, 1986). This analysis widens the discourse on drug taking in society

and de-emphasises the simple notion of “drugs kill” which only focusses on the drug and not the

environment or the user.

Should Certain Drugs be Decriminalised?

Deficit models of drug use by definition only deal with the phenomenon from a position of social

or psychological deficiency (Mc Cullagh, 2010). However, it would be difficult to argue that all users of

the most popular illegal drug in the country, cannabis (Health Research Board, 2008) have psychological

problems or suffered from social problems like poverty or any other type of marginalisation. Cannabis use

across Europe is associated with young people with disposable income and increased leisure opportunities

(Nic Gabhainn et al, 2006) and was the substance at the centre of the normalisation debate during the

1990's. Normalisation involves individuals, groups or behaviour previously regarded as deviant by general

society becoming accepted as a normal part of everyday life (Parker, Williams & Aldridge, 2002). This

conceptual process was originally used to account for the integration of people with disabilities into

mainstream society, it was incorporated into drug use discourse as a way of explaining the dramatic

increase in casual drug use in the U.K. during the early and mid nineties (Wilson et al, 2010). What the
normalisation debate accomplished was that it opened up discussion regarding approaches to drugs

policy for countries who wished to employ more socially inclusive and pro-active agendas (Parker,

Williams & Aldridge, 2002).

The Netherlands was one such country and decriminalised the possession of small amounts of

“soft” drugs (Schedule ii drugs) for personal use in 1976. With respect to normalisation and the intent of

their policy, the government took the following approach:

“The literature also makes reference to the policy of “normalization.” Social control is

achieved through depolarization and integration of deviant behaviour rather than isolation

and removal, as is typical of the deterrence model. This paradigm also suggests that drug

problems should be seen as normal social problems rather than unusual concerns requiring

extraordinary treatment” (Dolin, 2001:4).

The Dutch government has taken an approach based on the concept of harm reduction as it see it's

role in legislating for drug use as minimising the potential damage that can be caused by illegal

drug use (Dolin, 2001). However, Dutch drug policy on the supply side is aligned with the

“international repressive norm” (Dolin, 2001:4), it is on the demand side that it seeks to deal with

all users in a more socially responsible way. Decriminalisation, a situation whereby drug laws are

not significantly different from prohibitionist positions and possession of small amounts of certain

drugs are permissible for use and even for sale, large scale distribution is dealt also dealt with in a

similar manner. Legalisation however requires major restructuring of drug laws to accommodate

regulatory and legislative support of the sale, possession, manufacture of substances previously

deemed illegal (O'Mahoney, 2002). It is for these reasons that decriminalisation makes sense in

the Irish context.

In 2004 the British government downgraded cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug but

4 years later re-classified it back up to Class B (Lloyd & McKeganey, 2010). The arrival of “Skunk

weed” in large quantities to the British illicit drug market in 2008 prompted this roll-back in policy

by the Home Office in order to deal with the rising number of home cannabis farms being

discovered all over the U.K. It was deemed necessary to re-classify the drug in order to lengthen

the prison sentences associated with growing marijuana plants thus, according to supporters of the

decision, deterring those who may have considered setting up such operations (Bean, 2010). This

move however once again exposed casual users of cannabis to punitive measures that could only

be dealt with by the the legal system as opposed to the discretion of individual police officers. In a

country such as Ireland, where changes to laws relating to drugs seem to be driven more by moral

panic and hysterical prohibitionist rhetoric the legalisation route appears to be a bridge too far.
Decriminalisation however may provide a less absolute and flexible attempt to deal with the

perceived harm caused by drugs. As part of a decriminalisation policy to be implemented in Ireland

the reclassification of certain drugs could present a “try and see” mechanism as attempted in the

U.K. and generally agreed as being successful in The Netherlands.

References

Bayer, R., 1991. The Great Drug Policy Debate: What Means This Thing Called Decriminalization? The

Milbank Quarterly, 69,(3), pp.341-363.

Bean, P., 2010. Legalising Drugs:Debates and Dilemmas. Bristol:The Policy Press.

Beirne, P., Messerschmidt, J., 2000. Criminology. 3rd ed. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Brown, L.P., 2008. Two Takes: Drugs Are a Major Social Problem, We Cannot Legalize Them. [online]

U.S. News Corp. Available at http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/07/25/two-takes-

drugs-are-a-major-social-problem-we-cannot-legalize-them?PageNr=1 Accessed 15/03/2010.

Cassin, S. & O’Mahony, P., 2006. Criminal Justice Drug Policy in Ireland. Policy Paper 1. Drug Policy

Action Group. Dublin

Charleton, P., 1995. Drugs and Crime — Making the Connection: A Discussion Paper. Irish Criminal Law

Journal, 5,(2), pp. 220–240.

Cohen, A.K., 1958. Research in Delinquent Subcultures1. Journal of Social Issues, 14,(3), pp.1540-4560.

Cohen, S. 1985. Visions of social control: crime, punishment, and classification. Cambridge, U.K.:Polity

Press.

Degenhardt L, Chiu W-T, Sampson N, Kessler RC, Anthony JC, et al., 2008. Toward a Global View of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health

Surveys. PLoS Med, 5(7).

Dolin, B., 2001. National Drug Policy: The Netherlands Prepared for the Special Committee of the Senate

on Illegal Drugs. Ontario:Library of of Parliament.

Goffman, E., 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Harrington, A., 2005. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New

York:Anchor Books.

Kennedy, N., 2010. A Sociological Approach to Understanding Drug Crime in Ireland. Socheolas: Limerick

Student Journal of Sociology, 3(1), pp. 52-66.

LeBell, T.P., 2010. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration(review).

Social Forces, 88,(3), pp. 1499-1500.

Lloyd, C., McKeganey, N., 2010. Drugs Research: An overview of evidence and questions for policy.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation [Online] http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/13137/1/drugs-research-

overview-full.pdf#page=7 Accessed 16/03/2010.

Merton, R.K., 1938. Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3,(5), pp. 672-682.

Murphy, T., 1996. Rethinking the war on drugs in Ireland. Cork:Cork University Press.
O'Brien, M., 2001. Law enforcement and drug-related crime. Overview of drug issues in Ireland 2000: a

resource document, pp. 95-106. Dublin:Health Research Board

O'Brien, M., Yar, M., 2008. Criminology: The Key Concepts. New York:Routledge.

O’ Mahoney, P., 2000. Crime in the Republic of Ireland: A Suitable Case For Sociable Analysis, Journal of

Sociology, 3,(26), pp. 3-27.

O'Mahony, P., 2002. Criminal Justice in Ireland. Dublin:Institute of Public Administration.

Parker, H., Williams, L., Aldridge, J., 2002. The Normalization of ‘Sensible’ Recreational Drug Use:

Further Evidence from the North West England Longitudinal Study. Sociology, 36(4), pp.941–964.

Rabbitte, P., 1996. First report of the Ministerial Task Force on Measures to Reduce the Demand for

Drugs. Dublin:Stationery Office.

NicGabhainn ter Bogt T., Schmid H., Nic Gabhainn S., Fotiou A., Vollebergh, W., 2006. Economic and

cultural correlates of cannabis use among mid-adolescents in 31 countries. Addiction, 101, pp.

241–251.

UNODC, 2007. Sweden's successful drug policy: A review of the evidence. United Nations Office on Drugs

and Crime.

Wilson, H., Bryant, J., Holt, M., Treloar, C., 2010. Normalisation of recreational drug use among young

people: Evidence about accessibility, use and contact with other drug users. Health Sociology

Review, 19,(2), pp. 164-175.

Young, J., 1999. The exclusive society: social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity.

London:Sage Publications.

Zinberg, N., 1986. Drug, Set, And Setting: The Basis For Controlled Intoxicant Use. MA:Yale University

Press.