War on Drugs At The State Level Essay

Introduction

Forty years ago, US President Richard Nixon declared drugs “public enemy number one.” Today, the UN Global Commission on Drug Policy reports that this war is likely to be lost. According to the report, the war on drug trafficking has only strengthened the positions of drug traffickers and organized crime; at the same time, this fight is also expensive for taxpayers (Global Commission on Drug Policy, September 2015). And still, the US government strongly rejects the conclusions of similar reports. Recently, the White House has once again confirmed the immutability of the position that the drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and cured.

Indeed, the history has demonstrated that the drugs issue cannot be solved completely and irrevocably. Epidemics of drug use arise and go out, and some average consumption level remains (Global Commission on Drug Policy, October 2015). Therefore, sensible politicians and experts throughout the world and Latin America in the first place should not just be calling to stop the so-called war on drug dealers, but strengthen the alternative approaches focused on prevention, educational programs, as well as advertising and promotion of a healthy lifestyle. Further in this paper, we will discuss the extent to which prohibition policies might be failures, as well as focus on methods that could constitute the new plan for action.

The effects of drug prohibition policies

The global war on drugs was launched in 1914 with the so-called Harrison Act, which was later transformed into the UN convention. As the set of bans spread throughout the world, so did the simple and attractive idea of abuse and addiction: in essence, it is a chemical reaction, and drugs “steal the brains” of their victims. As Welna and Gallon (419) mark, the idea of addiction stealing mind was so attractive 100 years ago because it fit well into the idea that just destroying drugs by spraying poisons, banning or withdrawing it would solve the problem. Thus, drugs created the problem, not people. It is easy to understand such aspirations – everyone likes simple solutions. However, there are much more aspects of the problem, and they include the economic dependence of drug trafficking, modern mafia, penetration of drugs into judicial systems, and legal vulnerability of drug addicts.

As a result, in 2012 the International Institute for Strategic Studies published the report “Drugs, Insecurity and Failed States: The Problems of Prohibition,” which concluded that existing law enforcement practice not only failed to win the war on drugs, but over the past decade, the consumption of opium-containing substances worldwide has increased by 35%, cocaine – 27%, marijuana – by 8.5%. The annual turnover of illegal drug trade in the world is estimated at $320 billion, and the war aimed at stopping the drug trafficking costs $100 billion annually (IISS). Moreover, war on drugs is also now seen by many experts as a major cause of the violence and instability in the countries of transit and production of drugs (IISS; LSE Expert Group; Taylor et al. 121; Paley 111; Jonsson et al. 543; etc.).

In this respect, the example of Afghanistan is very revealing. As Caulkins states, trade in opium corrupts Afghan authorities at all levels – it arms the militants and their leaders and undermines the security and development. In a country like Afghanistan, with weak institutions, remote areas ready for poppy cultivation, and well-established smuggling network, politicians are leading a predeterminedly lost fight. It is obvious that not only the illegal trade migrates into uncontrolled areas (Walker 89-92), but these areas are populated by people living in extreme poverty, which exacerbates the problem (Caulkins; IISS).

Similarly, the export of drugs for more than half a century has been sponsoring the fight of the FARC group against the Government of Colombia. According to Jonsson et al. (545), the sale of cocaine brings the FARC up to $3.5 billion annually; the US intelligence considers the Colombian rebels the world’s third richest terrorist organization following only ISIS and Hamas. As a result, Colombia holds the title of the main supplier of cocaine to the world market, as pollination of coca planting areas with herbicides from the air had to be aborted after the recognition of the fact that the farmers today have no alternatives to growing coca (Linton 67-69; Jonsson et al. 546-7; Welna and Gallon).

Eventally, according to an expert of the Brookings Research Institute explained in 2014, any prohibition anti-drug measures can set the population against the government, especially in situations where the production and transportation of drugs is the only source of income, and this dissatisfaction may lead to the further increase in the level of violence (Caulkins). For example, public beheading and kidnapping people have been the most vivid manifestation of the tactics of the ruthless drug cartels as a response to the Mérida Initiative. The result of such a war is 80 thousand people overall killed in Mexico (Linton 25), and 260 thousand lives taken by the civil war in Colombia (Jonsson et al. 542). To make matters worse, as Walker (94) marks, drug cartels are able to stay afloat even fighting with big governments because the war on drugs leads to a rise in price of the banned substances.

On the other hand, as Taylor et al. (119-21) emphasize, the war on drugs contributes to massive arrests: each fifth inmate is imprisoned for crimes related to drugs. Due to the black drug market, about 2000 drug-related murders are committed every year by different criminal groups (Taylor et al. 122). In addition, the fight against drugs exposes racial prejudice: African Americans are much more likely to end up in prison because of drugs, even if they do not consume them and do not sell in large amounts (Taylor et al. 124). Along with that, as LSE Expert Group reasonably notes, the war on drugs constantly serves as a justification for restrictions of civil liberties starting with wiretapping and ending with the confiscation of property of citizens, who are only suspected of crimes. In the end, more than 20 000 people die from drug overdoses in the United States annually (Global Commission on Drug Policy, October 2015).

Overall, the research by Paley in 2015 and Caulkins in 2016 proved that there are no convincing arguments in favor of an assumption that more severe penalties or stricter restrictions on the supply of drugs are more effective than usual. Stiffening the penalties or eradication can only slow down a little the delivery of drugs to the market. Moreover, reducing availability is a direct consequence of not the war on drugs but the fact that drugs are simply illegal. The lack of direct routes from the manufacturer to the buyer already makes drugs difficult to get and expensive. Meanwhile, the Obama administration does not consider the legalization of drugs. The supporters of the drug control reform argue that in spite of the new terminology, a large part of the budget, as before, is spent on the activity of law enforcement bodies (Paley 115). However, as long as the use of drugs is a crime, people will be afraid to seek medical help. This policy has already shown its incapacity, and most experts now come to the conclusion that it is time to try alternative approaches.

Alternative policies in fighting the distribution and consumption of drugs

An important role in the current devaluation of prohibitionism belongs to all sorts of alternatives to prohibition, which are now being tested in different countries. When some prosperous regions of Europe have already announced the decriminalization or complete legalization of cannabis, the critics were convinced that the outcome was predetermined: the growth of consumption, the spread of drug addiction and social catastrophe. Instead, the examples of Switzerland, Uruguay, the Netherlands, and, above all, Portugal have shown their effectiveness. Thus, as Paley (117-21) explains, Portugal abolished criminal liability for personal use of drugs including heroin in 2001, and since that time, a number of studies and assessments have shown similar but no less astonishing figures: in the ten years of absence of prohibitions and penalties, the Portuguese consumed fewer drugs than any average European. The use of drugs through injections, in particular heroin, has declined by half. The number of 15- and 16-year-olds smoking marijuana has turned out to be the lowest in the EU.

Going further in this direction, in 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize the production, sale and consumption of marijuana where shadow trafficking was estimated at $ 40 million per year (Caulkins). Government claims that legalization provided Uruguay with a chance to decrease the cost of maintaining offenders previously convicted for drug-related crimes, as well as reduce the consumption of more serious drugs, including coca paste, which is a cheap product of primary cocaine extraction destroying the health of the poorest layers of Latin population. In general, taking control of marijuana production and sale shows to be effective in adjusting its value, and thus making it affordable enough to be the preferred choice for those who would turn to heavier drugs otherwise (Global Commission on Drug Policy, October 2015). Today, 24 US states have legalized marijuana use for medical purposes (Lopez). But what prevents governments of countries distributors and consumers from going further?

First of all, as has been discussed at the recent Special Session of UN General Assembly, the legalization of drugs would allow Latin America to move drugs from the black market, thus destroying the giant source of income of criminal organizations (The Economist; Miroff). Even if this does not bring down the criminal groups, this will significantly weaken them and make them more manageable in countries with weak state structures. In addition, according to LSE Expert Group forecasts, the overabundance of goods will lead to a collapse in prices and make the business unprofitable. First, cartels may try to do another business, but the fact is that there is no simpler and yet more profitable course of action on the black market than drug trafficking. In the future, as suggested by the new Colombia Plan, there is a possibility for amnesty of gangs like FARC and the allocation of funds for activities to integrate the rebels into civilian life (Miroff).

In addition, today the presidents of Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico also insist on putting an end to the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of drug users (The Economist). Indeed, on the banned unregulated market there is no quality control, no hygiene guidelines and no recommendations for safe use. Meanwhile, the decriminalization of drug possession will provide access to health services for drug addicts (LSE Expert Group; Global Commission on Drug Policy, October 2015). Firstly, this measure allows avoiding deaths, overdoses and use of street unclean heroin. Secondly, it significantly relieves social tension: a dependent person has no need to commit a crime in order to get the opportunity to use the substance. Thirdly, it eliminates the factor of the ban that makes illegal substances very fashionable among young people. After the lifting of the ban, it will be about the people, whom society and the state will primarily regard as sick.

The new strategy of viewing the situation as a problem of public security and public health both in Latin America and beyond it can include a needle exchange program, which should attract addicts in hospitals, as well as the controlled delivery of heroin to drug users, which has been practiced in Europe, including the UK (LSE Expert Group; Global Commission on Drug Policy, October 2015). Overall, it is expected that each of these measures will reduce the level of drug use among young people in the next five years at least by 15% and affect the associated problems (LSE Expert Group). For example, getting heroin legally and under supervision, hard-to-treat opioid users, who could not be helped by ordinary therapies, can take drugs in a safe environment without breaking the law in order to buy heroin. In particular, this approach helped reduce drug-related crime in Switzerland. According to EMCDDA report, the societal savings per person per year in Supervised injectable heroin treatment (SIH) make 15,000 euro in the Netherlands, 13,000 euro in Switzerland and 6,000 euro in Germany due to the reduction of spending on criminal procedures and imprisonment.

Regarding the risk of legalization issue, governments can take preventive measures, such as raising taxes and to restricting the places where drugs can be sold, which will make buying drugs more difficult and at the same time much safer than in a completely uncontrolled black market (Caulkins). It is also necessary to strengthen educational initiatives, especially information campaigns focused on harm reduction, and even warning stickers, which give a clear message about the dangers of certain drugs. In particular, experts on public health give these initiatives credit for the reduction of smoking rates, which, according to federal figures, fell from 42.4% of US adults in 1965 to 19% in 2011 (Global Commission on Drug Policy, September 2015).

Moreover, today half of the world’s volume of opium is grown for the legal market of opiates, for instance, Great Britain alone grows 3,500 hectares (LSE Expert Group). Legitimate drug trade does not finance the leaders of armed groups, and there are no reasons why it cannot be expanded by including it in it a non-medical trade and consumption. In general, if drugs were legalized and regulated, the advantages with respect to the life, health and freedom of drug users, and the life, health and property of the population would be enormous.

Conclusion

A variety of the mentioned alternative approaches only briefly describes a number of methods by which the US can facilitate the war on drugs. Their general sense is that America eventually will find itself in a world where drugs are legal, decriminalized or at least, much more accessible, and this requires a policy focused on harm reduction rather than the meaningless attempts to stop drug flow from the countries where they are legalized.

The establishment of government control over the global drug trade through legal regulation will eliminate the incentive for those who produces and transports drugs in vulnerable and insecure regions. In turn, the establishment of medical and pharmaceutical control over the distribution of drugs will save lives, improve health and reduce the crime rate. Ultimately, it will be possible to improve the unfavorable conditions of life that lead so many layers of society in both developed and developing countries to the degradation and poverty. Taking responsibility for the failure of global prohibitionism and putting the global drug trade under the control of legal regulation, modern governments can put an end to the war on drugs as we know it today.

Works Cited:

Caulkins, Jonathan P. After the Grand Fracture: Scenarios for the Collapse of the International Drug Control Regime. Improving Global Drug Policy: Comparative Perspectives and UNGASS, 2016. PDF. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Caulkinsfinal.pdf?la=en

EMCDDA. “EMCDDA report presents latest evidence on heroin-assisted treatment for hard-to-treat opioid users.” EMCDDA Official Website, April 19 (2012). Web. Retrieved from http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/news/2012/1

Global Commission on Drug Policy. The negative impact of drug control on public health: The global crisis of avoidable pain. Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, October 2015. Web. Retrieved from http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/reports/the-negative-impact-of-drug-control-on-public-health-the-global-crisis-of-avoidable-pain/

Global Commission on Drug Policy. Taking Control: Pathways to Drug Policies That Work. Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, September 2015. Web. Retrieved from http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/reports/taking-control-pathways-to-drug-policies-that-work/

IISS. Drugs, Insecurity and Failed States: The problems of prohibition. IISS Official Website, April 23, 2012. Web. Retrieved from http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/adelphi/by%20year/2012-e76b/drugs–insecurity-and-failed-states–the-problems-of-prohibition-sh-bbb4

Jonsson, Michael, Brennan, Elliot, and Christopher O’Hara. “Financing War or Facilitating Peace? The Impact of Rebel Drug Trafficking on Peace Negotiations in Colombia and Myanmar.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 39.6 (2016): 542-559. Print.

Linton, Magnus, and John Eason. Cocaina: A Book on Those Who Make It. Soft Skull Press, 2014. Print.

Lopez, German. “The spread of marijuana legalization, explained”. Vox, April 20 (2016). Web. Retrieved from http://www.vox.com/cards/marijuana-legalization

LSE Expert Group. Ending the Drug Wars. LSE Expert Group on the Economics of Drug Policy, 2014. PDF. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/reports/pdf/LSE-IDEAS-DRUGS-REPORT-FINAL-WEB01.pdf

Miroff, Nick. “Colombia is preparing for peace. So are its drug traffickers.” The Washington Post Online, Feb 2, 2016. Web. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/colombia-is-preparing-for-peace-so-are-its-drug-traffickers/2016/02/02/eea8ac03-c815-4cdf-b139-2dff7eaec882_story.html

Paley, Dawn. “Drug War as Neoliberal Trojan Horse,” Latin American Perspectives, 42.5 (2015): 109-132. Print.

Taylor, Stuart, Buchanan, Julian, and Tammy Ayres. “Prohibition, privilege and the drug apartheid: The failure of drug policy reform to address the underlying fallacies of drug prohibition.” Criminology and Criminal Justice, February 22 (2016): 114-135. Print.

The Economist. “Five former presidents demand an end to the war on drugs.” The Economist Online, May 24, 2016. Web. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/international/21695714-dont-hold-your-breatha-un-summit-drugs-next-month-looks-likely-be-flop-five

Walker, Margath A. “Borders, One-Dimensionality, and Illusion in the War on Drugs.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33.1 (2015): 84-100. Print.

Welna, Christopher, and Gustavo Gallon. Peace, Democracy, and Human Rights in Colombia. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007. Print.

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 28, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person