South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

The failure of the war on drugs is a recurring topic on many criminal defense and political blogs, to the point where those of us who read blogs were probably bored with the news long ago. But the madness continues, the insane government spending, the mandatory minimum sentences that fill our prisons and destroy lives, the drug task forces who seem to become the most corrupt across the country, our nation's/ government's/ law enforcement's addiction to drugs is not slowing down one bit. Politicians are not going to change their "hard on crime" stance until the voting public is educated on the failure of the war on drugs, so we need to keep blogging and keep talking about it until change happens.

In an article from the AP this week (H/T Grits for Breakfast), Martha Mendoza highlights the failure of the United States' drug policies over the past 40 years culminating in the current administration. Obama's government recognizes that it is not working, but can't help themselves - we are getting more of the same when it comes to drug policy. Despite promises of a new national policy that would treat drug use as a public health issue, focusing on prevention and treatment, spending on interdiction and law enforcement has been increased instead.

The AP has compiled the costs of the war on drugs over the past 40 years, which has not stemmed the flow of drugs one bit, finding:

_ $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

_ $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

_ $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

_ $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

_ $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

That is not a complete list of the costs of the war on drugs, and it doesn't begin to account for the human costs over the past 40 years - the families ripped apart, the people who were subjected to long prison sentences for drug offenses. I'm impressed that this story came from the AP - let's keep people talking about this country's drug policies and why they don't work.

CNN has a story about the dilemma of pregnant mothers who are addicted, spotlight on South Carolina - of course, the only state supreme court to uphold the prosecution of pregnant addicts for the damage done to their babies by drug use.

South Carolina's state supreme court is alone in upholding the prosecution of pregnant women for the damage drugs might do to their unborn children.

Across the country, local and state agencies have found ways to prosecute pregnant women for drug use, but the cases are often rejected by the courts. And judges in more than two dozen states have overturned decisions that criminalize pregnant addicts. In recent years, Missouri and North Dakota have ruled against charging pregnant women with neglect and endangerment.

The article says that since 1989 at least 126 women have been arrested in South Carolina for using drugs during their pregnancy. It's a problem that was brought to the public's attention again during Regina McKnight's prosecution - Regina was charged with homicide by child abuse after cocaine was found in her system when her baby was stillborn. Her trial resulted in a mistrial, she was tried a second time and found guilty in 2001, lost on direct appeal, but her conviction was overturned last year on PCR based on her trial attorney's failure to retain an expert to testify at her second trial.

From an earlier post:

The prosecution of mothers who test positive for cocaine has been fraught with problems and controversial from the beginning. The idea of a pregnant woman using cocaine is offensive and the knee jerk response is that there is no doubt this is child abuse. But this view ignores the nature of cocaine addiction. Cocaine addiction is powerful enough that many who are addicted cannot make a conscious decision to stop using. When a person is under a compulsion to continue using drugs, there is no intent to harm the child - there is no "conscious act of disregarding a risk which a person's conduct has created." State v. McKnight (2003).

Prosecution of pregnant women who are addicted to drugs is counterproductive, and it is not a deterrence. It discourages addicted women who discover they are pregnant from seeking help. It discourages them from seeking prenatal care at hospitals or treatment for their addiction, for fear they will be arrested and prosecuted. It creates an incentive for women to seek abortions, to avoid detection and prosecution.

It would make more sense to make it known that if an addicted and pregnant woman comes to a hospital for help, they will receive not only prenatal care but confidential referrals to treatment programs. It makes sense to invest more resources in long-term treatment programs that are equipped to deal with the specialized needs of pregnant women, and women with very young children.

It is always a popular political move to prosecute and punish any given class of "criminal." Treatment, prevention, understanding, compassion does not win votes.

When we are the only state in the country to allow the prosecution of these women, that alone should tell our supreme court and our legislature something is wrong here.

"These are addicts who become pregnant," says Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. "They aren't women who chose to use drugs after becoming pregnant."