The War on Drugs: An Overview

Discuss about the War on Drugs for Ecstasy and Prescription Drugs.

The literal meaning of the phrase ‘war on drugs’ refers to the ban imposed by the U.S Federal government on the exploitation of a wide spectrum of drugs that finds application in different sectors. These drugs are generally classified as the psychoactive drugs and are abused by non-prescribed patients. However, it is critical here to note that even though an annual sum of about $1 trillion is spent for enforcing strict laws on the extensive drug abuse but still statistics have not testified a massive reduction in the number of illegal drug exploitation for a tenure of about 10 years (Griffin,2017). The US federal government spends a handsome amount of about $350 billion for the implementation of strict policies pertaining to ‘war on drugs’, however only a meagre amount of about 7 billion dollars is spent for improving policies on ways related to the preventative measures (Hari,2015). It must be noted here that the ‘war on drug’ policies are majorly focused on the imposition of penalty schemes on guilty organizations rather than being focused on developing strong strategies that would lead to prevention of the crimes associated with drug abuse. This report deals with the critical analysis of papers available on ‘war on drugs’ and further presents an argument on the efficient implementation of the policies to ensure prevention of illegal drug abuse. The paper would elaborately discuss the available strategies and argue on the degree of effectiveness of the strategies. Further, the paper would discuss some of the amendments that could be incorporated in order to increase the effectiveness of the legal proceedings under the ‘war on drugs’. ‘War on drugs has been a debatable topic since a long time and the US government has failed to introduce strict reforms regarding the problem. It is significant to note here that according to the data revealed by the statistics of the recent years, leading developed nations hosts more than 25% of the prison inmates charged with the crime of illegal drug abuse and exploitation. It has been testified that 2 out of 3 prisoners are charged with the crime of drug trafficking and hence the American law believes in imposing severe and strict punishments on culprits accused of the crime, which is extremely vague and irrational an approach (Carpenter,2014). The law framing body believes in enforcing strict punishments on the users so as to create a sense of terror that would develop among the societies that are the master controllers of illegal drug trading (Bergen-Cico,2015). The problem here is that, instead of punishing the culprits the law framing body first needs to devise adequate measures that would help them identify the root cause that is responsible for making the unlawful pharmaceutical drugs available to a major proportion of the common population. On being able to identify the antisocial groups associated with drug trafficking, developing preventative measures would become more absolute and convenient. Drug trafficking has become a major concern in context of the present scenario and the situation requires immediate attention and designing of firm laws so as to help in reducing the episodes of criminal events to a great extent( Becker & Murphy,2013).

Effectiveness of Current Policies and Strategies

The ‘war on drugs’ has remained a controversial topic of discussion since time immemorial. As stated before, it basically includes the policy of prohibition and protection of illegal drug usage and also the inclusion of military aid being taken control of under the US government (Ahrens,2013). It is important to consider the fact that to what extent are the strategies being implemented for the protection of these drugs effective? President Richard Nixon, was the first person to have introduced the term ‘war on drugs’ (Melanson,2015). However, during the time period of Obama administration, it was brought to the notice of the people that the use of the phrase ‘war on drugs’ created a negative feeling and henceforth, the administration refrained from using the similar term. Global arguments pertaining to the judgement of advantages and disadvantages of ‘war on drugs’ has been aglobal concern. It has been documented through various informations published on the newspapers that ‘war on drugs’ has been effective to quite an extent. According a newspaper article published on 11^th of March, 2010, the Swindon police confirmed the fact that the team has been quite successful with the implementation of preventive policies and arrested as many as 60 people who have been accused of practicing illegal drug trade (Abrams,2013). The Swindon police has successfully investigated the drug trafficking trend and identified the major circles involved in the unlawful practices. However there have been several different opinions on the same practice. John Hawkins in an interview has expressed an honest and positive opinion about the eradication of drug trafficking crime and has mentioned that despite the hard efforts taken up the Drug Control Department’ it must be noted that ‘war on drugs’ is not an absolute subject which means that the complete eradication of the issue pertaining to trafficking is impossible to eradicate (Khenti,2014). The same reason explains why despite launching invariable campaigns against sexual harassment and rapes, it is still impossible to eradicate these two social evils completely.

It is a common notion that the scarcity of a commodity is directly proportional to price hike. The ‘war on drug’ has initiated a ban on certain drugs pertaining to the cessation of the coca plantation farm in Columbia (Lassiter,2015). The ban strategy is identified to be a positive and sound approach because banning correlates with the decrease in supply of the goods and as a result it leads to the scarcity of the distribution of the drugs (Golub & Bennett,2013). Along with that the ban imposed on the drug leads to a legal consideration and restriction in terms of circulation in the market. Hence it can be said that banning initiated under the ‘war on drugs’ has significantly helped in minimising the circulation due to reduced supply of the illegal drugs in the market (Seelve,2015). This also refers to a positive argument in favour of the successful implementation of the policies on drug trafficking in the market.

Amendments to Increase Efficacy

Another argument in favour of ‘war on drugs’ include the comments in favour of the argument that ‘drugs fund terrorism’ (Netherland & Hansen,2016). The firm belief in favour of the argument dates back to the time when the former president of the United States of America, George Washington Bush signed the drug-free community act reauthorization bill in the year 2001 and appealed to all the citizens of the United States of America to openly detest the use of illegal drugs (Meier,2016). It is also mentioned that most of the crimes committed in context of illegal drug use is committed mainly by the drug users and not by the proportion of people engaged in the process of buying the drugs. Studies also reveal that the launch of successful campaigns to promote the idea of drug abuse as a social evil among people have led to a decrease in the rate of drug trafficking in many areas of the world (McDermott,2015).

However, it is critical to note here that there are numerous counter arguments published worldwide that depict the faults and lacuna associated with the policy of ‘war on drugs’. The first set of counter argument state that the reduction in the number of drug abusers based on the assumption of the fact that enforcing strict laws would lead to a decline in the rate of addicts is not completely true. This is backed up by ample statistical evidences that reveal the fact that despite Sweden and Great Britain enforcing stringent laws in order to control drug abuse, the number of addicts is equal in proportion compared to liberal nations like Norway (Meinhofer,2016). Also, illegal practice of consumption of drugs have been blamed on the cultural and racial background of a certain set of population but the fact is the mentioned criteria used for description is only theoretical in nature with not much substantial proof to back up the fact (Baum,2016).

Another counter argument against the war on drugs policy states that despite spending a trillion on trying to eradicate the evil of drug trafficking by all means pertaining to manufacture, supply and consumption of illegal drugs, the efforts have not been able to bear sweet fruits of success which is because despite all the preventative measures it is critical to note that the concept of drug consumption would be there in the society without fail and also that the percentage of the people concerned with the consumption of the drugs belong to the young population that is extremely carefree and has submitted to addiction in every form (Osorio,2015). It is a matter of acceptance that despite trying to incorporate reform laws in terms of legalising consumption of certain drugs such as cocaine and heroin and increasing the taxes on the drugs in order to generate a higher revenue, it is a significant point to note that the target audience that practices drug abuse would still go for the purchase of the drugs from the black market, which is because, legalising the drug is equivalent to imposing a tax and doubling the market value of the same drug which although legal is an abnormally high amount to be paid by the addicts (Rincon-Ruiz & Kallis,2013). Therefore, the drug abusers would ultimately prefer resorting to the illegal use of these drugs. Hence, these are some of the factors that highlight the shortcomings of the policies framed on the ‘war on drugs’.

Counter Arguments Against the ‘War on Drugs’

Drug abuse and drug trafficking has been an area of indomitable topic of debate for many years with arguments in favour and against the subject. Drug trafficking is a crime and elicits dangerous responses among the people, the primary and the most serious one being ‘addiction’ (Walters,2014). The ‘War on drugs’ is nothing but an American law that had initially been framed keeping in mind the dangerous impact of the drug exploitation all over the world. The law was framed in order to combat with problems related to a significant hike in the number of drug abusers globally and for the introduction and implementation of laws that would safeguard the use of certain drugs and ensure preventative measure for the same. Although the topic under discussion incorporates a number of counter arguments that highlights the futility of the introduction of the laws but at the same time it must be admitted that reforms take time to get noticed. As recommendations, the framing of laws with a shift in the central focus from the drug abusers to identification of the network of people that are involved with the racket of drug trafficking would help in better implementation and success rates associated with the policies. Another important factor for consideration is to spread awareness related to drug abuse at every level starting from school level to college level is extremely necessary. There must be a substantial increase in the number of awareness campaigns that would throw light on the disastrous side-effects of the illegal drugs would help the people all over the world to know about the ugly side that is in store for them for the ‘one episode of happiness’ that they experience. It is important to note here that a society with complete exclusion from social evils is something next to impossible. There have been numerous attempts in order to eradicate several crimes from the world including human trafficking, child labour and rapes but inspite of enforcing strict reform laws in certain parts of the world that incorporates capital punishment as a penalty to the above said crimes, the rate of crimes have not diminished completely. Hence, it can be said that in a society, social evils are inevitable, however that does not mean that any effort or attempt taken to stop the crime is invalid and futile. There has to be amendment in the policies pertaining to drug abuse and drug trafficking with the aim of identification and cessation of communities that are concerned with the marketing of the illegal drug use. Launching awareness schemes and establishment of more number of rehabilitation centres would help in fighting drug abuse and lowering the incidences related to drug trafficking. The primary motto of the awareness campaigns should be create a ‘drug-free and a healthy’ society that would help in building a happier and a healthy environment for one and all.

References:

Abrams, L. S. (2013). Juvenile justice at a crossroads: Science, evidence, and twenty-first century reform. Social Service Review, 87(4), 725-752.

Ahrens, D. (2013). Drug panics in the twenty-first century: Ecstasy, prescription drugs, and the reframing of the war on drugs. Alb. Gov’t L. Rev., 6, 397.

Baum, D. (2016). Legalize it all. Harper’s magazine, 24.

Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. M. (2013). Have we lost the war on drugs?. Wall Street Journal, 4.

Bergen-Cico, D. K. (2015). War and drugs: The role of military conflict in the development of substance abuse. Routledge.

Carpenter, T. G. (2014). Bad neighbor policy: Washington’s futile war on drugs in Latin America. St. Martin’s Press.

Golub, A., & Bennett, A. S. (2013). Prescription opioid initiation, correlates, and consequences among a sample of OEF/OIF military personnel. Substance use & misuse, 48(10), 811-820.

Griffin III, O. H. (2017). War on Drugs. The Encyclopedia of Corrections, 1-7.

Hari, J. (2015). Chasing the scream: The first and last days of the war on drugs. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Khenti, A. (2014). The Canadian war on drugs: Structural violence and unequal treatment of Black Canadians. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(2), 190-195.

Lassiter, M. D. (2015). Impossible Criminals: The Suburban Imperatives of America’s War on Drugs. Journal of American History, 102(1), 126-140.

McDermott, V. (2015). The war on drugs in sport: Moral panics and organizational legitimacy. Routledge.

Meier, K. J. (2016). The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol and Public Policy: Drugs, Alcohol and Public Policy. Routledge.

Meinhofer, A. (2016). The war on drugs: Estimating the effect of prescription drug supply-side interventions.

Melanson, R. A. (2015). American foreign policy since the Vietnam War: The search for consensus from Nixon to Clinton. Routledge.

Netherland, J., & Hansen, H. B. (2016). The war on drugs that wasn’t: wasted whiteness,“Dirty Doctors,” and race in media coverage of prescription opioid misuse. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 40(4), 664-686.

Osorio, J. (2015). The contagion of drug violence: spatiotemporal dynamics of the Mexican war on drugs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(8), 1403-1432.

Rincón-Ruiz, A., &Kallis, G. (2013). Caught in the middle, Colombia’s war on drugs and its effects on forest and people. Geoforum, 46, 60-78.

Seelye, K. Q. (2015). In heroin crisis, white families seek gentler war on drugs. The New York Times, 30.

Walters, G. D. (2014). Drugs, Crime, and Their Relationships. Burlington, MA: Jones &Barlett Learning.