History of War on Drugs - Research Paper Example

The war on drugs Introduction The phrase ‘war on drugs’ was developed in the united s 5o years ago to mean the efforts that the government was making towards the eradication of illegal drug trade and drug use in the country and neighboring states. Due to the impacts of illegal drug use and abuse on American citizens, the government has adopted a number of approaches to ensure that illegal trade in the country is controlled. President Richard Nixon contributed significantly in shaping the country’s was on drugs when he declared that drug abuse was the country’s number one enemy (Fulkerson and Fida 64). As a result, approaches were put in place through legislative support from congress to enhance resource allocation to drug abuse control agencies. However, some of the approaches that have been adopted in the war on drugs have been criticized for being counterproductive and instead limiting the rehabilitation of the victims. In this paper, the war on drugs as adopted in the United States since the 70s will be discussed to demonstrate the level of commitment of the federal government in stamping out the vice. The paper wills also high some of the weaknesses of these approaches and how they have failed to eliminate this vice from the society permanently effectively. History of war on drugs The categorization of drugs in the United States into legal and illegal has never been based on any scientific findings or study, but rather on racial stereotypes. For example, opium was the first substance to be declared an illegal drug in 1870 due to the fact that the Chinese immigrants would extensively use it. Anti-cocaine law also followed in the same direction when the south declared it illegal as a result of its preferred use among the black community. Marijuana was associated with Mexican and Latino immigrants in the early 1910s and this led to its categorization as an illegal and harmful substance (Fulkerson and Fida 60). However, the Nixon administration during the 1970s as youth rebellion, political dissent and social disorder continued to rise initiated the modern war on drugs, as we know it today. The administration associated the erosion in social fabric to continued use of such drugs by the youths and this led to the legislative decisions that were made during this period. By declaring the war on drugs, Nixon increased the number of agencies and their financial resource allocation to empower them and increase their ability to address the drug menace. Marijuana was, for the first time, placed in schedule one by the administration of Nixon, sounding a more restrictive alarm to the users and traders in the country and beyond. The director of the agency, commonly known as the ‘drug czar’ has been empowered after its establishment by Bush senior. President Clinton elevated this position to cabinet level status and this demonstrated the commitment of the national government to eliminate the challenge of drug abuse in the United States (Fulkerson and Fida 60). Domestic war on drugs policy The United States domestic war on drugs policy has been strengthened over the years since the administration of Nixon initiated the first steps towards eliminating the menace. Through the creation of different control agencies and increasing financial and personnel resources to the war on drugs, the United States domestic policy has remained vibrant. However, the approaches that have been developed as will be highlighted in this section have met criticism from various quarters for being racially castigated to target the black and Latino communities in the country (Small 897). As part of its domestic policy on the war on drugs, the United States government has promoted the arrest and incarceration of illegal drug users and peddlers. Though this policy can be effective in limiting the growth of the trade in the country, its success has been hampered with resistance from the African American community who feel targeted by this policy. From 1980s, the number of arrests and incarcerations as a result of drug use and trade plummeted to 126% compared to incarceration of perpetrators of other crimes that stood at 28%. Foreign suspects of drug use and trade have been deported after serving their years in detention, a policy that has existed since its introduction by the administration of Bush senior (Fisher 74). Apart from arrest and incarceration, the United States through the senate, has introduced sentencing disparity policy for suspects found in possession or trafficking different categories of drugs. For example, cocaine and crack attract different penalties based on this policy due to the belief that crack is more addictive and dangerous to the consumers as compared to powder cocaine. However, opponents of the war on drug policy have argued that the disparity in the sentencing was introduced to strengthen the penalties mooted on the black Americans who are believed to have high preference for crack as compared to powder cocaine (Fisher 74). Any individual found guilty of possessing five grams of cocaine is subjected to a minimum five-year sentence while 500 gram powder cocaine attracts a similar penalty. According to human rights watch, the crime statistic from the United States in the last 10 years demonstrates the dominance of the drug offenders in the justice system. However, the racial disparities that have existed in the number of people arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to jail has contributed to the backlash from minority Americans who feel that they are unfairly targeted in the war on drugs (Fisher 74). Foreign war on drugs policy Apart from the domestic efforts that have been put in place to continue with the war on drugs, the united states have also adopted a foreign military and paramilitary cooperation with other countries. Such initiatives have been developed to ensure that drug traffickers and users from foreign countries do not infiltrate the borders of the United States to traffic their drugs. Cartels and drug groups in Columbia and Mexico have been majorly targeted in such military cooperation as part of the foreign policy on the war on drugs (Kahane 28). For example, President Nixon initiated the operation intercept with the Mexican authority aimed at intercepting drugs being trafficked from Mexico into the United States. This operation significantly affects the operation along the country’s border with Mexico but was contributed to a decline in illegal narcotics entering the country. However, this effort did not last for long because the drug cartels in Mexico had infiltrated the government and thus affected their cooperation with the United States. Anti-cocaine law also followed in the same direction when the south declared it illegal as a result of its preferred use among the black community. Marijuana was associated with Mexican and Latino immigrants in the early 1910s and this led to its categorization as an illegal and harmful substance (Johnson 34). The United States also launched the operation just cause in panama in which the country cooperated with Manuel Noriega to eliminate the contra groups that had significantly infiltrated the United States with its illegal drug business. This operation was however shadowed with the deals of the CIA in which military and financial assistance was provided to Noriega despite his individual involvement in drug trafficking activities in the country. Though this approach was intended to eliminate the contra group drug trafficking activities, it reduced the influence of the DEA. However, the revelation of the United States involvement in protecting and supporting Noriega spelt doom for the later as he was arrested and imprisoned for 45 years on drug trafficking charges (Small 897). Support to foreign military to aid the fight against drug trafficking into the United States did not stop with Noriega as the country entered into other partnerships with Columbia under the plan Columbia initiative. In this plan, the United States has continued to support the military of Columbia through training and equipment to enhance their capacity to handle sophisticated drug cartels in the country. For example, DynCorp has entered into partnership with the Columbian military under the plan Columbia initiative to assist in controlling drug trafficking into the United States. Apart from financial support, the war on drugs under the foreign policy has provided insurgency training to the members of the military to enhance the efforts (Fisher 74). Social and economic impacts of the war on drugs Though a noble initiative aimed at ridding the united states of drug abuse and illegal drug trade, the initiative has had significant impacts on the economy and the society at large. The war on drugs as was introduced by president Richard Nixon has led to the creation of a permanent underclass especially among the African Americans (Kahane 26). By imposing penalties and prison sentences on the suspects, most of them have been purposefully eliminated from competitive job and economic opportunities within the society. The war on drugs has thus contributed to the emergence of a group of people who have less educational and employment opportunities, thus forcing them to belong to the underclass category without any meaningful economic activity except crime and drug trafficking (Johnson 34). According to Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard university scholar, the annual cost on the war on drugs remain high due to the cost of domestic and foreign policies adopted by the government. The cost of arresting and prosecuting the drug suspects is high as compared to the cost that would have been incurred in the event that these drugs were legalized. Growers of crops such as coca that has been categorized as a drug have been influenced by the war on drugs in the country. Countries like Bolivia and Columbia who are traditional coca growers and who use the crop for medicinal and spiritual functions have witnessed significant losses due to the restrictions. This has affected their economic empowerment and reduced the use of the crop for controlled medicinal and cultural functions in these countries (Kahane 26). Support and opposition to the war on drugs in the United States Support and opposition for the war on drugs has grown significantly over the years, further demonstrating the impacts that this policy statement has had on the society. Though significant success has been achieved with the war on drugs, a small number of Americans believe that it has achieved its intended objective. Opposition to the war on drugs has majorly arisen from minority members of the United States society who believe that the policy has targeted them more than other members of the society. As a result, public cooperation with the authorities has remained limited as members of the public fear being reprimanded for betraying a comrade (Johnson 34). However, the official opposition for the war on drugs has been demonstrated though the emergence of groups and lobby organizations that advocate for the decriminalization of drugs. To such groups, decriminalizing drugs will limit and significantly reduce the impacts it has had on members of the society, as frameworks will be developed to regulate their use. For example, former Caribbean American presidents including Guatemala, Columbia and Mexico have emerged to strongly advocate for the decriminalization of these drugs as a way of reducing the powers of the drugs gangs and cartels. They argue that the war on drugs has failed and new policies must be developed to ensure that the cartels do not continue with their trade that is destructive to life (Small 897). Conclusion The introduction of the war on drugs by President Richard Nixon was a noble initiative aimed at reducing the infiltration and use of different drugs in the United States. The war on drugs has achieved significant strides despite the challenges and opposition that it has continued to face from within and beyond the United States. Works cited Fisher, Gary L. Rethinking Our War on Drugs: Candid Talk about Controversial Issues. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2006. Fulkerson, Gregory, and Fida, Mohammad. "The Failure of the War on Drugs: A Comparative Perspective." Pakistan Journal of Criminology 3.2 (2011): 55-70.  Johnson, Paul. "The War on Drugs: A Defining Moment." Forbes 191.4 (2013): 34. Kahane, Adam. "Re-Viewing the War on Drugs Scenarios for the Drug Problem in the Americas." Reflections 13.3 (2013): 24-29. Small, Deborah. "The War On Drugs Is A War On Racial Justice." Social Research 68.3 (2001): 896-903. Read More