Zero Tolerance

The term "zero tolerance" refers to government and private employer policies that require specific consequences or punishments for certain offenses. Most public schools now have zero-tolerance policies for firearms, weapons other than firearms, alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Generally, zero-tolerance policies are rigid, requiring harsh punishments for any level of improper behavior, with no room for explanations or excuses. The courts have endorsed drug-testing programs that allow employers to enforce zero-tolerance policies.

Zero tolerance is also a general attitude toward drug use. According to this perspective, the use of any amount of illegal drugs is harmful to the individual and society, and the goal of drug policy should be to prohibit any and all illegal drug use. A contrasting viewpoint holds that not all drug use is equally harmful. According to this view, occasional use of drugs should be viewed as something different from and less serious than consistent, problem drug use. People who take this view argue that, although the absence of all drug use is desirable, the resources of government would be used more efficiently if they targeted problem users as well as the causes of illegal drug use.

Originally, zero tolerance was a federal drug policy begun during the War on Drugs campaign of the Reagan and Bush administrations (1981–1993). This policy was designed to prohibit the transfer of illicit drugs across U.S. borders. No possession, import, or export of illegal drugs was to be tolerated, and possession of any measurable amount of illegal drugs was subject to all available civil and criminal punishments. Zero tolerance was an example of a criminal justice approach to drug control. In this approach, the criminal justice system is responsible for the control of drugs, and the use of drugs is regarded as a criminal act.

Under the zero-tolerance policy, law-enforcement agents target users of illegal drugs rather than dealers or transporters. Zero-tolerance advocates argue that users create the demand for drugs and are therefore the root cause of the drug problem. A zero-tolerance policy is based on the idea that, if demand for drugs can be curbed by harshly punishing users, the supply of drugs flowing into the country will decrease.

The U.S. Customs Service, together with the U.S. Attorney's office in San Diego, California, initiated the zero-tolerance policy as part of an effort to stop drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexican border. Individuals in possession of illegal drugs were arrested and charged with both a misdemeanor and a felony offense. Customs Service officials believed the policy was successful at reducing the flow of drugs across the border and recommended that it be put to use nationwide. Subsequently, the National Drug Policy Board, together with the White House Conference on a Drug-Free America, had all federal drug-enforcement agencies adopt the zero-tolerance policy in 1988, at all points of entry into the United States.

The policy did not require that new laws or regulations be enacted. Instead, it required strict interpretation and enforcement of existing laws. In practice, it meant that if any amount of drugs was found on any type of vehicle, including bicycles, transfer trucks, and yachts, the vehicle would be seized and the passengers arrested. The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs Service began to crack down on all cases of drug possession on the water and at all borders. If, during the course of their regular patrols and inspections, Coast Guard personnel boarded a vessel and found one marijuana cigarette, or even the remnants of a marijuana cigarette, they arrested the individual and seized the boat. Previously, the Coast Guard had either looked the other way or issued fines when personal-use quantities of illegal substances were discovered.

Many criticized zero tolerance because it used up the resources of federal agencies to identify individual drug users rather than to stop the flow of major quantities of drugs into the country for sale on the streets. The policy of seizing boats upon the discovery of trace amounts of drugs was also controversial. Some believed the policy to be an unfair and unusually harsh punishment. In this view, seizing a commercial boat that is the sole source of income for an individual or family is too severe a penalty for possession of one marijuana cigarette. In some highly publicized cases, commercial fishing boats were seized on scant evidence that the boat owner was responsible for the illegal drugs found on board.

Zero tolerance is widely applied in many workplaces and schools around the country. A zero-tolerance approach typically requires that employees undergo drug testing. In the late 1970s, employees challenged these policies in the courts. However, in 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court, in New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, ruled that a city agency did not violate the U.S. Constitution by refusingto employ people who regularly used narcotic drugs. This zero-tolerance decision has been extended to various employment situations. By 2000, many employers routinely required a drug test as part of the employee hiring process. Applicants who fail the test usually are not hired because of zero tolerance.

Zero tolerance has become a standard part of U.S. public schools. After the rash of school shootings in the 1990s, public interest grew in zero-tolerance weapons policies. Zero-tolerance drug polices are also part of school rules. Zero tolerance has widespread public support, as it requires high standards and signals a tough attitude toward drugs and school violence.

Nevertheless, zero tolerance has many critics. Critics compare zero tolerance to mandatory minimum sentencing in the criminal justice system. Under both schemes, there are no exceptions made for individual circumstances. This results in punishments that appear excessive, such as a student suspension for bringing aspirin to school without permission.

Law and Policy: Controls on Drug Trafficking; Law and Policy: Drug Legalization Debate; Law and Policy: Modern Enforcement, Prosecution, and Sentencing; Schools, Drug Use In