Drug Decriminalization

This was my final paper for Advanced Criminology, the capstone course for my major. Enjoy. Don't plagiarize. 

Drug use has been a century-long concern for American lawmakers. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 was aimed at the eradication of opiates and heroin. “For all practical purposes, despite a previous act that forbade the importation of smoking opium, this was the beginning of all federal regulation of recreational drug use.” The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 followed, adding marijuana to the list of restricted substances. Both acts were ostensibly aimed at taxing the importation and use of the drugs but in reality were intended to prohibit the drugs. The 1937 act is also notable for misclassifying marijuana as a narcotic despite the body of scientific evidence which stated that it was not a narcotic substance. The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 increased the penalties incurred for possession and sale of illicit drugs. As time has passed, federal drug laws have become increasingly punitive. Mandatory minimum sentencing, property seizures, and harsh fines are characteristic of American policies from the 1970's to present. (Rowe, 2006).

The prohibition of drugs in the United States has been an outstanding factor in the expansion of both the criminal justice system and the prison system. Drug arrests have increased threefold since 1975, resulting in ever-larger incarceration rates in both state and federal prisons. Prison populations have climbed from six hundred thousand in 1975 to almost two million people in 2008. In addition, prison sentence-lengths have also increased. Most incarcerated individuals are small time traffickers; only eleven percent of federal prisoners are identified as major distributors. (Walker, 2011).

Despite the myriad laws enacted prohibiting it, illicit drug use is common. 2008 data from the National Household Survey suggests that twenty million American citizens have used an illegal substance (which includes fifteen million users of marijuana). Slightly less than two million citizens have used cocaine. Two hundred thousand Americans have used heroin. Roughly half of the American population reports to have used an illegal drug on at least on occasion in their lifetime. More than eighty percent of marijuana users report that use of the drug did not serve as a gateway drug but that consumption of the plant is instead a recreational activity. (Walker, 2011).

Police enforcement has been the primary agent utilized for discouraging drug use. Despite a high volume of arrests, little to no impact has been realized in curbing drug availability. High school students report that prohibited drugs like marijuana and cocaine are readily available to them. Law enforcement agents report similar ease in procuring drugs. “In short, police officers themselves do not believe that their intensive antidrug efforts reduce the availability of drugs. This is a damning indictment of police crackdowns.” (Walker, 2011).

Criminal law clearly has a very limited effect on controlling illegal drugs for which a high demand exists. As long as the demand is present there will be persons willing to provide the product. Increasing law enforcement efforts culminate in criminal innovation and may force drug users to substitute one product for another. As long as the demand exists, the lure of profits ensure an endless line of individuals willing to take the risk to supply the product. (Walker, 2011).

Opposition to drug regulation stretches back for decades. In 1961 the Joint Committee of the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association presented a report which stated “drug addiction is primarily a problem for the physician rather than the policeman, and it should not be necessary for anyone to violate the criminal law solely because he is addicted to drugs.” The Drug Abuse Council recommended in 1980 that trying to eliminate drugs is an unrealistic policy, instead observing that “adverse social conditions” are part of the American landscape which cannot be solved through drug policy. A 1989 report from the Research Advisory Panel for the State of California noted that drug enforcement “has been manifestly unsuccessful in that we are now using more and a greater variety of drugs, legal and illegal.” The report continues, advising decriminalization policies and cessation of the War on Drugs. (Gray, 2001).

In the face of drug policy failures, advocacy for decriminalization and/or drug legalization has been promoted as a possible policy change. A neutral government study from 1972 entitled U.S. National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse recommended that marijuana possession “should no longer be an offense” and that “casual distribution of small amounts of marijuana for no or 'insignificant' renumeration not involving profit should no longer be an offense.” The same study concluded the following year that marijuana should be completely removed from the narcotics list. By 1980 the Drug Abuse Council encouraged legislation to “decriminalize at both state and federal levels for the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use.” (Gray, 2001). A 1994 directive from the American Civil Liberties Union called for the “full and complete decriminalization of the use, possession, manufacture and distribution of drugs.” Public support for drug reform has also grown, from twenty five percent in 1980 to forty four percent in 2009. (Walker, 2011).

Although sometimes used interchangeably, legalization and decriminalization are distinct terms towards a similar end: the removal of criminal sanctions for the possession or sale of illegal drugs. Legalization is the term used to describe the legal sale and possession of drugs. Proponents of legalization may or may not embrace drug regulations similar to those used by the Food and Drug Administration. Decriminalization policies typically keep drug use illegal but decline to pursue and prosecute drug users on an individual level. Much like laws regarding alcohol and tobacco, advocates for drug reform wish to maintain prohibition of drug use by minors.

Legalization and decriminalization reform policies are embraced by members of all political parties. Libertarians are the most outspoken proponents, calling for complete and total drug reform. Advocates in the two primary political parties typically wish to maintain some form of regulation over drugs.

Decriminalization proponents cite the legitimacy of the law as one reason to embrace drug policy reform. “Many people are alienated from the law and the criminal justice system because they believe the criminalization of certain kinds of behavior interferes with their personal privacy, or has bad consequences for the justice system, or both. It is possible that decriminalization of certain offenses will remove that alienation and increase respect for the law. As a result, according to the idea of legitimacy, they may become more law-abiding with respect to other laws.” (Walker, 2011).

The overreach of the law is another reason that decriminalization policy is touted as a viable policy alternative. Supporters of this stance argue that the law should be aimed at actions that do actual harm and not on victimless crime such as drug use and sale. The overreach of criminal law results in several negative consequences. The first is that the excessive laws place a heavy burden on the justice system. Focusing on minor offenses leaves fewer resources for more serious criminal activity. Second, no overwhelming public opinion exists for what behaviors should be criminalized. While violent crimes, murder, and property crimes are unanimously viewed as immoral, there are wildly varying attitudes on drug use. This ties back to the legitimacy of the law; respect for the law will suffer if law enforcement agents interfere with behavior that is considered harmless. The third consequence is the rise of criminal organizations centered on supplying the demand for illicit goods. Criminal organizations can further muddle the criminal justice process by corrupting agents of the law. Lastly, members of both the criminal justice arena and the healthcare system believe that the problems associated with drug use are not problems that should be addressed through the justice system but instead addressed through medical, psychological, and social services. (Walker, 2011).

A popular libertarian argument for legalization is that drug laws are a violation of our civil rights. Although the right to use drugs is not spelled out explicitly, the Ninth Amendment allows for the various unnamed rights to which Americans are entitled. The Ninth Amendment was put in place to protect citizen's freedom and autonomy. The “widespread availability and use of controlled and illegal drugs may be viewed as significant support for the claim that a larger portion of society recognizes the right to use drugs as fundamental.” Both sexual orientation cases and household privacy cases have been successfully argued using the Ninth Amendment. The precedent set from these cases allow for the assertion that the freedom to choose whether or not to use drugs is a valid argument. That drug use may be viewed by some people as immoral should not influence actors of the government to pass laws which impede liberty. “The principle of the right to privacy is not freedom to do certain acts determined to be fundamental through some ever-progressing normative lens. It is the fundamental freedom not to have life choices determined by a progressively more normalizing state.” (Hardaway, 2003).

Another philosophy supporting decriminalization is that of harm reduction. Advocates of harm reduction point out that “some drug use is inevitable, and that the goal of drug policy should be to reduce the harm associated with drug use rather than eradicating all drug use through criminalization.” (Beckett, 2004). Harm reduction is the umbrella term under which several legalization arguments lie.

One harm reduction argument for drug policy reform is the reduction of harm to communities. The deterioration of families and communities is inevitable given the number of citizens imprisoned for drug charges. Another community threat is children's access to street drugs. Legalization advocates point out that alcohol is harder for children to obtain than illicit drugs. This is because the sale of alcohol is regulated and sale to minors is enforceable. Street dealers are less discriminatory regarding who they sell drugs to, for the allure of profit is too great. The reduction of violence is also an aim of harm reduction in communities. Drug dealers cannot plead their grievances to the courts. Since no legitimate way to address their problems exist, sellers are “left to their own enforcement techniques, which frequently include intimidation and violence.” The violence surrounding the drug trade has been in the public spotlight for years without seeing any effective solution realized. (Gray, 2001).

Stopping the deterioration of personal health additional rationale for harm reduction tactics. The criminalization of drug use creates four critical concerns. The first of these is that drug laws discourage users from seeking medical attention regarding their hygiene and well-being. Decriminalizing drug use would allow users to seek medical attention without fear of reprisal. Secondly, there is no oversight on the quality of illicit drugs. The strength and purity of these substances can wreak havoc on a user who has been forced to resort to obtaining their drugs from unknown sources. Regulation could solve this problem. Third, communicable diseases can be spread through intravenous drug users who share needles. Needle exchange programs would prevent the spread of disease. Lastly, the inflated price of street drugs forces users to engage in criminal activity ranging from larceny to prostitution or murder. Regulation could again be utilized to set prices and reduce crime related to drug use. (Gray, 2001).

The labeling and demonization of those involved in the drug trade is further argument for legalizing drug use. America's policy-makers have shaped the drug problem into a matter of crime and punishment. Along the way they have abandoned the human element and have labeled the user as a societal outcast. Drug users are rational human beings with their own motivations, just like every other citizen. “Unfortunately, most Americans have not learned this lesson, and they continue to allow people who take illegal drugs to be stereotyped, demonized, prosecuted, and jailed.” (Gray, 2001). A further problem with demonizing drug users is that they are often portrayed as violent and dangerous when that is not necessarily the truth. Our current drug policies force a stark contrast between between the demon 'user' and the dignified 'non-user' when the reality is that they are two groups who share a large overlap.

Portuguese policy changes regarding drug offenses have shown promise. In 2000 the rate of drug injection among the general population was reported to be as high as six people per one thousand of the population between the ages of fifteen and sixty four. HIV cases were also on the rise and had come to be a major concern of the Portuguese government. “The judicial system was overloaded with drug users and traffickers. Fearful of being prosecuted, many users didn't present to health services.” (Vale de Andrade, 2010).

The Prime Minister of Portugal prompted a panel to propose a national drug policy centered not around enforcement but on the concept of harm reduction. The policy proposed decriminalization of drug use. Enacted in 2000, the new strategy did not enforce the possession of drug quantities intended for personal use. The new policy also referred identified drug users to Drug Addiction Dissuasion Commissions. Following this reorientation of drug policy, “subsequent public discussion changed the view of drug users from criminals to people needing help. It also led to the conclusion that approaches that focus only on abstinence are not appropriate for every drug user.” (Vale de Andrade, 2010).

The decade that followed the policy changes displayed marked improvement. In 2005, the rate of drug injection had dropped down between one to three users per one thousand people. Deaths associated with drug use had decreased from one hundred thirty deaths in 2001 to only twenty in 2008. The number of new diagnoses of HIV dropped from over fourteen hundred in 2000 down to three hundred fifty cases in 2006. (Vale de Andrade, 2010).

The Dutch experience in Holland proves that harm reduction tactics combined with decriminalization is an effective policy. The county has recognized that drug use is commonplace and their laws reflect that knowledge. The central aim of Dutch drug policy is “the prevention and reduction of harm caused by drugs by reducing dangers of their use both to the community and to the individual.” This policy recognizes that drug use is a matter of public health, not that of judicial concern. While the country maintains laws regarding trafficking, possession of personal-use quantities of drugs is decriminalized. Marijuana is readily available for purchase at licensed coffee houses. A distinction is made between between what the Dutch courts consider 'hard' and 'soft' drugs. 'Hard' drugs are those which “involve an unacceptable degree of risk” such as highly addictive substances like opiates and cocaine. Marijuana and other recreational drugs for which lower risk of addiction occurs fall under the 'soft' category. (Hardaway, 2003).

Doctors are allowed to prescribe any drug to addicts in order to facilitate their recovery from addiction, although methadone is preferred. The goal for addicts is their continual engagement with society; demonization and punitive measures are not encouraged. A needle exchange program is in place for intravenous drug users. The program was based on the assumption that exchange programs would lead to safer practices among the drug using population. Increased drug use since the development of the exchange program has not occurred. (Hardaway, 2003).

Dutch policy regarding their youth population also display sound rationale. The sale of drugs to children under sixteen is prohibited and strictly enforced. Citizens sixteen and older can purchase marijuana in various forms. Youth-education programs are “devoid of moralizing messages and value judgments, and focus instead on the need to rationally calculate the costs versus the benefits of using drugs.” Comparing their data to that of a study done by the U.S. National High School Survey, the Dutch claim to have comparatively lower numbers in both drug use and frequency among youth populations. Marijuana and cocaine use is nearly three times higher among American students aged fifteen and below. For those aged seventeen and above, cocaine use is fourteen times greater in the United States. This data suggests that the Dutch policies have been successful in creating a society that is able to discourage hard drug use by combining harm reduction techniques and above-ground markets for marijuana. (Hardaway, 2003).

The Dutch data on adults suggests similar positive results stemming from their mandates. Holland has a lower usage rate in their adults when compared to the United States. Hard drug use is down to roughly two percent of the population. This is remarkable considering that hard drug use was occurring among fifteen percent of the population in 1979. Also notable is that since cocaine is decriminalized, there is insignificant crack cocaine use amongst the population. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that there is a degree of drug tourism patronizing the country. Numbers suggest that a full third of the drug using populace within Holland's borders are foreigners. “If other countries adopted the Dutch approach, the problem, obviously, would evaporate, since there would be no need for drug users to crowd into one country” (Gray, 2001.)

Although there are still federal laws prohibiting illicit drugs, more than a dozen states have decriminalized marijuana possession. Individual cities have also adopted this tactic, making possession arrests their lowest priority or making possession a civil infraction rather than a criminal violation. Evidence from the states and cities that have decriminalized marijuana display that the strategy is viable. A Connecticut study examining the states that had enacted decriminalization policies found that “(1) expenses for arrest and prosecution of marijuana possession offenses were significantly reduced, (2) any increase in the use of marijuana in those states was less than increased use in those states that did not decrease their penalties and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties, and (3) reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of the use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine." (Connecticut Law Review Commission, 1997). A survey among hospital emergency rooms concluded that "in contrast with marijuana use, rates of other illicit drug use among ER [emergency room] patients were substantially higher in states that did not decriminalize marijuana use. The lack of decriminalization might have encouraged greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana." (Model, 1993).

  Virtually any policy we could adopt would be better than the detrimental policies that are currently in place. Adopting outright legalization would be a radical change and is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future. Regulated and taxed distribution programs, while speculative, are still viable. The successful Dutch policies that allow above-ground markets for marijuana indicate that legalization and decriminalization policies are possible. If for no other reason, above-ground markets could de-incentivize the drug market and promote general welfare among our citizens. Starting with the most realistic recommendations, listed below are several policy alternatives to be considered.

Medical marijuana is an alternative if outright decriminalization of the plant cannot be agreed upon. Indeed, a handful of states have already adopted this policy in opposition to the federal policy. To enact the policy at the federal level, marijuana would need to be shifted from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II substance. This would allow doctors to prescribe the plant to their patients. “The viability of marijuana to relieve the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, and other serious illnesses has been proved, and it is heartless, if not criminal, to deprive suffering patients the relief that this substance can bring.” (Gray, 2001).

Legalizing marijuana and hemp could yield several beneficial effects. Marijuana laws were established through the promotion of fallacies and fear-mongering. The substance is certainly no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Allowing adults to possess and use the drug would ease the burden resting on the entire criminal justice system. Taxation could yield similar returns to that of alcohol and tobacco sales. Hemp possesses only a tiny fraction of the THC that marijuana plants contain and is impotent when used as a mind-altering drug. Harvesting the stalks of the plants could “re-institute a historically profitable industry. The legalization of hemp will make a major positive impact on our job market and our environment. At a time when more and more of our old growth forests are being withdrawn from logging operations, we can rejuvenate our industries for paper...and many other products from fast-growing hemp.” (Gray, 2001).

Harm reduction techniques such as needle exchange programs are beneficial and would be a move in the right direction as well. Needle exchange programs “have been proven materially to increase the health of the user while not increasing drug use or abuse. Further, they have the collateral benefit...of removing them from our streets, thereby reducing the risk” of injury and disease. (Gray, 2001).

Given the ineffectiveness of drug laws at the federal level, handing drug regulation back to individual states is another viable alternative. There have been massive costs incurred and no beneficial results have been realized. “We should...simply allow individual states to regulate it.” While it may create complications regarding the varying degrees of criminalization between states, this would be “a minor problem compared with wasting time and resources by trying to control it on a national level.” (Rowe, 2006).

Citations:

Beckett, Katherine & Theodore Sasson. 2004. The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America. Second Edition. California: Sage Publications.

Connecticut Law Review Commission. 1997. Drug Policy in Connecticut and Strategy Options: Report to the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. State Capitol: Hartford.

Gray, [Judge] James P. 2001. Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Hardaway, Robert M. 2003. No Price Too High: Victimless Crimes and the Ninth Amendment. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.

Model, Karyn. 1993. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on hospital emergency room episodes: 1975-1978. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88: 737-747.

Rowe, Thomas C. 2006. Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole. New York: Haworth Press.

Vale de Andrade, Paula. 2010. “Drug decriminalisation in Portugal.” British Medical Journal 341: c4554.

Walker, Samuel. 2011. Sense and Nonsense about Crime, Drugs, and Communities. Seventh Edition. California: Wadsworth.

Mead on Clockers

Following the format of the American Psycho paper, here is another application of theory: George Herbert Mead's theory applied to the novel Clockers.  Be warned: there are some spoilers if you have not read the book or seen the film. Again, please refrain from plagiarism.

From the University of Chicago's sociology department, George Herbert Mead emerged as one of the preeminent social psychologists of the day. Social psychologists are interested in studying the individual and their interactions with society. Mead's primary concern was to determine how modern persons are able to separate their thoughts and self-conscious from their actions. His answer was the pragmatic practice of role taking. A demonstration of Mead's concepts can be found in Richard Price's novel, Clockers.

To begin, we must first establish what Mead meant by 'modern person'. Prior to the Enlightenment and the rise of Protestant faith, individuals were perceived as unable to make their own decisions and were therefore dependent on group membership in religion and other social institutions to guide their lives. These were pre-modern persons. The Enlightenment and Protestant ethic countered this belief and contended that individuals were rational beings accountable for their own decisions. The 'modern person' is the rational individual who does not need to rely on social institutions to make decisions for them. (Allan, 140).

Pragmatism is a philosophical outlook that originated with this newfound modern person. Following the Civil War, Americans took a critical look at the ideas of morality and legitimacy that led to such a massive loss of life. Pragmatism is the belief that rational individuals are able to find meaning through the application of ideas that result in practical benefits. This is helpful to understanding Mead, because “Mead argues that the self is a social entity that is a practical necessity of every interaction. We need a self to act deliberately and to interact socially; it allows us to consider alternative lines of behavior and thus enables us to act rather than react. In pragmatism...decisions and ethics emerge out of a consensus that is based on a free and knowing subject: the self.” (Allan, 140).

Mead makes several initial assumptions regarding humans and society. He notes that humans are unique in that we differentiate ourselves from other animals by acting on stimulus rather than reacting to it. This is to say that after perceiving an environment and potential avenues of behavior, we use our rational mind to consider the options before selecting a response. “Actions requires the presence of a mind capable of symbolic, abstract thought and a self able to be the object of thought and action.” (Allan, 141).

He assumes that humans are a 'blank slate' when born, which is to say that our social interactions dictate our perceptions. We have no preconceived notions of social values when born; they are learned. Because we are capable of rational thought and have the ability to reason, we derive meaning from significant gestures and signs. These signs and gestures produce a “set of organized sets of responses.” (Allan, 142). Since the meaning of significant gestures is produced through social interaction, they become social objects. Social objects can be any idea or thing; it becomes a social object because we acknowledge, interact, and attach lines of behavior to it. Meaning is not inherently placed in any object. Meaning is reached through our perspectives and interactions. (Allan, 143).

Language is the primary significant gesture we use to interact. Language can be used to pragmatically control our environment and “this sign system comes to stand in the place of physical reality.” (Allan, 141). Society, then, “exists only as a set of attitudes, symbols, and imaginations that people may or may not use and modify in an interaction.” (Allan, 148). This brings us back to Mead's primary concern.“Because society is made up of interactions, the existence of human beings and the basic building blocks of society are wrapped up in understanding why people behave the way they do.” (Kruse, public presentation, February 27^th, 2012).

As mentioned above, the 'self' is a social entity. Role taking is the primary way humans develop a self and the ability to interact with others. “Role taking is the process through which we place our self in the position (or role) of another in order to see our own self” and “in every social situation, we make a role for ourselves.” (Allan, 144). The use of significant gestures is crucial here, as it allows a person to role take. Assuming roles is a pragmatic exercise, for it allows one to experiment with roles in order to find the ones that are most beneficial.

There are three stages of role taking. Role taking typically occurs with children as they progress in their maturation and socialization. The first stage is called the play stage. The play stage is the stage where one can “take the role, or assume the perspective, of certain significant others.” (Allan, 146). The purpose of this is to get outside of one's self in order to see their own self from a different point of view. The next stage is called the game stage. During this stage, “the child can take the perspective of several others and can take into account rules (sets of responses that different attitudes bring out) of society.” (Allan, 147). The last stage is called the generalized other stage. Prior to reaching this stage, a person has only been able to assume the role of specific others. The generalized other stage is the “sets of attitudes that an individual may take toward himself or herself – it is the general attitude or perspective of the community.” (Allan, 147). This allows the individual to possess a “less segmented self as the perspectives of many others are generalized into a single view.” (Allan, 147).

It is important to note that an individual is not just a reflection of the surrounding society, but that the self is an active process. Mead identifies the existence of the interactive parts of the self, known as the 'I' and the 'Me'. The 'I' is the part of the self that allows us to act spontaneously. The 'Me' is “the part of the self that takes into account how others feel and societal expectations of the behavior.” (Kruse, public presentation, February 27^th, 2012). Without the 'Me', our ability to act would be lost, for it helps the 'I' to act in a way that is socially acceptable. The 'Me' judges our behavior to determine whether or not it was the right course of action or if it will require modification in the future. The 'I' can act differently from the 'Me' and can “thus take action that the Me would never think of; it can act differently from the community.” (Allan, 149).

For the purposes of analyzing Clockers, one can use the concepts of the play stage and the 'I' and 'Me' parts of the self. As stated above, the play stage is a stage in development where one takes on a specific role in order to take a view of themselves from outside their normal behavior. The 'I' and 'Me' of the self are the two parts that take expected behaviors into account and choose to act in a specific way. After choosing the action, the 'Me' is able to evaluate the interaction and use that information to modify the course of action in the future.

Clockers is a novel that focuses on the intertwining lives of a group of drug dealers and police officers. The story is set in a housing project and the surrounding urban sprawl in the fictional town of Dempsey, New Jersey. The name of the book alludes to the very short career-span of a drug dealer, often measured in minutes rather than hours or days. A nineteen year old black male, Strike, is the main character. He is a small-time cocaine dealer who distributes the drug to a handful of even younger street dealers. His drug supply is provided by an aging dealer, Rodney.

Strike has grown weary with dealing drugs and is considering abandoning the lifestyle. He takes great efforts to conceal his profession and differentiates himself from other dealers by saving his money and keeping a low profile. Strike abhors uncleanliness and conflict and makes efforts to avoid either. Rodney offers Strike a promotion within their distribution chain that would take him off the street and allow him to make more money. Strike would be replacing a dealer named Darryl, whom Rodney has caught dealing cocaine from another supplier. The position will be given to Strike - but only if he kills Darryl.

After spending a day fretting over his options, Strike encounters his estranged brother, Victor, at a bar. While catching up, Strike concocts a vilifying story about Darryl in order to convince himself to commit the murder. Victor offers the services of a hit man who owes him a favor. Strike is surprised, since Victor has a family, two jobs, and has taken steps to distance himself from the crime surrounding their neighborhood. Strike assumes his brother is spouting drunken lies and dismisses the offer. Victor appears to keep his word, however, and Darryl is shot dead. Strike is shocked and does not know who is responsible for committing the murder.

Following the murder, Strike accepts the promotion. He begins grooming his replacement, an eleven year old from the projects, Tyrone. As Rodney introduces Strike to more members of the drug ring, Strike deduces that one of them is a friend of his brothers and therefore must have committed the murder. The homicide detectives assigned to Darryl's murder use their street connections to determine possible suspects. Despite his efforts to remain anonymous, the detectives identify Strike as a suspect since he stands to gain from the murder. The detectives question Strike but there is not enough evidence to arrest him. It is revealed that Victor was responsible for Darryl's murder, having impulsively committed the act after growing increasingly exasperated with his life.

Rodney is arrested on possession charges and he believes that the arrest stemmed from the police questioning Strike. Feeling betrayed, he sends an enforcer to kill Strike. Strike's young replacement, Tyrone, surmises that Strike will be killed and preemptively murders the enforcer. A local policeman who is a friend of Tyrone's family approaches Strike and threatens to kill him unless he leaves Dempsey. Strike uses his savings to buy an open-ended bus ticket and flees the city, his destination unknown.

A demonstration of the play stage can be found in the children in the projects, including Tyrone. Early in their interactions Strike displays a roll of money to Tyrone in an attempt to entice him, recalling that the “young boys around the project liked to tear and fold paper until they had a stack of blank pretend money and could play dope dealer, whipping out their roll, hiking one foot up on a bench and counting out loud like it was a good night.” (Price, 1992). These children have taken on the specific role of drug dealer and are acting out typical mannerisms in order to view themselves as potentially assuming that role in the future. Later on in the book, Strike looks around for Tyrone “and almost barked with surprise when he saw the kid rolling a bottle of vanilla Yoo-Hoo between his palms.” (Price, 1992). One of the things that Strike's is known for is drinking a bottle of vanilla Yoo-Hoo to calm his uneasy stomach. Strike's grooming has worked; Tyrone has picked up on this mannerism and has adopted it into a play stage that models Strike.

An example of the 'I' and 'Me' can be found within the description of an exchange between Strike and one of the homicide detectives working Darryl's murder case. The detective, Mazilli, owns a convenience store but rarely works there. Strike enters the store expecting one of the regular employees but instead finds Mazilli working behind the counter. Mazilli takes pleasure in tormenting Strike because Strike doesn't act like the typical drug dealer and Mazilli wishes to make Strike angry enough to draw out stereotypical bad behavior. Strike is caught off guard by Mazilli's presence, especially since he was “face-to-face with one of the cops charged with investigating Darryl's death. Strike took a second to compose himself, catch his breath.” (Price, 1992). Mazilli mimics Strike's urban slang in an attempt to anger him. Since Strike has braced himself for the interaction he exhibits restraint and is able to complete the transaction without breaking his composure. This is an example of Strike's 'Me' taking societal expectations into account, using his 'I' to make a decision and then acting accordingly. Mazilli wants Strike to act like a thuggish drug dealer but Strike knows that the course of action he decided to take was the proper one because he has not allowed Mazilli the satisfaction of seeing a break in character. This interaction provided a pragmatic result and will be stored for later and drawn upon in future communication.

As further reinforcement of the concept, the 'I' and 'Me' dictate the ending of Clockers. These two parts of the self are what influences Strike to break away from his normal modes of character when enticing Tyrone and involving the child in his life. Tyrone's actions following his connection with Strike have brought torment and grief upon multiple parties. Strike's predicament following the murder influences his decision to flee Dempsey at the end of the novel. Strike can no longer play the role of drug dealer, lest he tempt death at the hands of Rodney or the angered police officer. He considers his situation and acts in the best manner he sees fit. It is up to both the reader as well as Strike's 'Me' to determine if this was the best course of action.

Citations:

Allan, Kenneth. 2011. The Social Lens: An Invitation to Sociological Theory, 2^nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Kruse, Lisa. 2012, February 27^th. George Herbert Mead/Powerpoint presentation, Sociology 3000. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Mi.

Price, Richard. 1992. Clockers. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers.

A marxist spin on American Psycho

For your consideration: a sociological theory assignment that charged students to apply a theory to a movie. I chose Marxist socioeconomic theory and applied it to American Psycho. I have a bit of trepidation in publishing it here because I have the feeling that Marx may not have intended for the concepts to be applied to the bourgeoisie. If anyone feels like chiming in with an opinion or correction, feel free. The paper netted me an A+, so the prof must've bought it. Also, please don't plagiarize. Pretty please.

 

Our modern capitalist economic system has been criticized by myriad opponents. One of the most staunch critiques emanated from Karl Marx. Marx argued that capitalism prohibits humanity from realizing their worth, which leads to alienation, commodity fetish, and false consciousness. A standout example of the detrimental effects of capitalism can be found through analyzation of the protagonist Patrick Bateman in the film American Psycho.

All economic systems are characterized by the means and relations of production. Capitalism differs from other systems in that it does not derive value from the use or utility of an item but rather how much value the item can demand in an exchange. The use-value of an item subtracted from it's exchange-value equals profit. The exchange-value of an item will always be higher than it's use-value because of the human labor put forth in the production of the item. The value of human labor is calculated by determining a living wage (the amount required to feed, clothe, house and educate laborers). One of the goals of capitalism is to pay less than market value for labor. This technique is referred to as exploitation. (Kivitso, 1998: 11).

Reducing labor value can be achieved through lengthening the work day or shortening the time required to complete a task. Reducing required time is the primary method to gain profit. Capitalists reduce time through industrialization and mechanization of labor lines. Machines increase production, which in turn reduces the value of human labor, which leads to increased profit. Surplus labor pools allow capitalists the ability to dictate wages and further exploit workers. (Kivitso, 2011: 31).

Modern capitalism is characterized by the continual drive for profit. This requires expansion into new markets. Entering new markets is referred to as commodification. Commodification is an amoral exchange of money on the open market, further distancing the use- and exchange-value of an item. When the supply of a commodity extends past the demand, production must be slowed or stopped to reduce the loss of profit. This increases the available labor supply (unemployed laborers command a lower price) and concentrates capital in the hands of fewer people. (Allan, 2011: 48-52). The endless drive for profit and the exploitation of workers is the point in which Marxist socioeconomic theory begins to critique capitalism.

Marxist socioeconomic theory is founded on two tenets; species-being and the material dialectic. Species-being is the concept positing that humans find meaning through their ability to produce what is required to survive. The material dialectic is the concept positing that the means of production (material) directly influences continually striving social forces (dialectic). (Allan, 2011: 42-47).

Marx identified two primary classes in the modern capitalist system; the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are the business owners; social elites who control the means of production. The proletariat are the laborers; the working class. Members of the bourgeoisie interested in furthering their capitalistic ventures have an obligation to maintain the division between classes and prevent society's progress.

Marx argues that meaning and consciousness are derived from humanity's ability to produce. Industrialization and commodification are harmful processes working against humanity's production, and therefore, humanity's progress. Separation from production causes alienation from the work process, the product, and from other people. Alienation leads to the inability to detect the oppressive relationship between labor and worth and distorts our awareness of society. An alienated understanding of reality which is not centered upon creative production is known as false consciousness. Marxist theory posits that a profit-driven economy combined with alienation leads to a consumer culture that links self-worth to the accumulation of property and money. This is known as commodity fetish. Commodity fetish controls laborers. “Workers become infatuated with their own product as if it were an alien thing. It confronts them not as the work of their own hands, but as a commodity, something alien to them that they must buy and appropriate.” (Allan, 2011: 59).

The combination of false consciousness, alienation, and commodity fetish prevents laborers from realizing their worth and fomenting social change to reinstate a socioeconomic system that values both equality and meaning derived from production. Oppressed proletariats divide themselves along trivial lines such as ethnicity, sexual orientation and identity instead of uniting under their mutual subservience and rebelling against the bourgeoisie. Exploitative capitalists rely on oppressed workers to maintain the current divisions of labor that result in profit concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Alienation and commodity fetish are both influential concepts in the film American Psycho. As stated above, alienation is the feeling of detachment from society to which one should belong, and commodity fetish is the abnormal desire to possess signifiers of wealth. Both concepts factor heavily into the behavior of the film's protagonist, Patrick Bateman.

American Psycho is a film that centers on a circle of ultra-rich yuppies in the 1980s. Yuppies are young, well-paid urban professionals who lead lives of luxury and engage in conspicuous consumption. Bateman and his peers are successful New York businessmen and yuppie elite. The film's primary focus is Patrick Bateman's inability to interact with the rest of humanity, prompting him to commit an increasingly violent series of crimes which culminates in an episode of mass murder. The ending of the film allows a certain degree of ambiguity, leaving the audience to sort out what was reality and what was the product of Bateman's mental instability.

Patrick Bateman is an extremely alienated individual. He is the Vice President of an investment banking firm on Wall Street. Investment banking is a profession in which individuals are completely removed from production processes and instead rely solely on deriving worth from the exchange of capital on the open market. This separation from production deprives him of a meaningful existence. Through inference and observation, the audience learns that Bateman's position as Vice President is neither the result of hard work or his Harvard education but merely the title given to him because of family ties within the company. Bateman does not complete any meaningful work at the office. Instead, Patrick is most often found at his desk listlessly doodling, listening to pop music and browsing magazines. His daily routine provides him with no satisfaction whatsoever, which worsens his self-worth and increases his alienation.

Bateman is aware of his detachment and alienation. Early on in the film the character professes the desire to fit in to society but admits that greed and disgust are his only two emotions. Both greed and disgust are byproducts of his alienation within the capitalist structure of his time. His disgust stems from his dissatisfaction with both himself and society. His greed stems from an upbringing and education which emphasized a cutthroat capitalistic attitude. Bateman's lack of empathy impedes on any success he may have at attempting to be normal. His detachment and alienation are both likely contributors to his compulsion to engage in the increasingly violent encounters he commits through the entirety of the film. Patrick's false consciousness is so thoroughly entrenched from his lifelong socialization process that he fails to recognize the harm in his actions.

The sense of alienation is further worsened by multiple instances of minor characters mistaking Bateman's identity with other Wall Street yuppies employed at other investment firms. Bateman observes that he and almost all of his counterparts dress in similar suits, wear similar glasses, and adopt similar haircuts. The audience is left with the understanding that any one of these individuals is interchangeable with the next. The knowledge that he can be replaced exacerbates Bateman's poor self-worth and disillusionment with his environment.

Bateman lives an opulent lifestyle centered around consumerism and commodity fetish. His knowledge of fine clothing brands, dress code, and gourmet dining is referenced throughout the film. Because he is so wealthy that he can purchase almost anything, his commodity fetish manifests itself in curious ways. Instead of purchasing the usual signifiers of wealth like sports cars, yachts, or jewelry, Bateman instead fetishizes mundane items such as business cards. Members of Patrick's social circle pass around newly printed business cards in an attempt to impress the rest of the group. Patrick demonstrates an extraordinary knowledge of typeface, paper quality, and color options. He grows furious with jealousy when he perceives the group's approval of a card that Patrick considers inferior. Members of Bateman's peer group also compete for reservations at posh dining establishments with preposterous menu items. The competition over restaurant reservations serve as another example of the fetishization in a culture where price is no longer an object. When money cannot buy an object, the urge to possess the commodity is even fiercer.

Bateman's alienation and commodity fetish combine with regards to his excessive consumption of pop culture. This is likely due to his desire to appear normal when among people with whom he shares no common ground. He displays an encyclopedic knowledge of theater events, celebrity figures, and entertainment statistics. Patrick easily recites complex music reviews by rote. When engaged in a conversation about the social problems America is facing, Patrick launches into a speech which takes a popular liberal-leaning stance so clearly not of his own opinion that his friends are incredulous. They assume he is being ironic but the reality is that Bateman is too far alienated and detached to identify with most other people. The speech is given because he believes that answer is the expected response.

Much like Marx urges the workers to rebel against their oppressors, Bateman rebels against himself. Bateman's internal crisis regarding his void, meaningless lifestyle reaches a tipping point and he begins to engage in a string of ultra-violent sexual encounters and commits a series of murders. His behavior is a 'cry for help' from his psyche to break free from his false consciousness. He derives satisfaction from his violence; a deranged fashion in which to address his urge to produce. Despite several obvious indicators regarding his criminal behavior, no one around him is even aware of the murders (save one person – a vaguely suspicious detective). Near the end of the film Bateman even confesses to his lawyer, who thinks the confession to be a crass joke.

The film ends with Bateman reaching the conclusion that he will not be apprehended for his crimes. He has escaped detection, largely because the society in which he resides is just as alienated and vacant as Bateman is himself. Because he has not been apprehended, nothing has changed. His inner rebellion has been quashed by his oppressor; his own capitalist lifestyle. He condemns himself and those around him to the world they have created. 

Citations

Allan, Kenneth. 2011. The Social Lens: An Invitation to Sociological Theory, 2^nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Pine Forge Press.

Kivitso, Peter. 2011. Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited 5th edition. Thousand Oaks, California. Sage Publications.

Re-geared.

I was able to complete the FZ1's sprockets and chain replacement today. Process went WAY faster with power tools. Big thanks to Checkered Past Cycles.

I have no clue who owned the bike before me. Coulda been two, three, or eighteen owners before I bought it. Judging from the bike's miles, the chain and sprockets were almost guaranteed to be the original parts, and 30K miles is a good time to do a swap. I went with the stock gearing, since it's fast enough without adding a tooth or two. If anything, I feel like it could drop a tooth for more relaxed highway riding without giving up much acceleration. The front sprocket was very much in need of replacement. The back sprocket had some life left in it but the general rule for replacement is to do all three at a time.

I bought a chain/sprocket set from MotorcycleGear.com. The set is made by Regina Chain, an italian company. Italian means fast, right? Must be good. 

Whoever the previous owners were, they sure believed in prodigious application of chain lube.

This is what the front sprocket cover from a much-loved FZ1 looks like:

This is what the cover off my bike looked like:

Clearly a bit more...ahem...generous. I made some attempts to chisel off some of the buildup. Gave up after a while though, mostly because its not hurting anything and it was pretty well concreted on.

I purchased a Motion Pro PBR Chain Tool for the job, which is a three-in-one tool that can break, rivet, and press chains. Worked very well. Its a good deal for the money, since it does the job of three tools that you would otherwise have to purchase individually. Great job, consumer.

Anyways, finished result is a new chain. Its gold. Most high-end chains come with colored outer plates. Gold was the default with the Regina chains. I'm neutral about the gold. Looks better than the factory steel plates, and blue or red would be terrible.

Yay!

Life is good. I'm off for spring break. Weather looks good enough for a ride next week. Fingers crossed.

2-aught-12

Winter sucks. I want to be back on two wheels. Spring break is in a few weeks. I have a pile of parts to bolt on to the FZ1. I'm hoping to be done with various school assignments by then so I can have some wrench time.

I'm no mechanic but I think I can get the list completed in about twice the time it would take someone else. I'll be getting some help from the two blokes at Checkered Past Cycles, the new moto-restoration shop in Galesburg. They have graciously sublet their backroom to us Michigan riders who don't have bike storage and also allow people to wrench on their own machines at the shop. They have motorcycle lifts. In good condition, even. My bike and I have not known a finer location. If you're in the area take a look at the shop; the '60s MotoGP bike in the window will be a dead giveaway.

Pile 'o parts and maintenance awaiting the bike:
- Chain and sprockets - stock gearing and 530 chain.
- Crash bars
- Fuel filter
- Air filter check
- Rear brake fluid flush (and maybe pads while the wheel is off for the sprox)

C'mon spring.