The war on drugs, now ongoing for decades, is responsible for multiple extra-judicial killings, rise in addiction levels and rising human rights concerns. Despite numerous claims that the war on drugs has been a complete success, the number of lives broken by drugs continues to increase in multitudes on a daily basis. More than 2.2 million people have been incarcerated since 1960 over drug related charges. Prominent politicians on either side argue whether the war on drugs has created positive impacts to society or led to increased social inequality due to the incarceration rates between blacks, Hispanics, and whites. The war on drugs has been inhibited by disruptive policies such as supervised injection sites. Allowing people to use drugs under supervision is not better than using illegally. It encourages more people to join the drug fiasco. The ensuing discussion delves deeper on dissecting the efficacy of the government and the legislations they introduce while taking into account social, political, and economic trends.
Literature Review
Leaders have continuously emphasized the strong connection that exists between terrorism and drugs. According to Coyen (2016), cutting down the opium supply from Afghanistan is the only way to bring the global war on terrorism to an end, as well as establish a secure and stable democracy. The global war has developed into a complex issue since its inception in the 20 th Century begging the question whether the government has lost the true purpose of anti-drug efforts (Gwyne, 2018). US efforts to curb the war on terrorism and drug trafficking are abysmal considering the area under poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has tripled since the war begun. Minhee (2019), reports that the death toll in 2017 from opioid use amassed a higher death toll than the combined number of casualties in the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Alexis de Tocqueville, indicated that the concentration of power on the central government would pose a challenge in implementing drug policies at the state and local levels (Savidge, 2019). The Office of National Drug Control Policy announced their plan to control drug abuse from prescription medicine in 2011. It allowed for the arrest of numerous “pill mills” and “doctor shoppers,” however, the number of opioid overdose cases and deaths increased further indicating the underlying failure of the war on drugs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
North America has been trying to reduce the overdose crisis by discouraging the use of opioid-based drugs. Synthetic opioids such as fentanyl are limited to clinical settings (Kinshella, Gauthier, & Lysyshyn, 2018). Vancouver is the first region in which supervised consumption sites have been commissioned as part of the interventions laid in place after the alleged “end” of the war on drug. Drug addicts are allowed to use controlled amounts of the substances without suffering the repercussions of breaking the law (Shaw, Lazarus, & Pantalone, 2015). Health Canada authorized the centers with an objective to reduce the rising cases of overdose deaths and a safe space where controlled amounts could be administered by nurses and doctors. Safe sites are against the true purpose of the war on drugs and are retrogressive towards the policies implemented to curb drug abuse (Gagnon, 2017). Assisted injection propagates the increasing cases of overdose and drug-related injuries. Based on research conducted by Loewenstein (2019), most drug addicts consider drug taking as a part of their normal lives. The fight against marijuana use has led to a multitude of marijuana rules and bad policies from work-arounds in states to permit use of the drug. Gurley (2019) reports that marijuana is linked to increased ethnic and racial stereotypes on drug use.
In a rather different approach on the war on drugs, Gurley (2019) supports the idea of legalizing marijuana instead of declaring war on it. Notably, marijuana use has been embraced in eleven states, and Florida and Arizona are considering including the marijuana legalization questions in the 2020 ballot. The scholar advocates for less restrictive controls on marijuana use and considering removing the same in the list of controlled substances. While at it, Gurley (2019) observes that, the war on drugs has disproportionally affected African Americans and Latinos. The drug enforcement strategies and policies have been deliberately targeted on certain ethnic groups. Gwynne (2018), who concurs that enforcement and prohibition of drugs have been targeted on vulnerable population, supports his observation. For instance, the 1982 drug war declared by Ronald Reagan turned out to be targeted crack cocaine in black neighborhoods. The penalties meted on the whites were lenient, compared to severe punishments meted on the black population. In a fresh twist of events, Donald Trump has sworn to fight drugs and he seems to target the immigrant population. He believes that, in order to stop glow of deadly drugs into the United States, immigrants should not be allowed into the country.
Background Information/History
The first action was taken in 1906 when the government required all over the counter drugs to have labels of their ingredients. Escalation on the use of drugs begun in the 1960s after American soldiers returned home from Vietnam addicted to heroin. About 60 years ago, drug abuse was highly castigated among the youth compared to the modern day society, which normalizes use of drugs through channels such as social media (Loewenstein, 2015). In 1969, President Nixon declared the war on drug abuse as a national threat following an unprecedented rise in drug related incarceration and street crime between 1960 and 1967. President Linden formed the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in 1968. In 1971, Nixon established the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, informally known as the “War on Drugs.” Before his resignation, Nixon established the Drug Enforcement Agency. It became the most efficient tools ever implemented to stop production, distribution and consumption of drugs (Minhee & Calandrillo, 2019). Nixon replaced the incarceration of drug users from the two to ten jail terms with drug treatment programs. His policies were successful because he maintained focus on prohibiting the use of illegal substances and thereafter rehabilitating the affected persons to create a safe society once addicts were released.
Since the Nixon administration, bad policies and unnecessary stereotyping of individuals from minority communities have corrupted the war on drugs. The US has driven fortunes into the Afghanistan war, using 8.4 billion dollars in counternarcotics initiatives (Coyen, Blanco & Burns, 2016). The DEA had 13 offices in Afghanistan by the end of 2003 operating on an annual budget of 6 million dollars. Close to two decades later, the war on Drugs can be considered abysmal due to the poor results. Politicians have ignored the increasing drug related deaths and incarcerations in the US by focusing too much on Afghanistan. Coyen (2016) questions why Afghanistan is experiencing record opium harvests and sales despite the US investment of resources intended to counter their rising success. The 21 st Century has seen Marijuana become a permissible drug in a majority of states. The District of Columbia and 11 more states have legalized the use of recreational marijuana with another 33 states legalizing medical marijuana (Gurley, 2019). The federal government still considers marijuana as an illegal substance leading to confusion between federal and state policies. The war on drugs is a shadow of what it was intended to be six decades ago.
Global Perspective
The war on drugs involved every single person in the world. A majority of people can attest to have had a drug addiction problem, known a person who died from overdose or actively does drugs, sold drugs or witnessed the sale of illegal substances. After 50 years, prominent politicians are finally questioning the militaristic approach to a public health problem. The appetite for narcotics grows stronger in the world, as countries such as Afghanistan satisfy this demand (Coyne et al., 2016). Countries such as Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan imposed opioid bans in the 1970s, opening up markets for Afghanistan and other places such as the North and South America. Drug cartels have been growing in other countries other than the United States including Mexico, India, Brazil, and Columbia among others. Cartels in Mexico make between 19 billion and 29 billion dollars every year (Coyne et al., 2016). Despite billions invested in curbing drug abuse, more deaths are recorded annually due to the availability of cheaper and more accessible drugs. Increased drug abuse has led to rise in violence, crime, human rights violations, and the spread of infectious diseases such as HIV and HCV.
The United Nations is confronted with the fact that policies and interventions designed to end the War on Drugs have failed. It signifies that time has come for the world to try something new. Countries such as Uruguay have been pushing for the legalization of marijuana which according to researchers poses little to no damaging effects on the user’s health (Gurley, 2019). In America, popular opinions suggest that presidential candidates in the 2020 ballot must address the legalization of marijuana in order to win over citizen’s votes. Marijuana arrests have exceeded total arrests made for violent crimes, despite both Trump and Obama pardoning individuals involved in marijuana cases. Researchers indicate that marijuana has health benefits in a variety of conditions including cancers, heart ailments and pain alleviation (Gurley, 2019). Countries around the globe have come to the consensus that the war against drugs has become too expensive and needs to be abandoned for increased focus on health and human rights (Sharp, 2016). The war on drugs has focused too much in incarceration, neglecting the need for rehabilitative facilities for those affected.
Future Implications
The War on Drugs is continuous. The policies against the production, distribution and consumption of drugs have failed because for one, legislators asses their success on the number of incarcerations rather than the number of recoveries. Gurley (2019), points out that about 11500 people are serving federal sentences for marijuana possession and minor drug offenses. The federal government relies upon DEA policies established more than 5 decades ago by President Nixon (Savidge, 2019). The DEA in particular, has opposed the legalization of Marijuana for years in order to preserve the agency’s drug warrior culture. Moreover, the federal government supports the DEA since cash and other goods seized from cartels are directed towards funding congressional allocations (Gurley, 2019). In preparation for the future, world leaders have to formulate credible and humane ways of dealing with drug users. Incarcerating people without treatment and later releasing them back into the community ties the globe into a continuous cycle of trying to end a problem while still fueling its growth. For a start, the Federal government can authorize funded research on the effects of Marijuana to acquire credible data to support its legalization and rescheduling as a Schedule V drug.
Legal supervised injection sites are considered the next step after the war on drugs. The first program, referred to as Insite, was established in Vancouver, Canada (Gagnon, 2017). The area is referred to the Downtown Eastside section, comprised of ten-block area with single rooms in which drugs can be administered without interruptions from law enforcement (Sharp, 2016). Health Canada aims at taking all drug users living on the streets and relying on substandard drugs for survival. The centers have recovery units for persons who feel that they want to recover from addiction (Kinshella et al., 2018). They are not coerced to join the sessions. Nurses and doctors provide clean needles and syringes for drug use to the occupants (Shaw et al., 2015). Supervised injection sites (SISs) have ambitious goals but cannot be regarded as the solution to the war on drugs. The initiative only promotes more people into using drugs by creating an atmosphere safe from the law. Governments around the world should prioritize on reducing incarcerations of minor drug offenses and focus more on providing recovery services.
Owing to the increased numbers of people using technology, it becomes vital in using it to fight drugs in future. According to Pew Research Center, over 90% of the teens use social networks every day. The increased access to tablets, smart phones, and laptops has led to more young people getting into drugs. In the same vein, technology can be utilized in the war on drugs (Coyne, Blanco, & Burns, 2016). Although mobile phone surveillance has been available for some time, it can be improved and used alongside other advanced surveillance techniques to stay ahead on War on Drugs. The war on drugs is not likely to end and a budget is always there for purchase of new weapons, and experts are ready to use them.
Conclusion
The war on drugs has not only failed in achieving its own objectives but also undermined the intended purpose of rehabilitating drug users. For decades, United States policies and legislation have focused resources on futile agendas such the war in Afghanistan. Two decades ago, sending troops to Afghanistan seemed to be the best option in addressing the opioid issue in America. However, the situation has become more complex and demands for humane interventions such as rehabilitating addicts. America and other nations across the globe need to break free from their long history of referring to drug use as a weakness and labeling addicts as criminals who deserve imprisonment. A shift towards more empathetic policies is next step from the war on drugs.
References
Coyne, C. J., Blanco, A. R. H., & Burns, S. (2016). The war on drugs in Afghanistan: another failed experiment with interdiction. Independent Review , 21 (1), 95+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A455989170/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=e0c72e21
Gurley, G. (2019, Fall). Make Marijuana Effectively Legal: By rescheduling cannabis as a less dangerous narcotic, the next president can upend the drug war and the damaging effects on communities of color. The American Prospect , 30 (4), 24+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A603318338/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=f3e10ecd
Gagnon, M. (2017, August 28). It's time to allow assisted injection in supervised injection sites. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal , 189 (34), E1083+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A501831169/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=9f030470
Gwynne, K. (2018, June-July). The War on Drugs Is Working: The Opioid Phase of the Battle Reveals Its Craven Political Aims. The Progressive , 82 (3), 42+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A544710819/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=1298ff4f
Kinshella, M.-L. W., Gauthier, T., & Lysyshyn, M. (2018). Rigidity, dyskinesia, and other atypical overdose presentations observed at a supervised injection site, Vancouver, Canada. Harm Reduction Journal , 15 (1), NA. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A569077613/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=4afa75ef
Minhee, C., &Calandrillo, S. (2019, Spring). THE CURE FOR AMERICA'S OPIOID CRISIS? END THE WAR ON DRUGS. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy , 42 (2), 547+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A596402741/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=45dd0b14
Loewenstein, A.(2019, September 9). Pills, Powder, and Smoke: Inside the Bloody War on Drugs. Publishers Weekly , 266 (36), 60. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A600790153/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=0ad7f9f7
Savidge, T. (2019, Summer). The Concentration of Power in a Single Hand: Administrative Centralization and State and Local Drug Enforcement Policy in the United States, 1995-2016. Journal of Private Enterprise , 34 (2), 65+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A588079255/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=34723a2a
Sharp, A. E. (2016, September 14). After the war on drugs: a public health approach to addiction. The Christian Century , 133 (19), 28+. Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A464822384/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=adbf21c2
Shaw, A., Lazarus, L., Pantalone, T., LeBlanc, S., Lin, D., Stanley, D., Tyndall, M. (2015). Risk environments facing potential users of a supervised injection site in Ottawa, Canada. Harm Reduction Journal , 12 (1). Retrieved from https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A541504163/GPS?u=miss22358&sid=GPS&xid=2e5c3785
