U.S. - [Massachusetts top court] to weigh if courts can force sobriety on drug users

[S.J.B.]

SJC to weigh if courts can force sobriety on drug users
Maria Cramer
Boston Globe
September 24th, 2017

The first time Julie Eldred violated her probation by using drugs, the judge gave her a break, sending her to a treatment program instead of the women’s prison in Framingham.

But soon after her release, the need to use overwhelmed her, and she relapsed again. Her next court-ordered drug test came up positive — for opiates.

She wrote the judge to apologize, and thanked him for the compassion he had shown her before. But when she stood before him in Concord District Court, he crumpled up the letter and threw it aside.

“This is just a bunch of excuses,” he told her.

As she stood there, stunned and humiliated, the court officers handcuffed her. Placed on probation for stealing, she was being sent to jail for using drugs. A similar series of events would unfold again three years later, in 2016, with Eldred again unable to remain drug free on probation.

Read the full story here.

 

[S.J.B.]

If the Supreme Judicial Court decides in Eldred's favour, it will only lead to more fervent repression of drug users, as it will enshrine in law the idea that drug users have a particular deficit in autonomy in regards to their drug use - that is, a deficit not present in people making any number of other "unhealthy" decisions. If a person is not considered autonomous, that person is liable to legally-sanctioned committal at a government's whim. In only the most extreme circumstances should a person's bad habit(s) / mental illness(es) be used to judge them legally unable to exercise autonomy.

Which is a better path forward for drug users? "Drug use is a legitimate human activity that is not inherently immoral or criminal, therefore drug users should not be criminalized," or "drug use is inherently immoral and/or criminal, but we cannot control ourselves so we should not be punished?" The latter might attenuate the consequences for some, in the short term, but it isn't worth the long-term delegitimization.

 

[cj]

Wow this is a truly landmark case. If she wins the drug war is basically finished because as we all know probation is the cash cow of the war. If they can't give probation then it's expensive incarceration or decriminalization. The bills from trying to imprison everyone will drive change in the system.

Though in a way I wish she had only been in trouble for drugs instead of theft. That would make her a more sympathetic petitioner.