Effectiveness of the War on Drugs - Essay Example

?Effectiveness of the War on Drugs The effectiveness of the War on Drugs has been the of intense debate for much of the 20th century. Criticsclaim for the most part that expenditure on the War on Drugs is disproportionate to its results. For example, Boyum and Reuter report that the US spends upward of US$35 billion each year and there are approximately 500,000 drug dealers and drug users incarcerated on drug related offences. Even so, the US continues to have the greatest drug problems among comparable Western countries.1 On the other side of the argument, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) argues that despite the widespread criticisms about the ineffectiveness of the War on Drugs, 95 per cent of Americans do not use drugs.2 The DEA was established by an Executive Order under President Richard Nixon’s administration in July 1973. The purpose was to create a central office for waging the war on drugs. Upon its establishment, the DEA was comprised of 1,470 Special Agents with a US$75 million budget. The DEA currently has 5,200 Special Agents with an operating budget of US$2.6 billion.3 Both sides of the argument have merits. In other words it is equally arguable that the War on Drugs is ineffective and that the War on Drugs is effective. Therefore the best that can be deduced is that it is virtually impossible to measure the effectiveness of the War on Drugs. To start with, it is difficult to devise a benchmark for measuring the War on Drugs. For instance, is the War on Drugs measured by reference to the expenditure and the prevalence of drug use and exploitation? Or is it fair to measure the effectiveness of the War on Drugs by identifying the percentage of non-users? Each of these methods of measurements raise significant questions relative to their validity. For instance, if the expenditure were less would the problems of drug use be greater? If there was no War on Drugs would the percentage of users be greater? Regardless, the US government and a majority of governments are determined to control drug use and production. Meanwhile, drug users and drug producers are just as determined to continue producing and using drugs. In measuring the effectiveness of the War on Drugs both of these factors are significant. The main question is whether or not drug users and producers’ determination to use controlled substances is matched by governments’ determination to control the use and production of illicit drugs. In this regard, the US drug policy and its War on Drugs’ agenda is approached from a supply side initiative. In other words, the US government expresses its determination to control drug use and production by primarily focusing on interdicting drugs and thereby preventing its entry into the US. Given the extent of the drug problem in the US this interdiction oriented scheme is for the most part ineffective. Boyum and Reuter report that: Drugs are as accessible as ever as inflation-adjusted prices for cocaine and heroin have fallen by more than half.4 In other words, despite its best and most expensive efforts to prevent illicit drugs entering the US, these drugs continue to be available on the streets of the US. In fact Stokes reports that despite the War on Drugs, increasingly, the street price of heroin and cocaine in the US has fallen and yet at the same time has improved in its quality and content.5 It would therefore appear that the supply side approach to the War on Drugs expresses a determination to cut off the supply of drugs to the US and by doing so curtail production and use. However, this determination is not matched by the determination to produce and use illicit drugs since all indications are that drugs are not only continuing to enter the US, but they are continuing to be used excessively. What these outcomes reveal is that the primary technique of taking a supply side approach to the War on Drugs is ineffective. The US government must therefore look at alternative methods for fighting the War on Drugs and expressing its determination to control illicit drug use and production. In a study conducted by the RAND’s Drug Policy Research Centre in 2005, the US government efforts over the previous 15 years on the War on Drugs was assessed and analysed. According to the report, the US has a mixed approach to the War on drugs ranging from enforcement primarily through interdiction and rehabilitation for drug users.6 However, the US drug policy places far too much emphasis on enforcement and is decidedly neglectful of rehabilitation.7 Specifically, the RAND report notes that: Most expenditures on drug control at federal, state, and local levels combined have been directed to enforcement.8 This is unfortunate because this enforcement, supply side approach has not have a significant influence on decreasing the problems associated with drug use and production in the US and this has led to the current arguments against the effectiveness of the US War on Drugs. It has been argued that the supply side approach to the War on Drugs is by far the “least effective”.9 Relying on a previous study conducted by the RAND in 1994, Stokes expresses the opinion that a War on Drugs that focuses on treatment of cocaine users proved to be at least “ten times more effective at reducing drug abuse” than supply side or enforcement oriented War on Drugs’ schemes.10 This kind of study however, only reveals short-term outcomes. While rehabilitated cocaine users may not use drugs after successful treatment, there is always a danger that they may return to drug use if those drugs are freely available to them. Therefore the US cannot afford to abandon its supply side War on Drugs initiatives. It may however be more feasible to pay greater attention to the rehabilitative treatment of drug users. Enforcement policies are meant to reflect a concern for social welfare and the health and social problems relating to or arising out of illicit drugs. This is one of the main reasons that the DEA justifies the expenditures and approaches taken by the war on drugs. The DEA typically takes the position that if there was no war on drugs there would be an epidemic of addiction in the US. This is the obvious argument behind the DEA’s reliance on statistics tending to show that drug use in the US is down. Thus arguments supporting the effectiveness of the war on drugs may rely on the prevention of out of control addiction. It can also be argued that despite the problems often associated with drug use and their on-going prevalence, the war on drugs is preventing the out-of-control escalation of those problems. The social problems often associated with drug use and distribution are: prostitution, youth addiction and delinquency and gang wars.11 It therefore follows that the war on drugs while controlling drug production and distribution might be more visibly effective should it place more emphasis on treatment. In other words, the war on drugs while effective could be more effective if it focused not only on enforcement and prevention, but also treatment. In fact DEA advocates for a more “balanced approach” to the War on Drugs. The DEA argues that an effective approach to the War on Drugs is the adaption of a policy which balances “prevention, enforcement and treatment”.12 Unfortunately however, this does not appear to be the case. The emphasis in terms of government efforts and expenditures are on enforcement and prevention as evidenced by supply side interdiction efforts. Enforcement often means that there is little or no distinction between users and producers or suppliers.13 In the final analysis, the War on Drugs has been largely ineffective. However, its ineffectiveness arises out of poorly constructed priorities rather than determination to meet an end goal. The end goal is to reduce the production, supply and use of drugs. This means distinguishing between drug users and suppliers in a more productive way. Enforcement is very important, but should be aimed more intently at those who produce and supply drugs. At the same time, users while deserving of some penalization, should also be accorded treatment for drug use. Bibliography Boyum, D. and Reuter, P. ‘Are We Losing the War on Drugs?: An Analytic Assessment of U.S. Drug Policy’. (26 March 2005) American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy, 1-2. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20050325_book812release.pdf (Retrieved 11 June 2011). Caulkins, J. P. ; Reuter, P.; Iguchi, M.Y. and Chiesa, J. ‘How Goes the “War on Drugs”?: An Assessment of U.S. Drug Problems and Policy.’ (2005) RAND Corporation, 1-49. Drug Enforcement Administration. ‘Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization.’ (May 2003) US Department of Justice, 1-28. http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/speaking_out-may03.pdf (Retrieved 11 June 2011). Stokes, D. America’s Other War: Terrorizing Colombia. (New York, NY: Zed Books Limited, 2005). Read More