The US Federal Policy on Drug Abuse

Introduction 

The US federal policy on drug abuse has been predicated on a concept that has come to be termed as the War on Drugs. Trillions of dollars have been spent on this war with thousands of federal agents and their associates propagating the war in the USA and in South and Central America (Dell, 2015). However, available research shows that this war has failed, more so among American youths who have continued to abuse hard drugs (Cicero, Ellis, Surratt & Kurtz, 2014). Drug abuse among American youths has also undergone a metamorphosis with the abuse of legally available opioids and other prescription drugs rising in scope and adverse effects (Borgschulte, Corredor-Waldron, & Marshall, 2018). The drug abuse has adversely affected the young people, leading them to aggravated crimes, which adversely affect the community and also cost the taxpayers billions in clinical interventions (Terry-McElrath et al., 2016; Cepeda, Saint Onge, Nowotny & Valdez 2016). It is high time for the Federal government to admit that it has lost this war and seek an alternative approach to drug abuse among youth. 

The alternative approach, based on available research should take the perspective of mitigating the social and psychological causes of drug abuse through youth programs. The programs should provide treatment for abusers and hope for a better future for all youths so as to keep them away from drugs. The biggest problem for such programs would be funding, but the necessary funds can easily be gotten by ceasing the war on drugs then channeling the billions saved to fund the youth programs. This seemingly monumental and extreme solution has already been tried in Portugal and with great success. The Portuguese government legalized drugs in 2001 after an extreme narcotic pandemic (Félix & Portugal, 2017). Available research from academia shows that the approach has worked for Portugal, hence it can also work for the USA (Mostyn & Gibbon, 2018). Further, legalization of marijuana has shown that an alternative approach to the war on drugs can be effective in combating drug abuse among youths (Keyes et al., 2016; Reichert, 2017). The proposed policy to eliminate drug abuse among youths thus entails the cessation of the expensive and futile war on drugs and the immediate investment of the monies erstwhile used in the war to assist youths to overcome the drug pandemic. 

Program Factors 

Stakeholders 

The instant drug policy is not only on a federal level but also engenders a complete metamorphosis of the way the USA has approached the problem of drug abuse among the youth. A variety of stakeholders will thus be involved, beginning at the federal level, state levels, local authorities, and even to the family level. Further, the stakeholders involved traverse different groups including politicians, healthcare players in the public and private sector, law enforcement officers, academic professionals, parents, the youths themselves and finally, the general public (Edlund et al., 2015). 

The critical stakeholder for the success of the instant policy change is the common populace who are also the taxpayers in the USA. It is the taxpayer who has been spending billions of dollars on the futile war on drugs and treating and rehabilitate youths who have been affected by drug abuse (Terry-McElrath et al., 2016). Over and above being taxpayers, the wider populace includes the youths who are affected by the drugs, their parents, siblings, and friends (Keyes et al., 2016; Cepeda, 2016). It is this group that needs to lobby hard to their respective politicians and policymakers so as to ensure the advent and eventual completion of the policy change (Heaney & Leifeld, 2018) . Among the actions that the general populace can take includes writing letters to the White House and respective state and national political representatives. Voting in the right candidates who would support the necessary changes will also be effective. 

Policymakers, including the presidency and the relevant cabinet members are also critical stakeholders. It is the obligation of the presidency to develop the policy on the issue since it also involves federal issues such as law enforcement and national security. The law enforcement and national security perspective do not per se involve the proposed policy but rather the current policy that is to be overhauled. The US federal government has, for the past several decades invested heavily in the war on drugs, on an international level (Terry-McElrath et al., 2016). Dismantling such a program will require inference from the presidency and other policymakers at the national level. 

Congress is another important stakeholder that plays the legislative role in the policy change. For a start, there is the need to completely overhaul the criminal justice laws in relation to drug abuse, based on the Portuguese approach to legalizing narcotics (Mostyn & Gibbon, 2018). Federal funding will be required for the programs relating to the new policy, such as rehabilitation and youth empowerment. Further, state legislatures also have a similar role to play in changing criminal justice law and establishing programs for youth empowerment and rehabilitation for drug abusers. 

Government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, departments of health at the federal and state levels, and related organizations are also major stakeholders. The executive and legislatures will provide the laws, regulations, and funds while the government agencies will handle strategic planning and implementation. Similarly, the private sector will need to work alongside government agencies in the implementation of the programs. Corporates can provide insights, funding, and resources to enable the success of the policy. For example, due to opioid abuse, pharmaceutical companies have become stakeholders and even beneficiaries of drug abuse actively and passively (Cicero et al., 2014). They thus have an important role to play in the new policy. Similarly, other private sector players such as non-governmental organization will also need to play an important implementation role. 

Finally, the media, interest groups and lobbyist have various roles to play within each segment of the policy change program. The media will have both an informative and oversight role in the program. For example, trough coverage and commentary, the media can influence the general populace and cause more people to support the program (King, Scheer & White, 2017) . Further, when the policy-development, legislation, and implementation programs commence, the media can play an oversight role by commending those who support the program and exposing those opposing or derailing it. Lobbyists will be necessary at the development stage in convincing the presidency and state authorities to develop the policy and also influencing the legislatures to pass the necessary laws (Heaney & Leifeld, 2018) . Finally, interest groups, more so those relating to the youths, such as scouts, girl guides, and religious organizations can assist in developing strategies for the development and also in the actual implementation of the programs. 

Advocates 

Different governmental and private sector players will advocate for and support the instant policy change for a variety of reasons. Among the primary champions of the program will be the healthcare sector players, both on government and private sector. Organizations such as the CDC, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), community hospitals, and youth welfare organizations have over the years seen how the problem of drug abuse among the youths has continued to escalate, leading to loss of lives and poor quality of life (Edlund et al., 2015). These organizations also know through inter alia research, what steps need to be taken to resolve the crisis. Implementation of these solutions has, however, been hampered by insufficient funding. A policy that would divert the billions of dollars spent on the war on drugs and bring it to the treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers would not only be welcomed but also supported by these groups (Dell, 2015: Borgschulte, Corredor-Waldron, & Marshall, 2018). Some private sector players such as private hospitals and pharmaceutical players are also bound to get pecuniary benefits from the policy change since monies will be availed for the treatment of drug abusers. 

The education sector players would also be major stakeholders in the policy change due to the adverse effects of the current policy and positive effects of the future policy. The war on drugs has militarized the drug trade at all levels, leading to violence including in learning institutions (Dell, 2015). The legalization of drugs will eliminate the violence involved in the trade thus, making American schools safer for the students and staff members. For the same reasons, law enforcement officers, more so at the lower echelons will also support the policy as it will reduce the more violent and dangerous aspects of their day to day work. The end of the drug war will also increase the time and resources to curb more important areas of law enforcement (Dell, 2015). 

Finally and most importantly, the common populace will be supportive of the change in policy for a variety of reasons (Cepeda at al., 2016). The tax burden will be reduced due to reduced spending on the war on drugs with the money being spent on more beneficial programs such as healthcare. Further, almost every member of the community is affected in some way by drug abuse among the youth. Many parents, relatives, and friends have had their youthful loved ones either incapacitated by drug abuse or incarcerated because of it (Keyes et al., 2016). A policy that eliminates the propensity for incarceration while still providing effective solutions for drug abuse will garner a lot of support from the general populace (Edlund et al., 2015). 

Critics 

Among the primary critics of the instant policy change program are individuals, groups, and organizations who stand to lose revenue and jobs because of the change in policy. For a start, there is the criminal justice system at the national and state levels from law enforcement, judicial bodies, and penal institutions. According to Garland (2017), crimes related to the war on drugs make an exponential contribution to the functions of the US justice system. If this war was to be put to an end, the system would have to be reduced at all levels including funding, number of staff members, and external contracting. The leadership of the criminal justice department at almost every level and also the contractors who carry out business with the department are bound to oppose a policy that ends the war on drugs (Dell, 2015). For example, an organization like the Drug Enforcement Administration would find itself obsolete due to the instant policy and would thus be opposed to it. 

Conversely, the war on drugs has also become an instrument through which the USA has exerted influence internationally more so in central and South America (Dell, 2015) . Many American organizations and individuals with interests in these nations would also be opposed to the policy. The war on drugs has become a critical geopolitical issue for the USA and ending it would also include a change in foreign policy. Many politicians, political movements, and private sector players would thus be opposed to the same. 

Finally, the instant policy is bound to be controversial as it advocates for the legalization of all drugs, a move that will be opposed by a segment of Americans for a variety of reasons including religious ones. The legalization of marijuana has gotten extreme criticism by religious and other organizations. A policy that not only legalizes marijuana but also hard drugs is bound to attract extreme opposition from such organizations (Félix, & Portugal, 2017) . Indeed, the instant policy may act as a unifying factor for different religious organizations and conservative interests group through opposing it. 

Impact 

The greatest impact of the combination of the advocates and critics of the proposed policy towards its development was the contrasting of different interests. Within the proposal, money was contrasted with money, emotional issues contrasted with emotional issues, and numbers contrasted with numbers. 

The pecuniary might of contractors in the war on drugs including those contracted in the criminal justice system was contrasted with the pecuniary might of big Pharma and the healthcare industry in America. Each group has the capability to provide vast amounts of monies for interest groups and lobbyist to fight for and against the policy respectively (Heaney & Leifeld, 2018) . It is for this reason that the monies taken away from one set of private sector players are given to yet another set thus giving the policy a fighting chance. 

Finally, whereas some interest groups and individuals will be fighting against the policy because of its impact in legalizing drugs, others will be faced with arguments about letting youths die or have their entire lives ruined just because of principles and theoretical ethical issues. The proposed policy will be exposing youths to a higher availability of cheap drugs which may be seen as an ethical problem. However, the policy will also lead to the saving of lives which is superior to the ethical issues. 

Finally, many people will lose their jobs and livelihoods because of the policy, a good example being DEA agents and youth detention centers. However, many more people will get jobs through the curative, rehabilitative, and empowerment programs that will be created under the new policy (Borgschulte, Corredor-Waldron & Marshall, 2018). The combined impact of advocates and critics lead to the formation of a policy that ensures that support will supersede opposition hence enabling the success of the policy. 

Part II: Program Accountability 

Monitoring 

The monitoring of the instant policy will include the two main perspectives of pecuniary monitoring and efficacy monitoring. The pecuniary monitoring relates to how the monies that are availed for the programs under the policy are being utilized (Sánchez, 2015) . Under this perspective, there is the issue of ensuring that all the monies provided for the programs are used within the programs and its use done in the right way. Monitoring the programs can be complex because they will take a variety of dimensions. To enable proper monitoring, implementation can be divided into two major components, the first being at the national level and the second at the state level. All finances for federal projects such as those relating to health insurance shall be handled and monitored at the national level while those relating to state and local levels shall be handled at the state government level. A principle accounting officer shall be appointed at the federal and state level respectively. Finally, for the purposes of auditing, continuous auditing shall be undertaken internally combined with external auditing by a licensed private firm. This auditing will be undertaken quarterly. 

Efficacy monitoring will be twofold, based on the twin-nature of the program. First, the evaluation will be done to evaluate the impact of legalization of drugs on drug abuse among the youths. The legalization of hard drugs is undertaken based on the hypothesis that it will not create an exponential increase in their consumption (Félix & Portugal, 2017). Evaluation is critical to ensure that this trade-off is beneficial to the youths. Constant monitoring by government agencies supplemented inter alia by academia can be done. 

Secondly, monitoring will be done to evaluate the efficacy of the respective program in meeting their objectives. To attain proper monitoring, the objectives of each program can be reduced into projects with adequate project plans (Sánchez, 2015) . The monitoring and evaluation will thus be predicated in the project plans. The monitoring will combine internal monitoring mechanisms and also through external independent evaluators such as academia. 

Funding 

The instant policy proposals and related projects have an exponentially high level of resiliency due to its ability to fund itself and also the gradual diminishing nature of its need for funding. Most policy changes come with the need for an exponential injection of funds to get it started. The instant policy only needs funds to get the theoretical aspects developed such as lobbying and research for policy development. Once the policy is passed, the drug war will come to an end through the legalization of drugs, a fact that will suddenly release billions of dollars that are spent annually in the said war (Dell, 2015). It is these funds that will be made available for the programs and projects relating to the policy. The research and lobbying aspects can thus be funded by organizations that stand to benefit when the policy is passed, such as players in the healthcare industry, drug abuse-related interest groups, and youth empowerment groups. It is also worthy of notice that the need for funds will keep on reducing as the program continues. For example, treatment and rehabilitation programs will wean youths of drugs while empowerment programs will find jobs for them (Borgschulte, Corredor-Waldron, & Marshall, 2018). 

Further, ending the war on drugs will eliminate the economic value of drug peddling thus, reducing the propensity for drug abuse. Future youths will have a lower propensity for drug abuse and the implementation of the policy will need less money. The program is thus sustainable. When it comes to the distribution of funds, the nature of funding as defined above shows that most of the monies will be coming from the federal government hence distribution will be handled at the federal level, depending on the needs of the respective states. Further, the policy is transferring the monies currently being used in the war on drugs to the programs. Areas that have been having a bigger drug problem and have been having a higher budget for the war on drugs will thus have higher funding for the programs. 

Accountability Strategies 

Accountability entails a combination of getting the right monies to the right programs and also ensuring that those monies are utilized for the right purposes and in the right way. The implementation aspects of the program will be based on a set of projects. The reduction of the policy into programs and programs into projects is one of the primary accountability strategies. The policy itself will be a large landmark shift undertaken primarily at the federal level then reduced into state and local level versions. The first level of accountability entails ensuring that the right programs that meet the objectives of the policy are implemented both for the treatment and rehabilitation on the one part and empowerment on the other. The next level of accountability is bringing the different stakeholders of each program together to reduce it to viable projects that can easily be evaluated and monitored (Sánchez, 2015) . Not all funds will come from the federal level as states also spend on the war on drugs and will thus have their own funds to use for the programs. 

More funds will also come from private sector players and be introduced into the system from the federal, state, and even local level. Two accountability gaps thus exist based on the multiple levels of funding as combined with the multiple levels of expenditure. The first is getting the federal government to balance between giving the right ratios of funding to all states. This gap is mainly predicated on national politics and would be hard to cure. The second relates to a multiplicity of funding more so when a state or the local source of funds become available for projects that have already be funded by the federal governments. Proper monitoring and evaluation can cure this gap (Sánchez, 2015) . 

References 

Borgschulte, M., Corredor-Waldron, A., & Marshall, G. (2018). A path out: Prescription drug abuse, treatment, and suicide.  Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization ,  149 , 169-184 () 

Cepeda, A., Saint Onge, J. M., Nowotny, K. M., & Valdez, A. (2016). Associations between long-term gang membership and informal social control processes, drug use, and delinquent behavior among Mexican American youth.  International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology ,  60 (13), 1532-1548 

Cicero, T. J., Ellis, M. S., Surratt, H. L., & Kurtz, S. P. (2014). The changing face of heroin use in the United States: a retrospective analysis of the past 50 years.  JAMA Psychiatry ,  71 (7), 821-826 

Dell, M. (2015). Trafficking networks and the Mexican drug war.  American Economic Review ,  105 (6), 1738-79 

Edlund, M. J., Forman-Hoffman, V. L., Winder, C. R., Heller, D. C., Kroutil, L. A., Lipari, R. N., & Colpe, L. J. (2015). Opioid abuse and depression in adolescents: results from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.  Drug and Alcohol Dependence ,  152 , 131-138 

Félix, S., & Portugal, P. (2017). Drug decriminalization and the price of illicit drugs.  International Journal of Drug Policy ,  39 , 121-129 

Keyes, K. M., Wall, M., Cerdá, M., Schulenberg, J., O'malley , P. M., Galea, S., ... & Hasin, D. S. (2016). How does state marijuana policy affect US youth? Medical marijuana laws, marijuana use and perceived harmfulness: 1991–2014.  Addiction ,  111 (12), 2187-2195 

Mostyn, B., & Gibbon, H. (2018). Transnational social movement theory and the waning war on drugs: Case studies from UNGASS 2016.  International Journal of Drug Policy ,  51 , 148-155 

Terry-McElrath, Y. M., Maslowsky, J., O'Malley, P. M., Schulenberg, J. E., & Johnston, L. D. (2016). Sleep and substance use among US adolescents, 1991-2014.  American Journal of Health Behavior ,  40 (1), 77-91 

Garland, D. (2017). Penal power in America: Forms, functions and foundations.  Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais , (129), 217-256 

Heaney, M. T., & Leifeld, P. (2018). Contributions by Interest Groups to Lobbying Coalitions.  The Journal of Politics ,  80 (2), 494-509 

King, G., Schneer, B., & White, A. (2017). How the news media activate public expression and influence national agendas.  Science ,  358 (6364), 776-780 

Sánchez, M. A. (2015). Integrating sustainability issues into project management.  Journal of Cleaner Production ,  96 , 319-330