Public Policy on Drugs - Research Paper Example

? Business Table of Contents Public Policy on Drugs 3 Introduction 3 History of Drug Policy 3 Current Situation 5 Rationale for Drug policy: Market or Government Failure 6 Analysis of policy’s Efficacy 7 Implementation of the Drug Policy 9 Evaluation of Drug Policy 11 Recommendations and Conclusion 12 Public Policy on Drugs Introduction A public policy as defined by (Kleiman, Caulkins & Hawken (2011) is a principle, in which most of the social laws tend to be based. It is characterized by the fact that it may be unwritten like in some cases where the government regulatory measures are always involved. A drug policy is therefore described as a policy which the government uses in its attempt to outdo the negative effects that arise from the misuse and addition of drugs and while trying to control the supply and demand of drugs (Kleiman, Caulkins & Hawken, 2011). Like alcohol, the exclusion that took place in the early 1920s was meant to get rid of various types of substances which were in the society. The prohibition did not seem to work and it has failed in the last few years. The failures associated with this prohibition have been most noticeable, due to the fact that today so many lives are being wasted and not to mention opportunities. It is now obvious that when it comes to determining what works well for people seems to be less straightforward. However, there are excellent examples from most states in the world indicating that there are more opportunities that can be used for improving policy implementation. History of Drug Policy Drugs in the US started surfacing in the 1800’s (Higate, Hughes, and Lart, 2006). Opium became widely known after the Civil War. The next drug to become popular was,cocaine in the late 1800’s. Coca an element in cocaine was mostly used as an ingredient in health remedies. The discovery of Morphine came a while later, in the year 1906 and was solely used as a medicinal component (Menzel, 2000). In the early 1900’s, there was a heightened knowledge that the psychotropic drugs had a great potential of causing addiction. Towards the end of 19th century, the abuse of cocaine and opium had reached worrying proportions. The Local governments actively began the prohibition of opium importation and dens. In 1906, the food and drug act was enacted. The act required that all doctors should accurately and clearly label medicines that they used. Drugs were now seen as a threat and no longer the remedies for illness. In 1914, the Harrison Narcotics act was enacted. This was Americas first Policy on drugs. It staunchly restricted the production and sale of a number of controlled substances. Under this act, doctors had the ability to administer to patients and the drugs acquired by drug addicts were secured through registered doctors (Lowinson, 2005). At the time, drug addiction was perceived as a medical problem and not an illegal activity. However in 1919, Americas Supreme Court made a harsh ruling against the treatment of drug addicts as a legal form of treatment. This drug policy mainly targeted physicians. In 1930, Harry J. Anslinger was chosen to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics which had been created by the Treasury Department. He was the head of this agency until 1962. During his time in power, drugs were highly criminalized. In 1951, the Boggs Act was enacted. Under this act, penalties for the use of Marijuana were drastically increased. In 1956, the Narcotics Control Act was created. This is believed to be the most punitive anti-narcotics law ever enacted. Propaganda was widely used as a preventative measure by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The bureau created horror stories relating to drugs and drug use. Marijuana for instance was said to bring about and fueled sex crimes. In 1966, due to an alarming increase drug use and abuse, the Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act was enacted, by Johnsons Administration. This act listed narcotic addiction as a form of mental illness. This particular act however, had no major impact on fighting drug usage because the funding allocated for treatment was too little, compared to the increased drug demand. Current Situation The Current policies on drugs are not effective and they are failing. These policies are causing great impairment to communities and even individuals. Poorly designed laws seeking to punish the production, the possession and the use of drugs have been the causal agents of widespread violence and instability. Over 40 years ago, President Nixon began the United States war on illegal drugs, and policy makers were not particularly amused by this, claiming that this harsh law against the drug users, producers and distributors would only lead to a continuous-thinning market of controlled substances. Practically, the scale of global drug markets has grown tremendously over the four decades (Inciardi, 2003). Currently, about 40 million Americans engage in the use of drugs. The most commonly used drugs are, methamphetamine, hallucinogens, cocaine, marijuana, heroin and prescription medicine for personal and non medical use every year. A half of this statistic only uses marijuana. In the last half decade, the use of marijuana has increased, especially the daily use whereas the prevalence of cocaine use has declined (Inciardi, 2003). There has also been a sharp decline of homicides related to the street markets for cocaine; however there has been a significant increase in the number of deaths related to prescription drugs. One of the recent challenges to the policy is the involvement of new substances, commonly known as Legal highs or Designer drugs, because they are not under any existing prohibitions. President Obama’s administration approximates that the federal spending would reach an estimated $ 26 billion annually. This funds are divided into several categories, these are, domestic law enforcement, prevention, international law enforcement, interdiction and treatment. Rationale for Drug policy: Market or Government Failure America is and has been at war with drugs for almost half a century. This war has been marred with great confusion, with the public questioning exactly as to why they are engaging in it. Four of our presidents have declared total war on drugs all through the years, but sadly it has proven to be a victory less war. The drug abusers still fill the hospitals, law courts and prisons. The trade of drugs has been a major cause of violent crimes in the neighborhoods. The Children who have parents who are drug abusers, go through a lot, they are neglected, abandoned or even abused. The sole beneficiaries are the members of organized crime in United Kingdom and in most cases the drug dealers (Reuter & Stevens, 2007). The fundamental question is, can America win this war or is it a war that will never end? Everyone agrees that drugs are harmful and have severe medical side-effects. Controlled substances are very addictive and can easily ruin families and life in general. The underlying question is, is the answer to wage a costly and fruitless battle to do away with drugs entirely? The United States Government has directed all its efforts towards the criminalization of use of drugs and has subsequently spent billions of dollars trying to do away with supply and distribution of drugs, to no avail. Other than being very costly, enforcement of drug laws has also been counterproductive. One of the problems with the current policy is the issue of money. It costs the government a lot of money to prosecute offenders as well as detaining them. America uses more money to build prisons than it uses to build schools. In 1998, an estimated $ 16 billion was used in federal to fight drugs with no positive results being seen. Without a solution to the current situation, the U.S. will remain in a vicious circle with no hope of coming out of it. This war has failed and by deeming drugs to be illegal, America has incurred a lot of loses rather than gains (Guzman, 2009). The country has been able to jail over half a million drug offenders which cost the country approximately 10 Billion dollars a year. The government has also spent billions of dollars every year for prolonged law enforcement. There has been an increase in violence and death, through turf wars by gangs, due to drug overdoses and through HIV\ AIDS brought about by sharing of needles by users. There has also been the erosion of civil rights, whereby the government seizes property from the perpetrator even before they are found to be guilty. Lastly, there is the aspect of enriching criminal organizations because the illegality of the drugs, which means users have to cough up a sizable amount of money in order as to sustain their habits. Analysis of policy’s Efficacy There are five pillars of interventions that need to be distinguished in the analysis of the policy’s efficacy, they are as follows: Prevention, Treatment, and domestic law enforcement, Reduction efforts on international supply side and Harm reduction outside America. One of the pillars involves the reduction of the drugs production right at the source. The government has centrally reduced the production of heroin and cocaine, by eradicating opium crops and coca bushes (Guzman, 2009). In turn, the former drug farmers are given an alternative means of livelihood. This approach seeks to bring down the amount of illegal drug crops cultivation. Another way the policy has been efficient is in combating drugs that are on transit. America has focused its effort on the joint monitoring, interdiction of operation and different forms of police training and maritime cooperation. This has greatly helped in the reduction of drug flow from the source countries to other destinations such as the U.K (Reuter & Stevens, 2007). The Dismantling of international illegal drug network is another means that the American government has used in its efforts to reduce drug trafficking and flow. U.S joins hands with other countries, and target major illicit drug transporters and international trafficking networks through the use of judicial mechanisms, financial sanctions and a variety of law enforcement interventions. America’s government provides support to other countries in strengthening their capacity to domestically deal with drug traffickers. The U.S government has also come up with the creation of incentives aimed at the international cooperation in drug flow control. To discourage foreign governments from helping or engaging in the production or trafficking of illicit drugs, the U.S government threatens or even suspends foreign assistance to the countries that are involved in major illicit drug production or are key transit for drugs. These countries are usually deemed ineligible to benefit from America’s trade activities. The reduction and prevention of drug demand outside the borders of America is another approach employed by the U.S government. America usually supports programs aiming to significantly reduce the amount of drug abuse globally, through the demand reduction assistance. Implementation of the Drug Policy Policy formulation is required in all public policies, but the policy only becomes effective when it is implemented. All policies and drug policies in particular have to be implemented. There is need for a detailed plan or strategy for all policies to work. However, each public policy has a way in which it is implemented and in addition, there are different ways in which policies are implemented in different states. An excellent example of such implementation is when the coverage of healthcare is determined, accessing drugs is usually not a problem, but perhaps the cost of such drugs may cause worries. In a scenario such as this, the implementation of a drug policy becomes mandatory and immediate and hence ensures there is a focus on market regulation where sustainable access and equity when it comes to drug provisions is not affected. For example in states which are least developed in the world, the total spending carried out on health and anything related to health, tends to be extremely low. Additionally, the private sector in such states usually does not have the power to meet the healthcare needs of such people. In such cases, it is only through policy implementation that ensures that the problem of drugs will be solved, because it increases drug access to the public members of the society. To fight such changes that are occurring in this century, U.S federal government has come up with new ways of controlling the drug trade. An excellent example is the Imported Drugs Act implemented in 1848. This was an act that was used in restricting substances such as cocaine and opium. This led to a widespread criminalization of such substances in the not only the U.S but its neighboring states. The 20th and 21st century made this much easier when it introduced a widespread movement of illegal drugs by introducing a 1906 Pure Foods and Drug Act. This was an Act that was mainly sought to ensure that the consumers were protected from alcohol and misbranded medicine. This Act promoted the establishment of a federal jurisdiction for regulation of drug imports and the sale of drugs. The 1914 Harrison Act was also imposed on Opium and Cocaine and declared both drugs to be illegal (Guzman, 2009). The Volstead Act of 1920 made it hard for alcohol to be legalized. It was only after the repeal of the 1933 Prohibition, that alcohol was made legal. The U.S federal agency’s approach to drug abuse for a long time has centrally based on the reduction of illicit drug supply and demand. In the last few years, the supply and demand strategies of drugs has therefore been grounded on the use of a model which encourages the use of criminal and legislation penalties on all the people who are using drugs. By setting such an example to drug traffickers the government had found a way of solving the problem. In the 1980 and 1990, this strategy of implementation seemed to work and the supply points had reduced drastically. In addition, federal initiatives carried out by drug enforcement administrative officers and the coast guard custom officers also ensured that the attempts to awake the trade were not successful. However, this only seemed to work for only some time. In the 20th and 21st century, this has not been enough and the borders are also proving to be highly porous (Lynch, 2000). The strategies used years ago are not working given the fact that technology is now changing almost on a weekly basis. In addition, there are now more initiatives that are used for the drug prevention programs. For example, now federal agencies have included treatment plans and education initiatives for the would-be drug users. This also ensures that there are proper ways through which the public is educated regarding the problems that come with using drugs. Evaluation of Drug Policy There is need for careful evaluation from policy makers since they are the people who determine the approaches that work best in a society. The onset of new technology provides the world with standardized indicators for the purpose of evaluating such policies. Three in four or five Americans today believe that the war on drugs in America has failed and continues to fail. This is Hakim’s view which he cites as an ongoing disappointment of the U.S citizens with their government in regard to anti-drug policies. According to Hakim (2011), the new strategies for dealing with the issue of illicit drugs are not enough and more needs to be done. There is no definite way that clearly shows that the drug policy in United States has succeeded or failed. Therefore, this is why making drug policy evaluations is critical step to preventing the continuation of illicit drug use. The U.S. unlike any other western state has more issues regarding illegal drug use. This is an issue, whether measured in regard to drug use and its prevalence or the crime and diseases arising from drug use. However, the good news is that this problem has been declining over the years and now it is less prominent than it was years ago in the public eyes. The drug policies that have been implemented over the years only seem to work in some states, however, the majority of people from minority communities are still vulnerable to illicit drug use. The impact that the drug policy has on business and society today is not good. Part of the problems brought about by the issue of drugs has to do with how the society is handling this problem. The war on drugs is also a problem within the individual American. In addition, the new phase of the usual drug use is that it is now leading to the abuse of hard drugs. The theories surrounding drug utilization are many and they may be classified as sociological, biological or psychological theories which in most cases give a more detailed explanation of the reason why drug abuse is rampant. There are also biological theories that emerged in the 19th century. The nature theories as Andrew Weil (2004) argued were the reason why people use drugs and get addicting to them was because it is an intrinsic human behavior. According to the assumptions made in this theory, the rooted desire to use drugs was connected to a general human desire in the world, which targeted the alteration of consciousness (Weil, 2004). Biological theories on the other hand emerged in the 19th century and this was in response to the aforementioned nature theories that some critics considered to be moralistic. The biological theories were focused on two areas. In the first area, biological theories based addition of neuro-chemicals and biogenetic bases. The suggestion from neuro-chemical explanations is that addition occurs because of the impulses that are sent from one nerve cell to another. The biogenetic theory assumes that the genetic of some individuals has everything to do with if they will be addicted in future. In social theories, the assumption is however different from the biological and other theories. In social theories, the assumption is that people are not born as drug users, but they learn such behavior from others. The argument is that if people were not using drugs in the first place, or if no one had an idea that drugs existed, the problems would also not exists. Recommendations and Conclusion a. To successfully implement the drug policy, the government has to be committed and at the same time hands-on. This is likely to help in enactment and implementation of other future drug policies. It is also recommended that certain measures are taken to ensure that drug policies will not fail in the near future. b. One, it is recommended for the U.S government to ensure it prepares its legislative structure early enough so as to enable it to develop and implement effective policies from an earlier stage. c. All windows of opportunity regarding drugs policy development should be seized immediately the opportunity arises. This means that when a neighboring country to the U.S. advance in drug policy implementation, the rest should do the same to ensure standardization of the policy across borders. d. It is recommended that during the implementation process, it is much easier to start with the easiest subject areas regarding drugs, so as to ensure the success and increased visibility of the policy from an early stage. e. Implementing the policy is one step towards doing away with the drug issues; however, adopting a flexible approach during the implementation process is also another step. The two have to go hand in hand because it allows a government to build a consensus for an approach that is more successful. f. It is recommended for drug agencies to get the national experts and well known politicians to show their support for the drug policy. This allows the public members to feel that they are confident about the policies that the government makes in regard to drugs. g. To ensure that the policy is support, certain key groups in the society can be used so as to show that the government fully supports the policy. The use of organizations such as trade unions and the media is one of the best ways of promoting the support of drug policy implementation. h. Another recommendation for winning the war on drugs is to anticipate various shifts in the position of opponents and come up with ways in which their support is won. An excellent way to do this would be for the pharmaceutical industry to take measures such as opposing drug policies. This is possible by introducing drug lists that are essential but at the same time ones which are likely to improve drug quality assurance. i. In conclusion, it is recommended that the U.S government should come up with constituents who are likely to support the policy on drugs, both inside and outside a government. This is a move that is critical for the long term success and the sustainability of the drug policy. References Friesendorf, C. (2007). Us foreign policy and the war on drugs: Displacing the cocaine and heroin industry. London: Taylor & Francis. Guzman, W. (2009). How to develop a national drug policy. A Guide for Policymakers, Practitioners, and Stakeholders, 29-34. Higate, P., R. Hughes, and R. Lart. (2006) Drugs: Policy and Politics: Policy and Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill International. Inciardi, J. (2003). The irrational politics of American drug policy: Implications for criminal law and the management of drug-involved offenders. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 275-290. Kleiman, M., Caulkins, J., & Hawken, A. (2011). Drugs and drug policy: What everyone needs to know. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Lowinson, J. (2005). Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Lynch, T. (2000). After prohibition: An adult approach to drug policies in the 21st century. Washington: Cato Institute. Menzel, S. (2000). Cocaine quagmire: Implementing the u. s. anti-drug policy in the north andes-colombia. Maryland: University Press of America. Reuter, P., & Stevens, A. (2007). An analysis of U.K drug policy a monograph prepared for the U.K drug policy commission. The UK drug policy Commission, 54-70 Weil, A. (2004). The natural mind: A revolutionary approach to the drug problem. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Read More