Case For or Against the War on Drugs - Essay Example

Case For or Against the War on Drugs Introduction The war on drugs has been a contentious and will definitelycontinue to be so. The persistent fighting against drugs is influenced by the devastating effects that drugs have on people. It is also a dynamic one in which the line between the law enforcers and the criminals is blurred by the involvement of corrupt law enforcement officers who collude with the traffickers. This corruption explains why there is always a new cartel coming up to replace one that has been brought down. This article will assess the gains and losses that this war has made with an aim of determining the relevance of this war. Case for the War on Drugs Despite many apparent setbacks, the war on drugs has made tremendous gains in its efforts geared towards making the world a safer place. There have been concerted efforts aimed at ending the rampant trade in drugs. These efforts have been made by all stake holders in the United States over the past 40 years since then serving President Richard Nixon launched the U.S Government’s war on drugs.1 Several progressive steps have been made targeted at countering the flourishing use and sale of drugs in the U.S. One such stride has been the advocacy for a paradigm shift in the war against drugs. As was expressed by President Obama in a digital town hall meeting, in 2011, there is a need to move from the old approach of the war on drugs to a new one. One way of accomplishing this has been looking at possible ways of shrinking the demand for drugs among the users.2 This represents a shift from looking at this war as a primarily, criminal justice problem3. When looking at the war on drugs as a criminal justice problem, the emphasis of tackling it involves arrest, incarceration and interdiction4. While this has had good results, it has had the unfortunate disadvantage of unintentionally giving some of the offenders an opportunity to slip through the cracks. Currently there is a move towards looking at the war on drugs as a public health problem.5 This means that the government has acted as a guardian of the public’s interests6. This thus means that the government has managed to win the hearts of the people who advocate for social justice in the country. Another gain in the war on drugs was the Reagan’s administration’s efforts to take away the drugs from the consumers through efforts made to cut down the crop abroad. This effort can be seen in countries like Bolivia. In this country, the efforts to reduce the drug production saw the seizure of twenty seven tones of cocaine in 1986. This was an improvement from just one tone netted in 1981.7 On the whole, the war on drugs has gained a number of notable wins over the trade and production of drugs. There has been a decline in the production, trafficking, distribution and consumption of drugs all over the world. This has been driven largely by an increasingly tight global prohibition on drugs. This is a sign that nations have seen the need to unite together in order to fight this menace.8 There are other gains in the pursuit of the war on drugs. One of these gains has been among the youth. Institution of education and awareness campaigns has been initiated for the benefit of these youth. These awareness campaigns are meant to ensure that the youth are well aware of the risks of drugs, as well as driving them towards alternative methods of recreation thus keeping them out of harm’s way.9 At learning institutions and even in society, the youth are kept away from drugs through the imposition of very stiff penalties if found to be in possession of drugs. This is aimed at ensuring that the youth keep away from drugs. Any involvement on their pair, in the using of even the smallest quantities of drugs, can easily push them into the use of drugs. In the prisons, there are treatment centres for the prisoners who are recovering from both drug use and abuse10. As seen above, there have been efforts to deal with the drug trade’s demand side, as a possible mode of trying to reduce the unfavourable effects of the drugs. In its efforts to stamp out the drugs menace, the US government has also gone into partnership with the private sector. One of these groups is the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA). This partnership has conducted a form of research that concluded that the US citizens must see or hear at least one anti drug use message in a day. While recognizing its role in protecting the masses, the government should incorporate other stakeholders especially in the fight against drugs. This thus means that it needs to accept the help that is provided by organizations like the PDFA.11 The US government has also sought to export her war on drugs to other countries like Japan and Germany where it can help curb drug abuse.12 Though these countries have participated in other strategies that also deal with drug abuse13, they are none-the-less highly likely to gain if they adopt the strategies which the US government feels are more compatible with the domestic capacities of the policy makers14. Case against the War on Drugs The war on drugs has been on a losing streak of late, with a lot more setbacks than progress in winning it. The question that lingers is whether the government should not move to decriminalize the drugs and thereby achieve more results. Decriminalizing drugs is not to be confused with legalizing them. Decriminalizing drugs is a process of reducing the stigma associated with the drugs. However, the government has failed in its mission, and a number of reforms need to be undertaken. In the U.S, the war on drugs has been hijacked by other ulterior objectives. The United States government has, for example, used this war to further its geopolitical and economic interests.15 This means that the United States government uses this war to attempt to eliminate persons that it does not like such as the Cuban President Fidel Castro, as well as, countries such as Nicaragua16. This has led to the situations where the US government has accused these foreign governments of harbouring drug lords and even supporting them. The US government does this despite the fact that the government sometimes does not have any evidence of this17. It is through the ‘war on drugs’ that the US government is able to manipulate public sentiments against such people or countries18. This thus indicates the government is not really interested in fighting the drug war. It is more interested in the advancement of its own agendas in most of the places that it declares this war to be waged. According to Castro and Singer, some government officials make behind the scenes moves in support of the drug trade. This is all aimed at ensuring that the country has enough ammunition to advance claims that a particular country has drugs within its borders and thus justifying the invasion of the country.19 The CIA has, for example, been accused of furthering the consumption of drugs within the U.S. This was achieved through indirect means that then caused chain reactions. By supporting its allies in Southeast Asia and possibly Afghanistan, the CIA promoted the drug problem almost unwittingly. This has to do with the fact that some of these allies were heavily involved in drugs production. With the lack of stability in countries like Afghanistan, the drugs were produced with relative ease.20 The attention of the anti drug efforts on one type of drug was another folly. The effort in the 80s to eradicate heroin production in the Latin American states was the reason for the preference of cartels to cocaine21. This is a somewhat clear indication of the immense futility of the entire war as the efforts of the war on drugs saw a replacement of one drug with another in the international drug market for the cartels. Similarly, when the blame is laid on foreign heads of state, the important issues such as class inequality, which is a cause of the drug problem are ignored22. In the US, there is a deliberate attempt to paint a drug addict as a socially reprehensive individual who is the reason why homes are unsafe and the streets are dirty23. This is arguably an improper method of handling the problem of drug users, as this kind of ostracism tends to drive the users into cocoons. This is where they can congregate and continue to use the drugs thus exposing them to diseases like HIV/AIDS due to sharing of needles. Successive governments have come up with even more tougher laws to deal with the menace of drugs. This has seen these governments engage in what would appear as attempts to outdo each other with laws that tackle the drug menace.24 However, the only thing that this strict regime of laws has succeeded in doing has been to worsen the already bad drug situation. A brief look at the history of drug control in the United States reveals that the prohibited commodity thrives more during the prohibition than when it is not given a lot of attention25. In the roaring 20s when there was drug prohibition, the prisons recorded an increase in the number of federal prisoners. Between 1920 and 1932, the inmates went up from 3000 to 12000 inmates. Of these, two-thirds were in prison on alcohol or drug related offences26. It is during this time that Al Capone the charismatic criminal thrived and made a fortune running bootleg. At that time, the government had banned all forms of alcohol consumption but clearly the Al Capone’s of the day were found to be making outstanding profits. The failure of the war on drugs can be perceived as being the result of three fatal flaws.27 According to Bertram et al28 these flaws doom the drug strategy from its very onset, giving it little or no room to become effective. According to Bertram et al, there must be a clear distinction between the failures and the flaws of the drug war. These failures include a high supply and demand, and use of these drugs. These flaws are found in the war on the supply of drugs. Bertram et al, posit that the US government attacks the drugs from the farm to shipment and at its final destination. All this is aimed at making the whole drug trade expensive thus discouraging those who invest in it from doing so. These attempts have not borne much fruit. According to Bertram et al, the drugs have become cheaper and more pure with time despite attempts to make them otherwise. One interesting factor is the cheap production costs coupled with the monopoly like conditions make the trade in drugs very profitable. Similar to any other business, the drug trade follows the laws of demand and supply29. Always attacking the supply and not tackling the demand side does not work effectively. This is because it means that the downfall of one supplier is soon replaced by another. The supplier comes in to cater for the demand that has been left. The high risk high return nature of this trade means that the demand is always present. Suggested Solutions to the Problems on the War against Drugs With the above deliberations, the war against drugs has been on a losing streak, and this needs to change. There are several resolutions that have been proposed in a bid to turn the tide in this war. One important issue is that of decriminalizing the drugs. There are a lot of benefits to be gained from decriminalizing drugs. In the case of possession, its decriminalization will be beneficial because it will reduce the caseload in the courts, as well as reduce the number of inmates in prison.30 Apart from saving the tax payer a lot of money, the decriminalization will also prevent the petty offenders from being wrongly influenced while in jail. Looking at the children who will be charged as juveniles, the revision of Cannabis from a Class B drug to a Class C drug will be beneficial to them.31 While it will not make the consumption of the drug legal, it will, however, function to mitigate the sentence. This will translate to a lesser sentence as the current long prison sentences, have had the effect of ruining the lives of these individuals by severely punishing them while they are still young. According to Fisher, decriminalization has to be applied selectively.32 This means that not all drugs should be decriminalized. He gives the example of a drug like Marijuana as a drug that can be decriminalized. At the same time, the quantity that is found on the person will matter a lot. If it is a small quantity, the choice not to arrest the individual should be stronger than the case where there are large amounts on the person33. Fisher is supported by Furze et al. who also supports decriminalization of some drugs like marijuana. Care has to be taken to ensure that the drugs being decriminalized are not hard drugs but are those drugs that have cause little harm to a person’s health. Examples of countries that have decriminalized the possession of cannabis include: Netherlands, Belgium if below 5 grams, among others.34 Conclusion In the contemporary world, there are a lot of discrepancies. The manner that discrepancies like drug use are solved depends on a lot of issues. Clearly, the war has not been won and, therefore, a number of reforms are necessary. This, therefore, needs the policy makers to think outside the box when they are coming up with solutions. The application of decriminalization is one such reform that could help a lot of people as well as governments. Bibliography: Bean, P, Legalizing Drugs: Debates and Dilemmas, Bristol: The Policy Press, 2010. Bertram, E, et al, Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial, California: University of California Press. 1996. Brux, M, Economic Issues and Policy, Ohio: Thomson South-Western, 2008. Castro, A, & Singer, M, Unhealthy Health Policy: A Critical Anthropological Examination, California, Altamira Press, 2004. Chepesiuk, R, The War on Drugs: An International Encyclopedia, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 1999. Elwood, W, Rhetoric in the War on Drugs: The Triumphs and Tragedies of Public Relations, Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994. Esposito, L, & Finley, L, Grading the 44th President: A Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader, California: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2012. Fisher, G, Rethinking Our Way on Drugs: Candid Talk about Controversial Issues, Greenwood Westport: Publishing Group. 2006. Friesendorf, C, US Foreign Policy and the War on Drugs: Displacing the Cocaine and Heroin Industry, New York, Routledge, 2007. Friman, R, NarcoDiplomacy: Exporting the US War on Drugs, New York: Cornell University Press, 1996. Gray, J, Why Our Drug Laws have failed: A Judicial Indictment of War on Drugs, Temple Philadelphia: University Press, 2001. Masters, T, Europe on a Shoestring, London: The Lonely Planet, 2009. Murphy, T, Rethinking the War on Drugs in Ireland, Cork: Cork University Press, 1996. Sorj, B, et al, ‘War on Drugs: Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, June, 2011 viewed 30 October 2012, http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf Read More