Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 99–119 | Cite as

Toward Drug Control: Exclusion and Buyer Licensing

Article

Abstract

The uncertainties associated with the precise nature of legalization regimes and with their expected outcomes sometimes are used to justify the maintenance of drug prohibition. This paper details the role that buyer licensing and exclusion might play in implementing a low-risk, post-prohibition drug regulatory regime. Buyer licensing and exclusion provide assistance to those who exhibit or are worried about self-control problems with drugs, while not being significantly constraining upon those who are informed and satisfied drug consumers. Relative to prohibition, licensing and self-exclusion can be part of a drug regulatory structure that is much more finely tuned to the risks of harms stemming from drug use.

Keywords

Drugs Alcohol Self-exclusion Licensing Prohibition Robustness 

References

  1. Ayres, I. (2010). Carrots and sticks: Unlock the power of incentives to get things done. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bentham, J. (1948 [1823]). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. New York: Hafner Press.Google Scholar
  3. Billings, J. S., Eliot, C. W., et al. (1905). The liquor problem: A summary of investigations conducted by the committee of fifty, 1893–1903. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.Google Scholar
  4. Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., et al. (2003). Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for ‘asymmetric paternalism’. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1211–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caulkins, J. P., & Dupont, R. L. (2010). Is 24/7 sobriety a good goal for repeat driving under the influence (DUI) offenders?”. Addiction, 105(4), 575–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fennell, L. A. (2005). Revealing options. Harvard Law Review, 118(5), 1399–1488.Google Scholar
  7. Fish, J. M. (Ed.). (1998). How to legalize drugs. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Fosdick, R. B., & Scott, A. L. (1933). Toward liquor control. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  9. Global Commission on Drug Policy. (2011). War on drugs. Available at http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report.
  10. Hawken, A. (2010a). Behavioral triage: A new model for identifying and treating substance-abusing offenders. Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, 3(1). Available at http://www.bepress.com/jdpa/vol3/iss1/art1.
  11. Hawken, A. (2010b). HOPE for probation: How Hawaii improved behavior with high-probability, low-severity sanctions. Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice 4(3). Available at http://globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%204%20Issue%203/Hope%20for%20Probation.pdf.
  12. Hemenway, D. (2009). While we were sleeping: Success stories in injury and violence prevention. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Husak, D. (2002). Legalize this! The case for decriminalizing drugs. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  14. Kleiman, M. A. R. (1992). Against excess: Drug policy for results. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Kleiman, M. A. R. (2007). Dopey, boozy, smoky—and stupid. The American Interest Online, 2(3). Available at http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=224.
  16. Kleiman, M. A. R., Caulkins, J. P., & Hawken, A. (2011). Drugs and drug policy: What everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Leitzel, J. (2008). Regulating vice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leitzel, J. (2011). Self-exclusion. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1126317.
  19. Levine, H. G., & Reinarman, C. (1993). From prohibition to regulation: Lessons from alcohol policy for drug policy. In R. Bayer & G. M. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Confronting drug policy: Illicit drugs in a free society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1209–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Long, L. (2009). The 24/7 sobriety project. The Public Lawyer, 17(2), 2–5.Google Scholar
  22. Mill, J. S. (1978 [1859]). In E. Rapaport (Ed.) On liberty. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  23. Miron, J. A., & Waldock, K. (2010). The budgetary impact of ending drug prohibition. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2010. Available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf.
  24. O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Studying optimal paternalism, illustrated by a model of sin taxes. American Economic Review, 93(2), 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2008). Current state of drug policy: Successes and challenges. Washington, DC. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/successes_challenges.pdf.
  26. Responsible Gambling Council. (2008). From enforcement to assistance: Evolving best practices in self-exclusion. Ontario. Available at http://www.responsiblegambling.org/en/research/rgcresearch-details.cfm?intID=7688.
  27. Rolles, S. (2009). After the war on drugs: Blueprint for regulation. Bristol, UK: Transform Drug Policy Foundation. Available at http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Transform_Drugs_Blueprint.pdf.
  28. Russell, B. (2000 [1950]). Unpopular essays. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2009). Results from the 2008 national survey on drug use and health: National findings. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies.Google Scholar
  30. Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Thompson, W. N. (2010). Handling corporate social responsibility: A third way. Gaming Law Review and Economics, 14(5), 355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zinberg, N. E. (1984). Drug, set, and setting: The basis for controlled intoxicant use. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations