By Tyson Singh Kelsall and Jasmine Veark and Molly Beatrice a d

This commentary explores a recent shift in British Columbia's drug policy under a novel drug “decriminalization” framework. We focus on the province's move toward "recriminalization" under this framework. In short, recriminalization was a shift in BC's drug decriminalization framework to only apply in private residences, and be removed from essentially all outdoor spaces. This policy change was completed through an agreement with the federal government amid a public health emergency. Since 2016, BC has faced a severe crisis of drug-related overdoses and poisonings, driven by a toxic and unregulated drug supply compounded by prohibitionist policies. Expert recommendations for increasing access to a regulated drug supply have repeatedly dismissed as solutions by the governing BC New Democratic Party, opting instead for measures that do not undercut the toxic drug supply. We examine the sociolegal context of the BC government decision to recriminalize drug use in 2024, including attempts to criminalize recent drug use and police suspicion of substance use. These drug law reforms, understood here as forms of biopolitical violence, reflect a broader trend of using drug policies as tools for social and spatial regulation. By analyzing the sociolegal implications of these policies, the commentary situates the BC government's actions within a framework of sanctioned biopolitical massacre, highlighting the tension between purported decriminalization efforts and the actual enforcement strategies that perpetuate harm and exclusion. This examination underscores the complex interplay between drug policy, public health crises, and state power in the context of systemic colonial and racialized control that may be adaptable to other regions considering drug law reform.

International Journal of Drug Policy

Volume 136, February 2025, 104688

By Michael Vitiello

The United States’ War on Drugs has not been pretty. Moral panic has repeatedly driven policy when states and the federal government have regulated drugs. Responding to that panic, legislators have authorized severe sentences for drug offenses.

By design, Article III gives federal judges independence, in part, to protect fundamental rights against mob rule. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often failed to protect fundamental rights in times of moral panic. For example, it eroded Fourth Amendment protections during the War on Drugs. Similarly, it failed to protect drug offenders from excessive prison sentences during the War on Drugs. This Article examines whether it is time for the Supreme Court to rethink its precedent upholding extremely long sentences for drug crimes.

In 1983, in Solem v. Helm, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to terms of imprisonment. There, it found the imposition of a true-life sentence imposed on a repeat offender to be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the defendant’s offense. Whatever hope Solem created that courts might limit excessive sentences proved to be false.

Two Supreme Court cases dealing with drug sentences, bracketing Solem, demonstrate the Court’s unwillingness to override legislatures’ discretion in imposing sentences. In 1982, the Court upheld a 40-year term of imprisonment imposed on an offender who possessed less than nine ounces of marijuana. In 1991, the Court upheld a true-life sentence imposed on an offender who possessed 672 grams of cocaine. The Court’s refusal to curtail such extreme sentences reflects its willingness to accede to the nation’s moral panic over drug usage.

Since the height of the War on Drugs, Americans have changed their views about drugs. Significant majorities of Americans favor legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use. Many Americans favor a wholesale rethinking of drug policy. Despite studies in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrating beneficial use of drugs like LSD and psilocybin, Congress yielded to moral panic and included them in Schedule I when it enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Efforts are afoot at the state level to legalize the study of and to decriminalize the use of those and other drugs.

This Article argues that the Court should rethink its Eighth Amendment caselaw upholding severe drug sentences. The Court’s Eighth Amendment caselaw balances the severity of punishment against the gravity of an offense. In turn, the gravity of an offense turns on its social harm and the culpability of the offender. The Court upheld extreme drug sentences based on the view that drugs were a national scourge. Moral panic led it to overstate the social harm and the culpability of drug offenders. Scientifically based examination of drugs and drug policy should compel the Court to rethink its excessive punishment caselaw because the balance between severity of punishment and the gravity of drug offenses looks different when one has a better understanding of true costs and benefits of drug use.

Clev. St. L. Rev., 69, 441 2921

By Emilie Bruzelius and Silvia S. Martins

Recreational cannabis laws (RCL) in the United States (US) can have important implications for people who are non-citizens, including those with and without formal documentation, and those who are refugees or seeking asylum. For these groups, committing a cannabis-related infraction, even a misdemeanor, can constitute grounds for status ineligibility, including arrest and deportation under federal immigration policy—regardless of state law. Despite interconnections between immigration and drug policy, the potential impacts of increasing state cannabis legalization on immigration enforcement are unexplored.

Methods

In this repeated cross-sectional analysis, we tested the association between state-level RCL adoption and monthly, state-level prevalence of immigration arrests and deportations related to cannabis possession. Data were from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Immigration arrest information was available from Oct-2014 to May-2018 and immigration deportation information were available from Jan-2009 to Jun-2020 for. To test associations with RCLs, we fit Poisson fixed effects models that controlled for pre-existing differences between states, secular trends, and potential sociodemographic, sociopolitical, and setting-related confounders. Sensitivity analyses explored potential violations to assumptions and sensitivity to modeling specifications.

Results

Over the observation period, there were 7,739 immigration arrests and 48,015 deportations referencing cannabis possession. By 2020, 12 stated adopted recreational legalization and on average immigration enforcement was lower among RCL compared to non-RCL states. In primary adjusted models, we found no meaningful changes in arrest prevalence, either immediately following RCL adoption (Prevalence Ratio [PR]: 0.84; [95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.57, 1.11]), or 1-year after the law was effective (PR: 0.88 [CI: 0.56, 1.20]). For the

deportation outcome, however, RCL adoption was associated with a moderate relative decrease in deportation prevalence in RCL versus non-RCL states (PR: 0.68 [CI: 0.56, 0.80]; PR 1-year lag: 0.68 [CI: 0.54, 0.82]). Additional analyses were mostly consistent by suggested some sensitivities to modeling specification.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that decreasing penalties for cannabis possession through state RCLs may reduce some aspects of immigration enforcement related to cannabis possession. Greater attention to the immigration-related consequences of current drug control policies is warranted, particularly as more states weigh the public health benefits and drawbacks of legalizing cannabis.

BMC Public Health volume 24, Article number: 936 (2024)

By

George Christopher Dertadian and Vicki Sentas

The decriminalization of drug possession in varied forms is gaining some traction around the world. Yet prospects for people with lived and living experience of drug use to influence the direction of drug law and policy reform remains bound by stigma and exclusion. This study considers the aspirations for decriminalization of people who inject drugs through 20 semi-structured qualitative interviews with the clients of the Sydney injecting centre. What does decriminalization mean for those most criminalised by drug law and policy? The study found that participants’ views of what is possible for decriminalization are mediated by the same structures and experiences of criminalization, incarceration and exclusion that has disrupted their lives. Participants anticipate the need to mobilise incremental and partial changes associated with de facto models, including fines, increased police discretion (and therefore power) and treatment

orders. At the same time, participants collective imaginary also exceeds the limits of a police-controlled depenalization. We document people’s claims on a future drug policy that speaks to a world without criminal drug offences, punitive controls and the exclusion of people who use drugs from the policy table

International Journal of Drug Policy Volume 135, January 2025, 104657