Is the War on Drugs Effective - Research Paper Example

Is the War on Drugs Effective? A. Introduction Although illicit drugs claim fewer lives than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, one dose of an illicit drug can claim a life whereas one dose of legal drugs will not be the direct cause of death. Moreover, illicit drugs casualties are more liberally spread among young persons. Therefore in addition to being a health issue, illicit drugs are a serious welfare social problem as it impacts the lives of the individual users and those of society in a variety of ways (Parrillo 2008, p. 256). Social welfare policies relative to drug abuse in the US have also been focused on production and criminalization of drug use and drug production. In the mid-eighties the social and economic costs of drug abuse became a major social welfare issue and precipitated an anti-drug social welfare policy (Mosher and Atkins 2007, p. 202). Acknowledging that there is a substantial link between drug abuse and deviant/criminal conduct and that drug rehabilitation services were not satisfactorily reducing drug abuse, the US government developed a policy characterized as a “war on drugs” in the 1980s (Ax and Fagan 2007, p. 338). The war of drugs is centered around a prohibitive policy which is reminiscent of previous anti-war policies but with increased emphasis on the interdiction of drugs at or destined for US borders. The US anti-drug policy targets production, consumption and distribution of illicit drugs with the aim of increasing the cost of drug production and use. The costs for both users and producers are economic and abstract in that the criminal justice system in involved (Harris, Tamas and Lind 2008, p. 118). Since the most implementation of the social welfare policy initiatives encapsulated under the declaration of war on drugs in the mid-eighties, the criminal justice system has played an increasingly significant role. Drug related arrests, sentencing and imprisonment have increased “substantially” (Mosher and Atkins 2007, p. 202). Despite “hundreds of billions of dollars” spent in the criminal justice system pursuant to these policies, there are serious doubts as to whether or not the policies falling under the war on drugs are effective. Mendoza (2010) reporting for the Associated Press notes that the war on drugs has cost the US “US$1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of live” and yet, “drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread”. From a pluralist perspective, the social welfare policy question is whether or not the cost of prevention is justified by reference to the harm caused (Karger and Stoesz 2006). This paper analyses the social welfare policy considerations guiding the war on drugs and argues that the war on drugs in misguided. Pursuant to the pluralist approach to social welfare policy, this paper concludes by making some recommendations for a policy framework that will ensure that the war on drugs is more effective and less costly. B. The War on Drugs Policy Analysis The war on drugs policy in the US primarily has as its core goal the prevention of drug trafficking into the US and among Americans. This focus is tied to distribution and production policies. For most of this century however, drug trafficking has always been a major concern for US policy-makers. However, it is only in relatively recent times that drug trafficking concerns have been articulated in terms of war (Ronderos 2003, p. 210). It was during the 1970s that President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs in response to a “burgeoning heroin addiction” in the US (Knight 2003, p. 237). The following year, Nixon established the Drug Enforcement Agency, a federal agency responsible for eradicating the trafficking, dealing and use of illicit drugs (Banks 2005, p. 113). From Nixon’s perspective however, foreign countries were responsible for the US’s heroin addiction problems (Knight 2003, p. 237). This is because, heroin is not produced in the US. Initially, heroin originated from South Asia and other areas such as Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan and primarily in Afghanistan. The widespread use of heroin in the US together with its high rate of return gave way to production of heroin in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Guatemala and Colombia (Lee 2003, p. 18). The success of Nixon’s war on drugs is doubtful. The fact is, even reports in 2003 indicate that “heroin accounts for 90% of the opiate abuse in the United States” (Lee 2003, p. 18). Heroin is highly addictive and this accounts for its widespread addiction and prompted the implementation of the Harrison Narcotic Act 1914. These Latin American countries have a lot of experience in exporting cocaine into the US and supply upward of 80% of the heroin on American streets (Lee 2003, p. 20). Despite Nixon’s concerns about heroin addiction in the US and his corresponding declaration of war against drugs, heroin addiction in the US has not been abated. While the war against heroin soldiered on, a new drug was threatening the social fiber of the US: crack cocaine. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan would again declare another war on drugs, (Banks 2005, p. 113). This war on drugs had a number of objectives. The objectives included a reduction of drug use in the US, a reduction of “drug-related crime” and to eliminate as far as possible, the influx of illicit drugs into US borders (Banks, p. 114). From 1986 to 1992, the media and US politicians conducted what is characterized as an “extraordinary antidrug frenzy” (Reinarman and Levine 1997, p.1). The media ran consistent “lurid stories” depicting a “new epidemic” of drug abuse, particularly or crack cocaine (Reinarman and Levine, p.1). The media reports cautioned that the drug epidemic was “spreading rapidly from cities to the suburbs and was destroying American society” (Reinarman and Levine, p. 1). Meanwhile, politicians were demanding an escalation of the so-called war on drugs (Reinarman and Levine, p.1). Between 1986 and 1988, congress passed laws that focused on the drug user and drug dealers at the street level and the primary target was crack cocaine. The corresponding media reports and campaigning by politicians created the impression that the war on drugs was entirely necessary because crack cocaine was “a national emergency and a national epidemic” (Banks 2005, p. 114). Crack cocaine was associated and continues to be associated with social and inner-city decay (Farrington and Coid 2003, p. 64). It therefore comes as no surprise that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 1986 not only imposed criminal penalties for trafficking in drugs but also distinguished between possession of crack cocaine and possession of cocaine per se. Essentially, possession of over five grams of crack cocaine carried a compulsory custodial sentence of five years minimum. Possession of cocaine per se only carried a compulsory custodial sentence if the amount was at least 500 grams (Banks 2005, p. 114). Banks (2005) explains that this distinction in crack cocaine possession and cocaine per se would significantly impact the African-American community. This is because crack cocaine is less expensive to obtain and “members of the white middle class” are more apt to use the more expensive cocaine powder (Banks 2005, p. 114). It is doubtful that by distinguishing between crack cocaine possession and cocaine powder possession, that policy-makers intended that African American communities would be the primary target while middle-class whites would be virtually free to engage in cocaine powder abuse. Even so, Karger and Stoesz (2006) caution that: Policy frameworks should attempt to take into account the unintended consequences of a particular policy or program (p. 27). Karger and Stoesz (2006) further caution that: Policy frameworks should examine the potential impact of a policy (or a series of policies) on other social policies, social problems, and the overall public good (p. 27). Other social policies in the US are designed to limit unequal treatment by the law and by government officials of Americans. The war on drugs policy as manifested by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 1986 clearly does no correspond with the equal treatment social policy. In fact, in 1995, the US Sentencing Commission recommended amending the sentencing policies so as to bring about equanimity between possession of crack cocaine and cocaine per se offenses (Banks 2005, p. 114). Even so, the law remains unchanged and as a result the number of African Americans incarcerated is significantly larger than the number of whites incarcerated for possession of illicit drugs. The unfortunate consequence is that on a state basis, there was a 800 percent increase in the “number of African-American women” incarcerated for possession of illicit drugs from about 1986 to 1991. By comparison only 241 percent of white women suffered the same fate (Banks 2005, p. 115). Under the cost-benefit analyst of policy analysis proposed by Karger and Stoesz (2006), the war on drugs policy appears to be flawed. Not only are the number of blacks criminalized and imprisoned for drug possession far greater than the number of whites, the cost of incarceration for the larger community is also problematic. The cost is both economic and social. The economic cost is related to the financial burden for tax payers in terms of housing the drug offender in prison. The social cost is the higher likelihood of recidivism once the untreated drug addict is released from prison (Banks 2005, p. 115). Karger and Stoesz (2006) propose that: Policy analysis is based on the commitment to derive the largest possible social benefit at the least possible social cost. A good social policy is one that benefits at least one person (as they perceive their own self-interest) while at the same time hurting no one (p. 27). Karger and Stoesz (2006) readily acknowledge that it is not always possible and perhaps rare to implement a social policy that is beneficial to at least one person and hurts no one. However, policy-makers should always be guided by this objective (Karger and Stoesz, p. 27). The war on drugs’ policy which ensures the greater and more frequent incarceration of African-Americans over white middle class Americans is hardly beneficial to anyone and certainly hurts the African-American community by taking mothers and fathers away from children. Moreover, persistent incarceration also means that drug users are not getting treatment. Certainly they may be taken off the streets and by doing so, are not able to commit crimes in support of their drug addiction. However, since the drug addiction goes untreated during incarceration, they simply go back to drug use and criminal conduct upon release (Banks 2005, p. 115). There are obviously alternative methods of dealing with persons who abuse crack cocaine. The alternative is the compulsory drug rehabilitation programs rather than compulsory imprisonment. This alternative is not only less costly economically than incarceration, it is also less costly socially. It rehabilitates the offender with the result that the drug addict is not taken off the street temporarily, but permanently for the most part (Banks 2005, p. 115). Karger and Stoesz (2005) remind that a good social policy takes account of a policy by reference to “alternatives” (p. 27). In particular, social policies should take into account, “alternative social policies and/or alternative uses of present or future resources allocated to a given policy” (p. 27). As it is there are federally funded programs aimed at reducing drug abuse among adults and youth by addressing the factors in a community that increase substance abuse and rehabilitating the drug addict. For example the Drug Free Communities Support Program is a federally funded program which partners with private companies for preventing and treating drug abuse (Drug Free Communities Support Program, 2011). In other words there are viable cheaper and more holistic approaches to fighting the war on drugs. C. Policy Impact on Community The war on drugs has had its greatest impact on the criminal justice system and this spills over to American communities in general (See Appendix). The fact is anti-drug policies under the auspices of the war on drugs have focused far too much attention on punishment with no attention to treatment (Isralowitz and Myers 2011, p. 169). The emphasis on punishment has added to the problem of overcrowded prisons and has had a “disproportionate impact on low-income communities” (Isralowitz and Myers 2011, p. 169). The community in which my agency serves has had to cope with community members who have little or no confidence in the criminal justice system. Drug use and drug-related offenses have not diminished as a result of the punishment strategies and community members therefore question whether or not the criminal justice system is capable of adequately dealing with the drug problem and any other social problem. Moreover, a number of families are torn apart and once the drug offender is returned to the family and the community, the problem is not resolved as drugs remain liberally available and the recently released drug addict soon returns to the problem behaviour that warranted punishment to begin with. The criminal liability associated with drug use also makes it difficult for clients to freely admit that they or family members or loved ones are abusing drugs. Therefore delivery of satisfactory social welfare services is adversely impacted. If the agency does not know that there is substance abuse contributing to the problems in the home, the agency cannot effectively respond to the problem. Likewise, the problems that are contributing to drug abuse will not be addressed unless the agency is aware that there is a substance abuse problem. D. Policy Question Arguments in favor of the social welfare policy characterized as the war on drugs typically center around health and social problems associated with illicit drug use, particularly, crack cocaine and more modern drugs such as oxycodone (Brux 2008, p. 37). The main problem with crack cocaine is that it can be more dangerous than cocaine per se because crack cocaine is combined with other dangerous drugs. Moreover, it is cheaper and highly addictive, which makes it far more likely to create a drug addiction epidemic (Cooper 2002, p. 95). This accounts for the emphasis on crack cocaine over powder cocaine under the anti-drugs policies created under the war on drugs. In addition to the dangers associated with increased drug addiction, proponents of the war of drugs social welfare policy also argue, that addiction would most certainly increase if the war on drugs were to alter its policies so as to legalize the use of illicit drugs (Brux 2008, p. 37). However, this is an extreme measure. Legalizing illicit drugs is not the only way to oppose the war on drugs’ policies. As will be demonstrated in the final part of this paper, there are ways to address addiction short of legalizing drug use and abandoning the war on drugs. The arguments in favour of the war on drugs also claim that existing social problems will be exemplified by widespread addiction had it not been for the war on drugs. These social problems are the link with drug-related crimes such as prostitution, possession of weapons, theft and the drug wars between gangs (Brux 2008, p. 37). Other social problems include abuse on the part of youths and juvenile delinquency, poorer academic performance and dropping out of school (Brux 2008, p. 37). Other social and health problems cited by proponents of the war on drugs policies are the consequences of driving under the influence of illicit drugs. Driving under the influence of illicit drugs causes impairment which is known to result in car accidents that could harm or even claim the lives of others, including the impaired person. Moreover, using drugs while pregnant can cause birth defects or result in a drug addicted child (Brux 2008, p. 37). These social and health concerns, according to proponents of the war on drugs’ social welfare policy necessitate the approach taken by the war on drugs. Proponents against the war on drugs typically take the position that it “impacts minority communities in a very disruptive way” (Rushefsky 2008, p. 288). Another method of reasoning is liberal in nature. Liberal arguments take the position that the war on drugs contravenes human rights, particularly unlawful searches and seizures and unequal treatment of persons. The major concern however, is that this war against non-violent offenders has come at a high price. Rushefsky (2008) notes that: Between 1990 and 1999 alone, federal anti-drug law-enforcement activities have cost taxpayers US$81 billion. States and cities have spent even more. Meanwhile, low-cost drugs have become even more plentiful (288). In other words, opponents of the war on drugs emphasise that the cost of the war on drugs is not justified by its objectives. In fact, its objectives which are to curtail production and distribution have not been met. Despite the abuse of human rights, the disproportionate treatment of minorities, harsher penalties for those who use the most prevalent and cheaper drug (crack cocaine), cheap drugs are still available and drug abuse is still rampant. E. Recommendations/Conclusion The social and health problems associated with illicit drug use are not in dispute. It is widely accepted that illicit drug use can have negative consequences for the user’s health and can lead to deviant and criminal behavior. The war on drugs claims to target distribution and production as a means of lowering demand or addiction to drugs. Obviously, there is a recognition that drug use is a casualty of the distribution and production of illicit drugs. However, the war on drugs policy, appears to ignore this casualty and instead treats the drug user as an enabler and therefore seeks to punish drug users. Punishing drug users does not reduce the trends in drug use, suggesting that an alternative policy ought to be adopted. As it is the current policy does not meet its objectives with the result that it helps no one and hurts everyone as illustrated in this paper. A good alternative to the war on drugs’ policy that promotes the punishment of the offender would be to substitute compulsory imprisonment for possession of illicit drugs with compulsory drug treatment programs. Rather than inject funds into the creation of special drugs courts and prisons for housing drug users, those funds should be directed to drug rehabilitation programs. Increased efforts should be made to educate the youth in schools about the dangers of drug addiction rather than simply spending taxpayers’ money on “just say no” ad campaigns. A more holistic approach should be taken to anti-drug policies. A more holistic approach would involve addressing the issues that lead to illicit drug abuse. These issues are unemployment, education opportunities, youth programs, poor role models and supervision of the youth and the lack of community development. If the war of drugs focused its efforts and resources more realistically on curtailing drug use in a more holistic way, the demand for illicit drugs in the US would decrease. Once the demand for illicit drugs decreases, drug producers and distributors would have no choice but to decrease the supply of illicit drugs. By taking this approach, an anti-drug policy would be more beneficial to individual drug users and the community as whole and the cost of accomplishing a lower demand for drugs would be less costly. Attachments Appendix Impact of the War on Drugs on American Communities Over the last two and half decades, drug-related arrests have tripled culminating in nearly 2 million arrests in 2005. More than 42 per cent of all drug-related arrests are for marijuana and marijuana related arrests grew by 79 per cent since 1990. Since 1980, persons incarcerated for drug offences increased to 1,100 per cent. Approximately 500,000 persons incarcerated in state and federal prisons or county jails are held on drug-related offenses. Prior to 1980, that number was 41,100. Approximately 6 out of 10 prisoners in state prisons on drug-related offences do not have violent antecedents or drug dealing antecedents. Only 14 per cent of African Americans are persistent drug abusers yet 56 per cent of Americans in state prisons on drug-related offenses are African Americans. African Americans typically serve a custodial sentence for drug related offences at the same degree that whites serve for offences of violences. As of 1991, persons who are drug addicts are not likely to receive treatment for drug addiction while incarcerated. This data is taken from: Isralowitz, R. and Myers, P. (2011) Illicit Drugs. Santa Barbara, Ca.: ABC-CLIO, Inc., pp. 169-170. References Ax, R. and Fagan, T. (2007) Corrections, Mental Health, and Social Policy: International Perspectives. IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher Ltd. Banks, C. (2005) Punishment in America: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Ca.: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Brux, J. (2008) Economic Issues and Policy. Mason, OH: Thomson Western. Cooper, E. (2002) The Emergence of Crack Cocaine Abuse. New York, NY: Nova Publishing. Drug Free Communities Support Program. (January 4, 2011) http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/2011/sp_11_002.aspx (Retrieved March 10, 2011). Farrington, D. and Coid, J. (2003) Early Prevention of Adult Antisocial Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, G.; Tamas, B. and Lind, N. (2008) Dynamics of Social Welfare Policy: Right Versus Left. Plymouth, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. Isralowitz, R. and Myers, P. (2011) Illicit Drugs. Santa Barbara, Ca.: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Karger, H. and Stoesz, D. (2006) American Social Welfare Policy: A Pluralist Approach. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Knight, P. (2003) Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, Ca.: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Lee, G. (2003) Global Drug Enforcement: Practical Investigative Techniques. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Mendoza, M. (May 13, 2010) “U.S. Drug War Has Met None of its Goals.” MSNBC.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37134751/ns/us_news-security/ (Retrieved 10 March 2011). Mosher, C. and Atkins, S. (2007) Drugs and Drug Policy: The Control of Consciousness Alteration. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: SAGE Publications Inc. Parrillo, V. (2008) Encyclopedia of Social Problems, Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: SAGE Publications, Inc. Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (1997) Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press. Ronderos, J. (2003) “The War on Drugs and the Military: The Case of Colombia.” Cited in Beare, M. (Ed) Critical Reflections on Transnational Organized Crime, Money Laundering, and Corruption. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Rushefsky, M. (2008) Public Policy in the United States: At the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Inc. Read More