War on Drugs in the United States

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
History
Cost
Effects
Condemnation
References

Introduction

The United States of America has undertaken a prohibition campaign, which has been referred to as the War on Drugs and has been assisted and supported by a number of countries. In this regard, the illegal trade of drugs is being combated by the abovementioned participating countries of the campaign. In addition, the government deems a few psychoactive substances as harmful for them, and therefore, the supply of these substances is being curbed, and their demand is being diminished by the participants of the campaign.

Moreover, a set of laws, as well as policies, have been included in this initiative, and these policies are trying their best that production, as well as consumption of these substances, must be discouraged around the world. In this regard, we will try to understand the thought and ideas that are behind the war on drugs and will analyze the reliability of the need for this war on drugs in the world. In order to understand any subject, it is very important to understand the basis of the matter, and therefore, it is very imperative to know the history and background of the war on drugs, which can help in better understanding the necessity of the war on drugs.

History

In its broadest sense, the shipment of opium was prohibited by China and the United States in the year 1880, which can be considered as the beginning of the War on Drugs. In this regard, drug prohibition was practiced during the most widely known period in American history during the years from 1920 to the year 1933 by the United States alcohol prohibition. (Wisotsky, 1986) However, drug prohibition was formally enhanced by the designing of a new set of initiatives and policies by President Richard Nixon in the year 1971. In the year 1988, centralization of the coordination for the drug-related legislative was done by the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. (Fisher, 2006)

Cost

In order to understand the effectiveness of any project, the cost is considered as one of the important factors to measure efficiency and reliability. Thus, the analysis of the cost of the Drugs on War is very imperative. Satisfaction of rehabilitation costs, salaries, and payment of the government officials and employees involved in the operations and activities related to the war on drugs have been included in the estimation of the cost of the war. (Wisotsky, 1986) In addition, the supply of drugs is being controlled by a number of resources that require funds, which have also been included in the cost of the war.

In the year 2005, approximately twelve billion dollars was the estimated cost of the funds that were being used for drug control during the War on Drugs. This estimated cost is indicated by the report of the United States government. In addition, around thirty billion dollars were indicated as being used for the incarceration of drug law offenders in the prisons and centers, according to another report by the United States government. Particularly, expenses related to the police protection were $9.1 billion, which were followed by legal adjudication and negotiation with $4.5 billion.

Furthermore, state and federal corrections expenses were eleven billion dollars. In total, the abovementioned factors took around $45.5 billion during the year 2005. However, individual as well as socioeconomic costs that were related to the drugs control were not included in the abovementioned approximate cost of the war (Fisher, 2006).

Effects

The cost of the War on Drugs has been discussed previously in the paper. In order to compare the cost with the efficiency, the paper will now discuss some of the effects that were the consequences of these initiatives. One of the significant consequences of drug prohibition is that all categories have witnessed an increment in the usage of drugs. Since the year 1937, it has been indicated that twenty to thirty-seven percent of the youth in the United States are found to be using marijuana, which is one of the harmful drugs in the world. Before that, only Mexican immigrants and jazz musicians were limited to the usage of marijuana.

From the year 1972 to the year 1988, a fivefold increase was observed in the usage of cocaine in the United States (Elwood, 1994) . Similar gains were observed in the usage of ecstasy, as well as methamphetamine, which are the two most prevalent and widespread drugs around the world. In this regard, an abysmal and terrible failure has been observed and indicated by the comparison of costs and effects that have increased the usage of drugs rather than decreasing them (Friman, 1996).

However, the war has been a success in other contexts, as the illegal import of marijuana in the United States has been reduced successfully. Another significant consequence of the War on Drugs is a drastic increase in the smuggling of cocaine, which was unintended by the participants of the war. As a result, a much higher profit is being gained by the drug smugglers due to the high volume and weight of the cocaine. As the illegal import of marijuana was reduced by the implementation of the War on Drugs, marijuana growers in the United States received incentives and encouragement in order to increase productivity on a domestic basis, as well as to improve the quality of the product (Gray, 2001).

Despite the high-profile pronouncements and statements of the Reagan administration in public, the Nicaraguan Contras were illegally trained and armed by a number of senior government officials. In this regard, large quantities of cocaine were shipped illegally in the United States in order to fund the abovementioned illegal training of the Contras. In addition, military as well as aircraft facilities of the United States government were used for these illegal shipments in the country. Furthermore, Iran was offered with illegal sale of weaponry in order to fulfill the requirement of funding for the shipments (Elwood, 1994).

The year 1996 witnessed another milestone in American history, as Proposition 215 received around fifty-six percent of votes from the California voters. According to this proposition, the use, as well as growing of marijuana, was legalized in the state but was limited only for medical purposes. As a result, the federal and state governments exchanged legal and policy tensions significantly. However, the War on Drugs has targeted marijuana most frequently and significantly, despite the opinion and voting of the public (Friman, 1996).

Almost more than fifty percent of the drug arrests have been constituted in the war. Possession arrests of marijuana were increased by two thousand percent in New York separately. Interestingly, after the impact of the Drugs on War, the biggest cash crop of the United States of America is marijuana, according to the reports for the year 2006. In this regard, it can be indicated by the abovementioned analysis of the effects that the war on drugs has been a failure rather than a success in terms of reducing the growth and usage of drugs, particularly marijuana and cocaine, in the United States.

Condemnation

In the light of the abovementioned factors, as well as a number of other issues, the War on Drugs of the United States government, with the collaboration of several participating countries, has received criticism and has been condemned by many experts and bodies around the world. An illegal form of prohibition has been indicated in terms of the War on Drugs by the Libertarian philosopher Paul Hager, in which he analyzed the War on Drugs with the U.S. Constitution. According to this philosopher, the principles of a limited government, as well as the U.S. Constitution, were violated by the implementation of the illegal drug prohibition (Friman, 1996).

Furthermore, it has been indicated that the federal government has not been authorized to amend the Constitution, which was a requirement of the Alcohol prohibition. In another argument by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, it was indicated that the power related to the regulation of interstate commerce was usurped improperly by the drug prohibition during the War on Drugs. In this argument, the states were preferred as the reserved bodies for the power related to the prohibition. In the same case, a similar idea was expressed by Justice Clarence Thomas (Gray, 2001).

In addition, the implicit rights within the substantive due process doctrine were indicated as violated by the War on Drugs. It was indicated that no reasonable state interest was achieved by the laws related to the drugs, while the liberty of a person is restricted arbitrarily according to the 5^th and 14^th Amendments. In this regard, a number of arguments opposed and criticized the War on Drugs (Fisher, 2006).

Furthermore, the efficacy of the War on Drugs was criticized by Richard Davenport Hines in his book by pointing out that interception of fifteen percent of illicit heroin was done during the War on Drugs. It was also pointed that interception was done on thirty percent of illegal cocaine. In addition, up to three hundred percent of margins over gross profit by drug traffickers were pointed out in the same case.

The president of Peru, Alberto Fujimori, indicated that the War on Drugs had been a failure because the supply of coca leaf offered for sale has not been reduced, even after the huge investments from the Peruvian, as well as the United States government for ten years. Rather, a ten-fold increase has been observed from the year 1980 to 1990 in the supply of the coca leaf for sale.

It has often been noted by the critics of the War on Drugs that an initial reduction was observed in the usage of alcohol after the alcohol prohibition. However, the year 1922 began witnessing of increment in its usage. Thus, it has been indicated by the experts that no more effectiveness has been observed in the War on Drugs, as similar measures are being used by the War on Drugs that is used at the beginning of the war (Caulkins, 2005).

In South America, attempts have been made for the eradication of coca production in the region by the implementation of the Plan Colombia, which took $4.7 billion by the United States from the year 2000 to the year 2006. As a result, more remote areas replaced the existing areas of production of cocoa production. Thus, the cultivation and the production of the coca leaf remained the same, and the efforts were failed, even after huge investments from the government.

Other countries that are pursuing similar policies have observed a similar lack of efficiency during the War on Drugs. In the year 1994, illicit and harmful drugs were consumed by 28.5% of Canadians, according to a government report. By the year 2004, sixteen percent of increment was observed in the consumption of illicit drugs in Canada. In addition, the criticism of outdated policies has been given by the scientific community during the condemnation of U.S. drug policy. Furthermore, it has been indicated that efforts related to legitimate medical as well as scientific research have been confronting hindrances due to the drug policies of the United States. For instance, the journal Nature Medicine has been contradicted and challenged by the classification of the United States government, which has categorized marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug (Caulkins, 2005).

Some other organizations have widely criticized the social consequences of the War on Drugs. For instance, racial disparities in the judicial system are being created by the ineffectiveness of the Drug-Free Zones in the United States, which should be keeping away youth from the usage of drugs according to the Drug Policy Alliance’s commissioned report in the month of March 2006. Moreover, some of the most fragile ecosystems of the world have been considered harmful and detrimental by the environmental consequences of the War on Drugs, as third world countries have confronted aerial fumigation of operations related to the growth of drugs, which was backed by the United States.

In South America, the livelihood of coca growers has been affected negatively by the coca eradication policy of the United States. In many parts of the South American continent, chewing of coca leaf is being done traditionally for years. In addition, medical, as well as religious purposes are being considered for the usage of coca leaf. For this reason, the traditional cultivation of the coca leaf that has been deemed illegal by the policies of the War on Drugs has been criticized widely. In many areas, the eradication of coca has been forced by the government and military of the United States without the provision of any alternative for the farmers.

In Afghanistan, poverty of the rural community has been the result of military intervention, as well as costly policies related to the eradication of drug crops. Furthermore, since the year 2003, a dramatic increase in poppy cultivation has been observed that is similar to the support that has been given to the anti-government elements. However, suggestions related to the alternative policies have been given to the Afghan farmers, but the War on Drugs has also been criticized in this region widely (Caulkins, 2005).

One of the other reasons for the condemnation of the War on Drugs is that the military operations have been justified by the attempts of a noble cause of the War on Drugs. In this regard, the War on Terrorism has been associated with the War on Drugs by the international community, particularly the United States. Conclusively, we have tried to define, discuss, and analyze different issues related to the War on Drugs, as well as its criticism by a number of experts and bodies around the world. The need for eradication of the usage of drugs is necessary, but the War on Drugs has been a failure due to its harsh policies, which have been ineffective in terms of the reduction of drug users around the world.

References

Gary L. Fisher. (2006). Rethinking Our War on Drugs. Greenwood Press.
H. Richard Friman. (1996). Narcodiplomacy. Cornell University Press.
James P. Gray. (2001). Why our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It. Temple University Press.
Jonathan Paul Caulkins. (2005). How Goes the War on Drugs? Rand Corporation.
Steven Wisotsky. (1986). Breaking the Impasse in the War on Drugs. Greenwood Publishing Group.
William N. Elwood. (1994). Rhetoric in the War on Drugs. Praeger/Greenwood.

Click Here To Order Now!