"Why Neuroscience Matters for a Rational Drug Policy"

Recently posted to SSRN:

"Why Neuroscience Matters for a Rational Drug Policy" 

Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 2010

DAVID M. EAGLEMAN, affiliation not provided to SSRN
MARK A. CORRERO, affiliation not provided to SSRN

Drug addiction reflects abnormal operation of normal neural circuitry. More than physical dependence, addiction represents changes in the brain that lead to increased craving and diminished capacity for the control of impulses. Given the growing biological understanding of addiction, it is critical for scientists to play an active role in drug policy because, as neuroscientific understanding develops, we will, to a much greater degree, be able to target specific behavioral, pharmaceutical, and neurological treatments for specific addictions. It is important to emphasize that biological explanations will not become equivalent to exculpation. Instead, the goal of explanation is to introduce rational sentencing and the opportunity for customized rehabilitation. This approach is likely to show more utility and less cost than incarceration. The neuroscientific community should continue to develop rehabilitative strategies so that the legal community can take advantage of those strategies for a rational, customized approach to drug addiction.

Comments

[Amy Knight]

"biological explanations will not become equivalent to exculpation"

Very important point to keep bringing up. But we might consider a gray are there -- biological explanations in some situations should not and will not lead to acquittal, but what about mitigation in sentancing? Or would you ever think it right for courts to consider that some people may have a greater biological predisposition to addiction than others?

I applaud your focus on treatment and rehabilitation, but I see a whole welter of legal issues about how this sort of information can and will be used.

[Daniel S. Goldberg]

Eagleman is one of my colleagues. Amazingly brilliant guy, though if we often have serious foundational disagreements.

[Paul Litton]

"biological explanations in some situations should not and will not lead to acquittal, but what about mitigation in sentencing?"

Based on what rationale? The reason that biological explanations do not exculpate is because it is irrelevant to the law's criterion for exculpation: irrationality. So if biological explanations do not fully exculpate, on what basis should we find such explanations mitigating? I am not saying that addiction should not be mitigating (I haven't addressed that issue). The question here, though, is this: what is the relevance of this neuroscience or biological explanation to "rational sentencing"? Neither tells us anything about the extent to which an agent's rationality is compromised by addiction.

[teen addiction treatment]

The government is aware of the advances and developments made by the pharmaceutical industry in the country and in the state, with good
technological and production capacity, high turnovers and exports. However it is concerned that essential drugs of good quality are not available in adequate quantities to many, particularly in rural parts of the State. The rising cost of drugs especially in recent years, and adulterated substandard drugs are also areas of concern.

-mj-