American Government’s War on Drugs

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.

History of war on drugs

The issue of drug usage and supply has dominated the public domain throughout the 20^th century. This was mainly because the drug market was purely unregulated. As a result, accessing drugs and substances containing derivatives of various drugs was also easy, including medical prescriptions that contained cocaine and heroin.¹

During early years of the 20^th century, legislation played a major role in regulating the use of drugs in the United States and all over the world.

For instance, the Pure Food and Drug Act, adopted in the year 1906 was to guard the society against poisonous drugs before it was amended in 1912 to address the issue of drugs carrying wrong labels. In 1914, the Harrison Tax Act was passed to prohibit the sale of heroin and cocaine.

By the mid of 1930s, the Marihuana Tax Act was adopted and aimed at imposing taxes on marihuana. Although this drug was considered to be safe, law enforcers believed that if allowed to be supplied freely, it would become a gateway for other drugs like heroin.

It was during the tenure of President Dwight D. Eisenhower that the war against drugs began, with the Narcotic Control of 1956 heightening the penalties associated with supply and usage of drugs. In 1954, the president called for a national war on drugs.

Similarly, President Nixon’s regime demonstrated the willingness to fight drugs by ending the importation of marijuana from Mexico through tight cross-border security measures. Additionally, the formation of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 was a milestone in strengthening the war as it gave federal government an upper hand in fighting drug abuse.

In 1971, President Nixon declared that drug abuse was “the number-one public enemy,” and stepped up efforts directed on fighting the scourge. Besides enforcement of the law, the president emphasized the need to treat drug addicts.² He also engaged celebrities in spreading the news about the negative effects of drugs.

In 1970s, drug abuse was considered by many as a law enforcement problem that required criminal-justice strategies to fight. The inclusion of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) into the federal law equally boosted efforts to save the society from the dangers of drug abuse.³

Nancy Reagan is also remembered for her campaigns in schools, teaching students about the effects of drug abuse. Her activism drew huge attention and became the core of the anti drug war. By focusing on the impact of drug abuse on children, it was easy for anti drug administration to formulate stronger legislation that would protect existing and future generations.

During that time, cocaine was th most abused drug followed by heroin, which usage was rampant among African-Americans. The popularity of cocaine continued to grow among middle-class Americans as it was processed into smaller blocks to enhance easy acquisition by people from different social classes.

As a result, the Antidrug Act of 1986 was established to discourage the use of “crack” by introducing the 100:1 ratio, which meant that a person found with 50g of crack would be imprisoned for ten years, an equivalent sentence for being in possession of 5000g of the powered “yuppie.”⁴

The war on drugs has continued to intensify in recent decades, and leaders of that war adopted better rules and ways of dealing with the problem. For instance, Joe Biden’s 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill allowed the death penalty, symbolizing the seriousness of the war, comparing its victims to other offenders like murderers and rapists.⁵

Additionally, the arising confusion between the definition of legal and illegal drugs became evident in the implementation of the drug policy legislation. For example, the law recognized narcotics as illegal, unless they were medically processed and prescribed.

Importantly, not all prescribed drugs were safe. Illegal narcotics are those used without professional prescription. Despite the existence of this unstable definition, the issue has not been confusing. The only confusing thing in this scenario is the government legalizing the use of a particular drug and goes ahead to hunt its users.

This occurred in 1996 when marijuana usage had been authorized in California before successive American government arrested several marijuana distributors in the same state.

In his first term, President Barrack Obama continued with the war on drugs, with his drug policy coordinator suggesting the rebranding of the war as harm-reduction strategies. This is believed to have been based on the need to rehabilitate addicts and manage complications associated with drug abuse.

In general, the Obama administration has not deviated from the Bush administration even though the war remained a rhetorical convention with regard to the view of enforcing the country’s drug policy enforcement. Nevertheless, rebranding of the policy as harm-reduction strategies has been viewed as a step forward in managing drug abuse.

Success of the war on drugs

Analyzing the success of the war on drugs in the society, it is important to understand the drug control rhetoric, which is aimed at realizing a drug-free society. Based on this analogy, it is believed that the war on drugs has not been successful since a democratic society cannot be 100% drug-free.⁶

This argument affirms that the campaign lacks practicality in addressing complex issues surrounding drug usage. Additionally, the use of illegal drugs has far-reaching implications besides the mere usage. For instance, consumption of alcohol and tobacco by underage children, and unlawful use of prescribed drugs has become a burden to the society.⁷

Although many people are not aware of it, the cost of cocaine exceeds that of the combination of other drugs. In this view, the war with this social problem is interpreted as an application for general illegal drugs.

Goals

The war on drugs has mainly been led by the national drug control which strategies have not been changed significantly since 1989, when it issued its initial annual strategy volume.⁸

The initial strategies of the NDC were aimed at controlling the overall usage of drugs, initiation reduction and management at every level, including casual users and addicts. In addition, the agency was aimed at the reduction of hospital admissions by addressing import availability and local production of drugs.

In 1990s, NDC simplified its goals and targeted the reduction of drug usage considering the consequences that were related to the use of drugs. Nevertheless, today the administration puts more weight on measures that target usage of these drugs.

Unlike previous strategies, the current blueprint incorporates the need for education, treatment and disruption of the market through national policies. In its application, the current national drug control is principally motivated by the desire to reduce the impact of drug abuse on the society.⁹

Nevertheless, no explicit efforts have been witnessed to handle other consequences like overdose, HIV infection, and lost productivity. As a result, there is a difficulty in accounting against broader objectives of the NDC.

It is important to reaffirm that the national strategy towards winning the war on drugs is by reducing drug abuse consequences. In this approach, success with light users is more likely than with addicts.

It, therefore, follows that the progress towards the use-reduction goal may not necessarily indicate a similar change in a consequence reduction mode.¹⁰ This is to say that, reduction of casual marijuana users may not show a decrease in drug use consequences.

Consequences of war on drugs

The war on drugs has been conducted for more than fifty years, without focusing on ways of establishing long-term strategies of dealing with drug usage and supply. Besides this has seen a failure, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime observes that there is a host of negative effects, which have been precipitated by this war on drugs.¹¹

These consequences are based on a punitive approach that has allowed criminal gangs to be in-charge of the trade and criminalized several drug users. The following points are considered to be major effects of drug abuse.

National development

Since its launch several decades ago, the war on drugs has continuously undermined development and security in most parts of the world. It has been found that drug traffickers can have a reliable supply of illegal drugs if honest politicians, government employees and security agents like armies are not involved.

Additionally, this can be achieved if farmers have a limited access to money to acquire enough farm inputs like fertilizers.¹²

Traffickers, therefore, thrive in cases where there is little governance or presence of poor infrastructure. As a result, they target at weak countries, which are easy to manipulate. With this target, they are able to equip private armies, merge and fund revolts, and corrupt police, government officials and politicians.

Examples of such countries, which have been affected by drug traffickers, are Afghanistan and Colombia among others.¹³ After destabilizing a country, they disrupt the operations of international and non-governmental organizations and divert resources and aid into enforcement.

The same consequences are replicated during the shipment of other drugs like heroin, undermining governance, security and economic development of the country.

Human rights

It is doubtless that human rights of most drug users and farmers who plant these crops are rarely addressed by the United Nations or at the local level during the fight against drug abuse. As a result, this war is always characterized by serious violation of human rights, including but not limited to mass incarceration, torture, inhumane treatment, extrajudicial killings and denial of basic health services.¹⁴

Most of these policies further discriminate people, who use drugs. As a result, they impede them from access to drugs, harm prevention, and HIV treatment.

It is important to mention that young children have also been exposed to these human rights costs. Moreover, local communities involved in drug-producing usually receive cruel treatment during the process of eradicating the crops from farms.

Stigma and discrimination

Like with any other form of war in the world, the negative effects of the war on drugs are mainly felt by marginalized, vulnerable and those that are excluded from the society. Children and young people are always placed on the frontline by individuals or groups of people dealing with drugs.

Amazingly, most of these children are forced into the business because of poverty, drug war casualties or as a result of being orphaned, due to incarceration of parents.¹⁵ Women equally suffer from exploitation by the drug business. Women with young babies are usually separated from their children, especially when they are put in prison. This detachment may affect the child due to limited resources for him or her.

Drug enforcement has also promoted social prejudice, where some minority groups of people are targeted and punished for being stereotypically labeled as drug users or distributors.

Threat to public health

Historically, the war on drugs has been perceived to protect health of people by limiting the accessibility and usage of illegal drugs. However, research has revealed that this target has not been met, based on the increasing number of drug users and the existence of market that allows individuals to purchase the drugs cheaply.¹⁶

Additionally, the policy has increased the risk associated with the use of drugs through exposure to contaminants and risky behaviors like injection.

As a result, drug users are exposed to overdoses, blood-borne diseases and poisonings among others. To a worse extreme, some victims have contracted HIV via the above-mentioned health risks. ¹⁷

Increased crime

Instead of eliminating crime, drug control policies have promoted the establishment of a drug market, which was estimated in the year 2005 to register a turnover of $300 billion in a year.¹⁸ The truth behind this is the fact that all the profit and wealth derived from these sales is enjoyed by drug traffickers and kingpins.

Consequently, producing countries may become unstable and corrupt while consuming states may experience an increase in gangsters and drug addicts.

Additionally, the expansion of the market contributes to the destabilization of the world financial system through money laundering and overstretching the criminal-justice system, emanating from an exponential increase in the number of criminals to be sent to prisons.

Biblical approach

Based on the analysis presented earlier in this paper, it is evident that the war on drugs has not been successful. From the increasing prison population to the immense cost and implication of the war both to the society and economy, there is a need for a better solution to be considered.

This is important in reassuring people that it is not “war” as perceived but strategies to avoid initiation into drug usage and rehabilitation programs to help the addicts.¹⁹ Nevertheless, this has to be coupled with other institutions like criminal justice, in achieving a safe living environment that has minimum risks.

In addressing the question of drug abuse from a biblical and ethical perspectives, it is paramount to ask ourselves the morality of drug abuse and the ethical implications of the war. Can Christians be drug addicts?

Does the biblical approach support or oppose the war on drugs? One of the main facts about the bible is that becoming a Christian does not automatically shield an individual from danger and tribulations.

In other words, a Christian can suffer a worse tragedy similar to non-Christians. Unlike other people, the bible guarantees Christians a path to be taken in order to avoid temptations, sin and criminal behavior.²⁰ It advocates for obedience, respect to authority and law and doing what is right in the presence of God.

According to David, a major character in the bible, who is believed to be an ancestor of Jesus, God created human beings in their natural state that allows natural functioning of the body without use of artificial substances like drugs.

In doing so, God knew that men would live a full life without finding satisfaction in drugs and related behavior in the society. We are therefore supposed to avoid conforming to the patterns of the world because of the natural state of our creation.²¹

According to the bible, men and women are controlled by God every time because He is all-knowing and omnipresent. Importantly, God does not spy on human beings but gives them free will to decide on what is right and what is wrong.

As stated in the bible, God considers our bodies as His dwelling places that are supposed to remain clean and well nourished. At this point, we need to ask ourselves how marijuana, nicotine, cocaine or heroin nourish our bodies in preparing a “fit dwelling” for Him. Does the use of these substances make us better or worse than before? If human bodies are God’s temple, can he cohabit with drugs?

One of the ways through which drugs operate is the way they alter the normal functioning of the body, by affecting the manner in which a person thinks and behaves, sometimes in a dangerous way that threatens an individual or a group of people.

It should be understood that the bible does recognize the medical use of drugs in restoring the normal status of a person promptly. This, therefore, supports the use of prescribed drugs with a prescription from a professional medical doctor. Besides this authorization, these drugs are to be used responsibly without sharing with friends or family members.

Another biblical aspect is that human bodies are created as a unity of body, soul and mind.²² The existence of the three aspects of the human body defines the functional ability of a person, although normalcy is only enjoyed when the three are in sound states.

The implication if this formation is that disruption of a single segment of the body that affects normal performance of the body as a whole. Additionally, the bible teaches about self-control and the need for human beings to take control of themselves.²³ This virtue is completely uninstalled whenever a person is under the influence of drugs, due to distortion of the mind.

Besides the bodily make-up, the bible equally emphasizes on godly behavior and the need for one to maintain good behavior. Definitely, drug abuse cannot fall under good behavior. This kind of behavior mentioned in the bible benefits individuals and those around.

The bible, therefore, advocates for role models in the society to shape morality, set standards and correct those who stray from desirable ways of God.²⁴

As such, Christians are called upon not to be stumbling blocks to other people in the society but to behave responsibly. With regard to the use of drugs and its “unsuccessful” war, one needs to think of the effects of abusing drugs before going for them.

How then does the bible view the war on drugs? Basically, this is seen as a way of restoring sanity and morality in the society. From this perspective, drug abuse alters the normal body operation of an individual, rendering him/her unfit to belong to the family of God.²⁵

Drug users and addicts gain a state that does not accommodate God as his temple through contamination and infections. Based on this interplay between the teachings of the bible and the war on drugs, it is important to mention that drug abuse has an array of negative effects and needs to be curbed to save humanity.

By the fact that God appoints leaders into authority, they ought to use wisdom from God to lay down workable, human and achievable strategies to drive the agenda of fighting drugs in the country.²⁶ This is necessary in eliminating loopholes in the current war plan, that have given the opponents of this idea a platform to prophesy doom over the initiative launched several decades ago.

Contrary to this perspective, it has been argued that there are more than enough reasons drawn from the bible, which condemn and oppose the war on drugs. This is not only on the manner in which the strategy has failed but also about the lack of biblical background.

According to Laurence M. Vance, a U.S. theologian, the use of alcohol is the only condemned thing by the New Testament and not all the drugs which are listed as illegal. Vance notes that the bible does not allow excess consumption of alcohol but instead recommends that one should be filled with the Holy Spirit.²⁷

Despite this biblical recognition of alcohol, it has been branded and treated like other drugs. He further argues that not all crimes are sins and that the war on drugs criminalizes every act of drug abuse. As a result, he believes that Christians ought to oppose the war on drugs.

Bibliography

Caulkins, Jonathan. “How Goes the War on Drugs.” RAND. Web.

Gospel Way. “Drug Abuse and the Bible: Intoxication, Addiction, and Sobriety.” Gospel Way. Web.

Hagen, Bernhard. The War on Drugs. Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2004.

Hartstein, Max. The War on Drugs The Worst Addiction of All. Indiana: iUniverse, 2003.

Lyman, Michael, and Gary Potter. Drugs in Society: Causes, Concepts and Control. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2010.

Malinowska-Sempruch, Kasia, and Sarah Gallagher. War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Human Rights. New York City: IDEA, 2004.

Mauer, Marc. “The Changing Racial Dynamics of the War on Drugs.” The Sentencing Project. Web.

Rowe, Thomas. Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole. London: Routledge, 2006.

Thomas, Kelly. “A Model for Success in the Drug War.” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 8 (80): 1-31.

Vance, Laurence. “Should Christians Support the War on Drugs.” LewRockwell. Web.

Watton. “The Biblical View.” Watton. Web.

Footnotes

Bernhard Hagen, The War on Drugs (Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2004), 4.
Ibid.
Thomas Rowe, Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole (London: Routledge, 2006), 88.
Bernhard Hagen, The War on Drugs (Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2004), 5.
Thomas Rowe, Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole (London: Routledge, 2006), 92.
Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch and Sarah Gallagher, War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Human Rights (New York City: IDEA, 2004), 60.
Max Hartstein, The War on Drugs The Worst Addiction of All (Indiana: iUniverse, 2003), 88.
Jonathan Caulkins, “How Goes the War on Drugs” RAND.
Marc Mauer, “The Changing Racial Dynamics of the War on Drugs,” The Sentencing Project.
Jonathan Caulkins, “How Goes the War on Drugs” RAND.
Thomas Rowe, Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole (London: Routledge, 2006), 96.
Michael Lyman and Gary Potter, Drugs in Society: Causes, Concepts and Control (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2010), 10.
Ibid.
Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch and Gallagher Sarah, War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Human Rights (New York City: IDEA, 2004), 77.
Marc Mauer, “The Changing Racial Dynamics of the War on Drugs,” The Sentencing Project.
Max Hartstein, The War on Drugs The Worst Addiction of All (Indiana: iUniverse, 2003), 3.
Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch and Gallagher Sarah, War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Human Rights (New York City: IDEA, 2004), 60.
Michael Lyman and Gary Potter, Drugs in Society: Causes, Concepts and Control (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2010), 11.
Max Hartstein, The War on Drugs The Worst Addiction of All (Indiana: iUniverse, 2003), 53.
Gospel Way, “Drug Abuse and the Bible: Intoxication, Addiction, and Sobriety,” Gospel Way.
Laurence Vance, “Should Christians Support the War on Drugs,” LewRockwell.
Watton, “The Biblical View,” Watton.
Gospel Way, “Drug Abuse and the Bible: Intoxication, Addiction, and Sobriety,” Gospel Way.
Ibid.
Laurence Vance, “Should Christians Support the War on Drugs,” LewRockwell.
Watton, “The Biblical View,” Watton.
Laurence Vance, “Should Christians Support the War on Drugs,” LewRockwell.

Click Here To Order Now!