Controlling the World of Drugs - Research Paper Example

Controlling the World of Drugs Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 Since early twentieth century, one of the major, recurrent problems on American social and political agenda is Drug abuse and drug-related crime. In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government was rather quiet on drug issues. President Nixon declared a war on drugs in the early 1970s. In the 1980s, the US faced a severe epidemic of drug abuse, whose main cause was the abuse of cocaine. This epidemic became worse as a result of a neglect of drug control issues by the Reagan administration. Budgets funding drug abuse prevention and treatment and law enforcement steadily reduced, while drug use and violence was rising. The majority of presidents after Nixon continued to wage the same war. The 1980s was the climax of this phase of legislative transformation on national drug policy. During that period, the most significant set of statutes was put in place. This was referred to as ‘The Anti-drug Abuse Act’. The set up of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to put into action a national strategy, lay down priorities, and endorse federal drug-control budgets became a key provision of that Act. The law indicates that the strategy is required to be all-inclusive and researched. It should include goals that will extend a long time into the future and objectives that can be measured. It should also aim at reducing drug abuse and trafficking, and their consequences. Drug abuse is to be specifically curbed by preventing youth from using illegal drugs, decreasing drug availability and reducing the number of users. (Anti-drug Abuse Act, 1986) Efforts by the federal government to fight drugs were strengthened by the Anti Drug Abuse Act in many ways. A provision in the Act also permits the president to increase tax on imports coming from nations that do not oblige with the U.S. endeavors, to bring to an end drug imports into the United States. A different provision makes confiscation of offenders' possessions including houses, money, cars etc easier. The act also formed the first regulations against laundering of money and depositing or withdrawing from bank accounts money obtained illegally such as proceeds from drugs sale. A congressional study done in 1995 put an estimate of about $40 billion to $80 billion in drug profits, made each year in the United States. The most extensive impact of the act, however, was the reinstated compulsory prison sentences for drug possession. Before1986, the federal government, had no mandatory minimum sentences for drugs in effect. In the 1986 act, Congress restored fixed prison terms by characterizing the amounts of various drugs believed to be in the hands of high-level dealers drug or” kingpins,". For crack cocaine, Congress moved away from its "kingpin" and "midlevel dealer" classes to simply dividing amounts necessary for powder-cocaine sentences by 100. Therefore, instead of 5,000 grams of powder cocaine, 50 grams of crack would earn a minimum of ten years sentence, and a five-year sentence for 5 grams of crack, rather than 500 grams of powder. There was no mandatory sentence for trafficking 50 grams of powder cocaine. These mandatory sentences for possession of such a small amount of crack cocaine were considered rather unfair and insensible by critics and some members of congress. This 100-to-1 sentencing inconsistency was justified by congress by laying emphasis on the severe social harms associated with crack use. Even though, powder cocaine and crack constitute the same chemical substance, crack is bought at a cheaper price on the streets. Smoking crack stimulates a stronger intoxicating effect. Crack was widely used in the mid 1980s and was mostly associated with violence and street crime. Media reports generated growth in congressional concern over the epidemic of crack usage in the summer of 1986. The 1986 Act dramatically increased federal funding for drug abuse programming and brought coherence to the national drug control strategy. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act was a policy success. Since the late 1980s, a steady reduction in the abuse of all forms of cocaine, including crack was witnessed. National Drug Control Strategy Publication of the National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS) is done around February annually by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). ONDCP is responsible for establishing drug-control policy and setting national goals for reducing the illicit use and trafficking of drugs. Office of National Drug Control Policy is an executive government agency. It is the primary federal agency that is accountable for the nation’s war on drugs. ONDCP conveys information about the goals, performance and budget of the war on drugs to the public and members of Congress through NCDS. The first National Drug Control Strategy that was published in 2010 charted a new direction in efforts to decrease illicit drug use and the bad effects of drug use in the United States. The National Drug Control Strategy balances between public health and safety reforms based on evidence. The National Drug Control Strategy focuses on seven core areas. 1. Intensification of efforts to thwart drug use in the communities. 2. Looking for opportunities for early intervention in health care. 3. Assimilating treatment for substance use disorders into health care and supporting recovery. 4. severing the drug use cycle, crime, delinquency, and incarceration; 5. Interrupting the usual course of local drug trafficking and production; 6. Making international partnerships against drug use stronger; and 7. Making information systems better thus improving analysis, assessment, and locally address drug use and its consequences. (National Drug Control Strategy, 2012) Comparison The term “war on drugs” in the Anti –Drug Abuse act was called to an end partly because previously drug use was considered a law enforcement or criminal justice problem and it changed to being viewed more as a public health problem in the National Drug control strategy. It was noted that using this term was misleading because the United States was not fighting with the people using drugs, but rather it was at war with the illegal drugs and their effects. In the National Drug Control Strategy use of drugs is viewed as a combination of criminal justice, social policy, and a public health problem. A national drug control policy, which consist of strict imposition of criminal sanctions against users, establishment of more prisons, and insufficient treatment as in the Anti-drug Abuse Act is contemptuous of the profound public health dimensions of the drug epidemic. Powerful reasons and new data supported an alternative vision of a national drug strategy focusing on prevention, education, and treatment. The old fashioned policies of accountability of the user and zero tolerance in the Anti-drug abuse permitted the justice system to direct the state's dreadful powers at drug dependent persons themselves. They did not put into account the fact that drug dependent persons have intense problems both physically and psychologically and above all are concentrated in urban areas with a high population of poor people. These drug dependent people as a group were susceptible to state power abuse and had difficulties obtaining health care services. The Anti drug Abuse Act policies simply crushed concerns about public health. The raison d'etre of policies and legislation devised to avert the drugs usage in the society is the health of both the user and the public at large. If the Policies appeared antagonistic to the objectives of the public health, they were not worthy of support. This did not imply that most of the policies were improper in a diverse strategy to hold back drug use. Government policy of "zero tolerance” to drug use expressed the view that all drug use, of whatever scale, would meet strict law enforcement and criminal charges. The policy did not make any balanced differentiation for experimental first use, casual use, regular use, or serious physical dependency. Furthermore, it made no differentiation regarding the type drug used, unless the drug is a legal one, such as a prescription or normal alcohol use. Some of the administration’s most argued addict related proposals are contained in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. The bill had several functions. (1) Make the procedure for expulsion of foreigners convicted of drug offenses more efficient. (2) Consent of banishment of American citizens to another country without considering if United States is obligated by an extradition treaty with the foreign government. (3) Authorize immigration agents to make arrests for immigration crimes, which include possession of drugs. (4) Expand the list of drug offences that would be subjected to the death penalty. (Anti-drug Abuse Act, 1986) The apparent validation for this user directed law enforcement policy was not merely punishment but also deterrence. Prevention or deterrence decreases demand for drugs and so indirectly harms suppliers. Advocates argue that tolerating drug abuse of any kind would generate a public health problem by permitting the illegal drugs market to flourish. Policy makers themselves portray user directed punishment as a market force strategy to lower demand. In the process of creating the National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP seeks advice from various federal Drug Control Program agencies. Reviews on the respective drug budgets are then done by ONDCP and then it fits them into the National Drug Control Budget, which is presented to Congress as a component of the yearly appropriations process. National Drug Control Strategy is to outline a plan to reduce two principal issues. (1) Illegal consumption of drugs in the United States. (2) The consequences of illegal drug use. To generate the Strategy, ONDCP consults 42 contributing federal Drug Control Program agencies as well as the Congress; local, tribal and state officials; foreign government representatives; and private sector representatives who have knowledge in both drug supply and demand reduction. By economic year1986, the total funds allocated to drug control programs dropped to 235 million dollars, which was less than two thirds of the 1979 budget. This means that the level of federal funding for treatment decreased by more than fifty percent in the 1980s. This low level of support for treatment, the lack of sufficient services in the drug misuse health care and criminal justice systems and the long waiting lists are evidence of society's opinion of drug dependent people as morally blameworthy rather than ill. Conclusion If dramatic expansion of the criminal justice system, advanced centralization of responsibility and control over the nation's anti drug efforts, and provision of superior power and funds to anti drug enforcement and programs will lessen American drug problems, the administration's proposals should be put into place to demonstrate it. Alternatively, as predicted by several members of both the conservative and liberal scholarly communities, the stress on cocaine and marijuana prohibition may result in a supply reduction and increased corruption in the criminal justice system, elevated drug prices, and substitutions with alternative drugs such as methamphetamines for cocaine and marijuana. Creation of extra public reception of a policy of restrained legalization of illicit drugs in the United States would be a better option. The tragedy of the drug epidemic for man does not simply affect the person's health, but spreads disease, and also leads to crime. A better goal would be to avoid aggressive punishment for drug use but to thwart and treat drug dependency. Therefore, guidelines directed toward the user should be based upon promotion of health, and not confrontation and punishment. Finally, if any reasonable measure of success were used, experimental evidence suggests that punishment directed to the user has not been successful. If the main goal of the drug war is to protect the health and safety of the society as in the National Drug control Strategy (2012) and not just punishing the immoral pleasure seeking behavior, policies should be mainly directed towards harm reduction. Assessment of efficiency of the policies should be based on lower rates of drug addiction and transmission of infections through needles, and increased social productivity and adaptability as well. In a sensible policy analysis, ethical qualities of behavior judgments have extremely little value. A good policy to bring the drug epidemic to an end should be justified by tangible health and social benefits. It goes without saying that the current National Drug Control Strategy is preferred to the Anti-drug Abuse Act of 1986. References Office of National Drug Control Policy. (1986). Anti-drug Abuse Act of 1986. Retrieved from http://www.brokport.edu/~govdoc/SocPol/p199570.pdf  Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2012). National Drug Control Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/2012_ndcs.pdf U .S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center. (2011). National drug threat assessment 2011. Retrieved from http://www .justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/44849/44849p .pdf Read More