The War on Drugs - Research Paper Example

The War on Drugs Introduction The government of the United States undertook an initiative to prohibit the use as well as illegal trading in drugs since 1969 when Richard Nixon was the United States’ president (Baum 1997). This initiative is supported by several other countries whose governments prohibit dealing in drugs. Policies and laws were set, aimed at discouraging the creation, supply and the use of illegal drugs. The abuse of drugs in the United States is regarded as any consumption of a drug against the law. Drugs such as heroin, marijuana, cocaine amongst others are some of the prohibited drugs. They are usually regarded as illegal when they are acquired through illegitimate ways, or when they are not meant for medicinal functions. This definition of drug abuse according to the domestic policy of the United States varies from the definition from a healthcare perspective, which tends to focus on the misuse of drugs that turns out to be problematic. Studies conducted in 1994 revealed that the war on drugs was a major contributor to the number of Americans that were imprisoned every year. The numbers of those imprisoned annually ranged from above one million annually (Holden-Rhodes 1997). This is an indication of the alarming rate of incarceration in the United States. A quarter of these incarcerations were further found to constitute people who were convicted of possessing illegal drugs, mainly marijuana. This was the fourth contributor of the number of people who are arrested each year. The arrests involving the use of illegal drugs remained at a high of more than 120% of all the arrests each year (Miron 2004). The implications of the war on drugs to the government and the society in general have raised concerns. There are many negative impacts that it has had on the society. This essay is a critical evaluation of the fact that the war on drugs has not only been a failure, but it has also inflicted greater damage to the United States than the drug abuse it attempts to eradicate. Impact of the War on Drugs to the United States Use of Tax Payer’s Money The initiative geared towards prevention of drug abuse in the United States has raised concerns due to the huge sums of tax payers’ money that are directed towards supporting it. According to Miron (2004), it consumes millions of dollars annually trying to maintain the war on drugs. This is an expenditure that many view as wastage of resources that could be useful for containing the rising crime rate. More over, it has been identified as an agent of corruption, mainly in the funding of the numerous task forces meant for the reduction of illegal trading and abuse of drugs. For example, the Byrne Justice Grant is one of the programs that have been set for funding the initiative, and has proved to yield unsatisfactory results for many. In regard to reduction of illegal drug trade and abuse, the program has not been able to accomplish the desired results, and its existence raises questions as to why huge sums of tax payers’ money should be used on such a futile undertaking (Holden-Rhodes 1997). The awareness campaigns through television are also a major consumer of tax payers’ money. Advertisements regarding drugs are mainly used to sensitize the population about drug abuse. All these anti-drug campaigns are usually exposed to corrupt deals, which is in itself a crime that is punishable under the laws of the United States. More over, the evidence that forms the basis for prosecution is usually minimal, which leads to the imprisonment of many citizens, especially those of the African American decent. The process is usually prone to lies and racial discrimination. The imprisonment of people convicted out of corruption contributes to the increasing numbers of prisoners, who have to be maintained by the government, a factor that contributes to further congestion in prisons, which are maintained through tax payers’ money. There are cases which have been reported regarding particular scandals concerning the task forces that are funded by Byrne. Medication The war on drugs has had a negative impact on the accessibility to useful drugs by healthcare professionals. More over, the campaign disseminates negative information regarding the use of drugs and the possibility of addiction, which many of the patients usually fear, hence declining to take the medication. The government tends to control the use of essential drugs, especially the pain relievers that help the patients who suffer from chronic pain, thereby limiting their use. The reason provided by the government for the control of the use of these drugs is that they are likely to be abused by the users. Opioid is one such drugs whose use is limited. Several other drugs such as marijuana that have been proved to be useful for medical purposes are also taken to be illegal. No healthcare professional is allowed by the law to prescribe the drug regardless of the benefits that it may have (American Pain Society 2008). Barriers to Scientific Research The war on drugs has been found to be a major hindrance to scientific research. It is important for medical researchers and scientists to have access to drugs in order to carry out important investigations regarding them. The drug policy of the United States prohibits the possession of illegal drugs for whatever reasons. Research on psychedelic drugs was one of the major successes of renowned researchers in the psychiatry. This was a significant step towards developments in psychotherapy. If research on these drugs was repressed, such knowledge could not have been discovered. This means that there is a lot of information that is yet to be known regarding drugs that are considered to be illegal. The future of progressing in psychedelic drugs research was terminated after regulators from the government recommended the withdrawal of licenses. The drugs were no longer available, as well as the finances to facilitate the research, which could have beneficial in studying mental illness. Scientific research has established that some drugs that are regarded as illegal can be used for medical purposes. Chronic ailments such as cancer, neuropathic hurting and many others can be treated with the use of marijuana American Pain Society 2008). However, the drug is considered illegal and may lead to imprisonment. War on Drugs and Terrorism The war on drugs is known to have led to the emergence of secretive trade in which people deal in drugs in a totally unregulated market. Under such situations, the business is usually highly gainful since the demand for drugs remains while the supply goes down. For example, the federal government does not recognize the sale of marijuana as a legitimate business. Government regulations regarding marijuana trade largely affects supply and demand of the commodity. They lead to a shortage since there is a high demand for the commodity. Consequently, a reduction in the supply of marijuana in the market due to the limitations leads to a rise in the prices (Dyer 2009). Dealers in the illegal trade usually try as much as possible to preserve the business, even if it means engaging in violence. This is one of the sources of funds for terrorist activities that have been identified. For example, Baum (1997) observes that the Al-Qaeda terrorist network is mainly maintained by dealers in illegal drugs. This is one factor that contributes to terrorism and violence against the Americans. More over, the resources sacrificed for the war on drugs can be used to boost the war against terrorism. Informants The war on drugs is largely dependent on information obtained from informants. These are people who provide information regarding underground dealers in drugs. They are a major contributor to the high number of incarceration of Americans. According to Miron (2004), the slightest information from an informant can lead to the arrest of a person accused of being in possession of illegal drugs. It usually turns out to be ineffective especially when the main dealer in the distribution chain is not identified. The drug users are imprisoned while those who produce and distribute remain in business. This is a major failure in the war against drugs since the source should be the main target other than focusing on the users. Gray (2001) observes that there are situations whereby police promise to reduce the sentence in order for the drug user to reveal information regarding illegal drug users. Most of the time it turns out to be in effective since some of the convicts may work their out of incarceration through acting as informants to government officials, who are not in a position to ascertain that the information acquired regarding drug users is correct. In other cases, drug dealers are known to bribe informants in order to conceal or give force information to the law enforcement agents. The law allows the police to confiscate personal possessions from a person who has been suspected to be in possession or dealing in illegal drugs through information obtained from informants. This makes people who abuse the illegal drugs to be only wary of informants. This leads to the confiscation of property even at certain situations whereby the informant may be lying. There are known cases whereby informants have been found to be dealing illegally in drugs while they pretend to be working for the police. This gives them immunity to arrest, making the war on drugs a futile undertaking (Holden-Rhodes 1997). On the other hand, it is important for the informants to be provided with security after revealing the secrets regarding illegal drug dealers. In many cases, the informants are left exposed to the dangers of attack by people whose information they reveal. This makes them live in fear Environmental Pollution Efforts to eliminate the production of drugs have had a negative impact on the environment especially when the plants from which the drugs are produced are destroyed through the use of herbicides. Airborne spraying of herbicides leads to environmental pollution, which adversely affects the rainforests as well as the biodiversity. This was witnessed in Colombia whereby the drug producing crops were destroyed through the use of herbicides. This also causes pollution in water bodies, food crops, people and animals. There are many cases of herbicide related health problems in areas where airborne spraying is practiced (Gray 2001). As a result of land contamination through herbicides sprayed over land, farmers tend to clear more areas for farming, leading to more environmental degradation. The war on drugs further caused environmental degradation when fungi were biologically developed for use in the elimination of drug crops. These were mainly used to eliminate opium poppies. The fungus selectively destroys opium without affecting other crops. Some of the fungi have been proofed to have many negative consequences on biodiversity and human life. Fusarium oxysporum is one such fungus that was developed to destroy cocaine producing plants, as well as marijuana. This fungus is known to be capable of developing rapidly through mutation, and it can also remain in the soil for a long period of time (Gerber 2004). It was found to be destructive to the environment. Public Health Problems The war on drugs raises concerns in regard to public health matters. Users who illegally acquire the drugs usually do not have access to sterile syringes for intravenous use. They usually fear being identified and therefore they can not openly purchase the syringes. This leads to sharing as well as using contaminated syringes, which poses a great risk for infections such as HIV/AIDS and other diseases that are contacted through the use of contaminated equipment such as Hepatitis B. It is assumed that if the intravenous drug users could be allowed access to clean syringes without being arrested, the incidences of new HIV infections would reduce. Research indicates that intravenous consumption of drugs contributes to more than 55% of the HIV infections. This includes new infections in institutions such as schools and prisons in which this war has failed to accomplish much in regard to prevention of drug use (American Pain Society 2008). There are cases that have been reported regarding drug users consuming over dose. This usually leads to death especially when the drugs are consumed in secret. Instead of the approach that this war employs in prevention of drug consumption, users should be educated regarding the health risks associated with the practice. Unregulated markets usually lack measures for quality control. This makes illegal drugs to be consumed in total disregard of quantities or age. Under normal circumstances, qualified healthcare personnel should prescribe drugs depending on the user’s age as well as consideration of the individual’s ability to cope with certain amounts of the drug. The war prohibits prescription of illegal drugs, which makes the users to consume them secretly, thereby exposing them to the risks of overdose and the use of contaminated equipment such as syringes. This poses a great health risk to them (Gray 2001). Treatment for Drug Users The government usually concentrates largely on preventing the use of drugs, with little concern on offering treatment to the chronic users. No funds are provided for treatment purposes. There also lacks adequate capacity of healthcare facilities to provide treatment to drug users. The funds that are set aside for dealing with drug use are mainly focused on investigating issues regarding drug use, trying and imprisoning those found guilty of using or in possession of drugs. Education focused on sensitizing users on the dangers as well as provision of treatment to users could be a major milestone towards prevention of drug use. Insurance companies that provide health cover usually do not accept drug users. The absence of proper healthcare for drug users leads to deaths, as well as poor quality lives, especially for pregnant women (American Pain Society 2008). Criminal Organizations Prohibition of drugs usually leads to the emergence of smugglers and drug traffickers. Criminal groups find it lucrative to smuggle illegal drugs in a potent nature. The war also tends to cause a rise in the price of certain crops such as marijuana, which could otherwise be economically worthless as a common weed. The economic worth generated leads to risk taking amongst producers in order for them to gain from the booming business. This means that the more the war on drugs intensifies, the more producers will be ready to offer at a higher price as the supply reduces. For example, marijuana is relatively expensive in many urban centers whereas it is almost valueless in the rural farms. Criminal organizations mainly emerge from trading in such profitable drugs which involves drug trafficking. The economic principles need to be applied in developing policies regarding the use of drugs. So far, the war has just been a major consumer of government’s funds without any accomplishments (Poikolainen 2000). Mandatory Incarceration ` There are laws regarding minimum sentences in the United States that were enacted by the congress in 1986. These laws require a judge to pass a predetermined sentence to convicts without consideration of other measures that can be put in place in order to prevent the crime from recurring. A person found in possession of drugs serves a compulsory drug sentence depending on the weight of the drug and the type as well as the number of times the person has been convicted of a similar offence. Important factors such as the convict’s role in the drug distribution chain, the reasons for participating in the use or dealing in drugs as well as the possibility of an individual to recidivate are not considered. The only way that the offender can win a reduction on the mandatory sentence is to offer information which is considered essential for the law enforcers to close in on illegal drug dealers and users (Wagner 2003). Under such arrangements, the offenders are likely to offer false information in order to secure a reduction in the mandatory sentences. This is an indicator of the failure of the war on drugs, and the negative impact it may have on the society if judges are to depend on false information provided by the offenders for reduced sentences. In many instances, it has been established that the key dealers in drugs usually do not serve long sentences since they have a wealth of information to offer to the police regarding dealing in drugs. The common street offenders usually do not have much information to offer regarding the use of drugs and therefore they do not get the incentives of reduced sentences. This is a clear indicator of the fact that the key person in distribution of drugs may serve a relatively shorter sentence. Recidivism is disregarded in the implementation of this policy, and a person may end up changing the tactics of dealing in drugs to avoid a second arrest. This means that that the war on drugs is fruitless as it leads to the incarceration of drug users while the producers and major distributors have high chances of survival (Poikolainen 2000). The effectiveness of mandatory sentences in deterring crime is questionable. It is usually prone to racial discrimination with the minority groups constituting the largest number of the prisoners convicted of possessing drugs, especially marijuana. It is a major contributor towards overcrowding in prisons, which leads to further costs of prison maintenance and treatment of diseases that result from overcrowding. It has been established that decision making is left to the prosecutors, leaving mandatory sentencing open to corruption since there is usually little accountability. Women are among the people who are largely affected by the mandatory sentencing. For example, in the years between 1980 and 1996, there was an influx of prisoners, with overcrowding increasing by 80%. Female prisoners convicted for offences related with drugs were reported to increase by more than 400%. In total, the number of African Americans convicted of use or possession of drugs was more than the whites by more than 10% (Wagner 2003). This is an indication of the gender and racial prejudice that is associated with mandatory sentencing. Public Benefits Americans who have been incarcerated for offences related with drug addiction usually tend to be faced with long term effects after completing their sentences. Access to public benefits is usually limited due to earlier involvement in drugs. Drug offenders are usually disadvantaged in comparison with the other types of crimes. This is because those who are found guilty of violent crimes are not denied access to public benefits. This is inequitable treatment of offenders, which inhibits the ability of the drug offenders to reform. The policy ignores the fact that after imprisonment, it is likely for drug users and dealers to turn to legitimate business and normal life. In an ideal situation, it is usually important to ensure that such people are presented with the necessary support to help them reform and to discourage recidivism (Kay 2002). Living in isolation makes an individual to lose the essence of participating in nation building. Denial of public benefits such as personal welfare, financial support for education, and housing for people who have served sentences on drug use usually makes them to live in isolation. A society that discriminates against its own members can not accomplish the completeness that defines a stable community. It is therefore clear that the war on drugs damages the image of the American society through its deficiency in fulfilling the desires of all its members. In States such as Michigan, it is mandatory for a person to undergo a compulsory drug test in order to be allowed access to public benefits. Personal welfare is denied to anyone who fails to undergo this test (Poikolainen 2000). This is a form of discrimination which disregards the possibility of an individual trying to reform from the use of drugs. Support for Higher Education Students who have at one time been convicted of drug use usually are denied access to the federal financial assistance. Gray (2001) observes that the enforcement of laws regarding the use of drugs is usually lopsided, and that there is a high possibility of discriminating against the black students. On the other hand, failure to offer financial aid to students as a form of punishment regarding the use of drugs only affects the students who are unable to pay the cost of education. This is because the rich students who are capable of paying their fees may not need assistance, meaning that this punishment is not applied equitably to al students. The Souder-amendment is believed to be one of the laws that lead to discrimination against drug users on top of being counterproductive. There are situations whereby it is seen to double punish individuals on a single offence regarding drug use. The major failure of this law is the fact that other individuals who are convicted of offences such as violent crimes usually are not covered by such a law. In an ideal situation, the laws of a country are supposed to serve all individuals equally. Lack of fairness in punishments is one factor that can damage the image of the United States’ criminal justice system. Forceful Evictions Many people lacked homes due to the occurrence of evictions authorized by the government on the basis of tenants having been convicted of dealing or being in possession of prohibited drugs. The local authorities which are involved in matters concerning housing have the mandate to screen and evict people who have previously been convicted for drug use and possession through the initiative branded one strike by the federal government. This is an unfair treatment of people, especially if they are ready to reform and live like other citizens. The evictions usually take place even for the people who have been found using drugs near any public settlement. More over, families are not spared from eviction if members of their family have been convicted of the possession or use of drugs (Kay 2002). This is an indication of the discrepancy in the implementation of the policy on the war on drugs. Innocent people suffer lack of access to public housing facilities due to the inappropriate mandate of public housing authorities. Many cases have been reported regarding aged or disabled people having been evicted from their residents after their caretakers were convicted of using illegal drugs (Gray 2001). The purpose of the law is usually to protect citizens from exploitation and ensure that law breakers are punished accordingly. The punishment may include imprisonment or fine, after which the convict may return to normal life on completing the sentence. After release, a society that maintains integrity usually helps prisoners to reform and get back to their normal lifestyle. The policy on eviction of convicts hampers the efforts of ensuring that they are capable of joining the society once more and playing their normal roles as citizens. The war on drugs reduces persons convicted of their use or possession in to outcasts from the society. Employment Studies indicate that this war usually affects the poor and the marginalized populations most. There is a high rate of unemployment amongst the people who have been convicted of using drugs. Once they are released from prison, it is usually difficult for them to find employment due to their history regarding involvement in the use or possession of drugs. This is a major contributor to the rising dependence of people on others. Highly capable individuals have to depend on their family members or friends as a result of lack of employment. This is a phenomenon that can be avoided if such people are allowed to get employment and become self sufficient. Instead, they are stigmatized and rejected by the society, an action that is based on the drug policy. A former prisoner may never have a chance of ever offering services to the government or the society due to discrimination (Kay 2002). Denying former prisoners a chance to work usually hampers their ability to reform since they have to find other means of earning for their existence. It encourages recidivism and a person may never get involved in legitimate business. Such people live in isolation and are difficult for the government to deal with. They are never allowed to acquire work licenses in many states regardless of whether the work they apply the licenses for is related to the reason for conviction. Breaking Families In some states, people who have been convicted for drug offences may never be allowed parental rights. This is done in total disregard of the parenting capacity in spite of using drugs. Former convicts are not allowed to adopt children or become foster parents (Gray 2001). Women can lose their adopted children after withdrawal of their parenting rights due to imprisonment for a long period of time. The issue of parenting rights denial is highly discriminative and leads to family breakages. Former prisoners usually find it difficult to enter in to a reunion with their families. Once convicted of possessing or using drugs, offenders are imprisoned far away from their families. This usually leads to a disconnection of prisoners from relatives. Holden-Rhodes (1997) observes that federal and state prisoners are imprisoned more than 300 miles from their residences. Women are the most affected mainly because most of the prisons in the urban centers lack facilities for female prisoners. Many who are convicted of possession of drugs are imprisoned outside their state. Having lost touch with their relatives and friends, it is usually difficult for them to reunite with them after serving their sentence. On the other hand, denial of access to public housing and work may hamper their parenting capabilities since they are unable to offer the necessary child care. Voting Rights People who have been convicted of possessing drugs are usually denied a chance to vote. In many states, even people who have fully served their sentence are not allowed to vote. This suppresses the political view of former prisoners as well as those currently serving their sentences, a group which comprises a substantial number of the American society (Poikolainen 2000) observes that more than 600,000 former convicts were denied a chance of voting in 2000 in the state of Florida. This is a large number of people who were denied the right to vote in one state, meaning that in all the states, the cumulative number of ex-prisoners whose political view was not expressed was high. Turning the Military against the People The phrase “war on drugs” is considered in many circles to mean war on the people. Military activities against the people under the disguise of the war on drugs have been found to be questionable and unwarranted. The suffering subjected to the people is seen as a true war against them. Many people see it as a war against democracy whereby the government maintains social control. It represents a type of totalitarian form of control (Miranda 2009). There are numerous cases of innocent people getting killed by the military before conviction of an offence. Studies indicate that many usually were not connected to any drug deals or use. However, they meet their death on the basis of being in possession or being connected to drug deals. This trend is damaging the integrity of the nation portraying total disregard for human rights. Police may react on force information regarding possession of drugs, which usually leads to the death of innocent people. Conclusion The war on drugs has had adverse impacts on the people of the United States since its inception. It is known to use billions of dollars of tax payer’s money in carrying out investigations, arresting and incarceration of offenders. In regard to medical and scientific research, it acts as a major barrier to success, limiting the prescription of drugs by physicians. It is also a major contributor to terrorism as dealers struggle to maintain the profitable business. The use of informants has also adversely affected the society due to the possibility of actions being taken on the basis of the wrong information. The environmental impact of the war on drugs can not be ignored. Destroying drug crops through airborne spraying is a major contributor to pollution. It also leads to public health crisis especially through the use of contaminated equipment for the intravenous drug users. Government funds are mainly focused on the war against drugs other than provision of treatment for drug users. Denial of such people from public benefits is a clear discrimination against part of the society. They are evicted from public houses and also denied access to employment. Support for higher education is also denied making it difficult for former prisoners for drug offenses to get back to a normal lifestyle. The war has also led to family breakages as convicted parents are denied parenting rights. In a way, the war on drugs is mainly a government’s war against the people, especially through the involvement of the military. References American Pain Society (2008). Marijuana-based Drug Reduces Fibromyalgia Pain, Study Suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from Baum D. (1997). Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, Back Bay Books. Gray J. (2001). Why our Drug Laws Have Failed: A Judicial Indictment of War on Drugs, Temple University Press. Gerber R. J. (2004). Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics, Praeger Publishers. Holden-Rhodes J. F. (1997). Sharing the Secrets: Open Source Intelligence and the War on Drugs, Praeger Publishers. Kay A. (2002). The Agony of Ecstasy: Reconsidering the Punitive Approach to United States Drug Policy, Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol. 29. Miranda J. (2009). War on Drugs: Military Perspectives and Problems, retrieved on 2nd September 2009 from < http://www.drcnet.org/military/.> Miron J. A. (2004). Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, Independent Institute. Poikolainen (2000). Drugs: Dilemmas and Choices and Drug Use Prisons: An International Perspective, BMJ Publishing Group. Wagner P. (2003). The Prison Index: Taking the Pulse on the Criminal Justice System. The Prison Policy Initiative. Portland, Oregon: Bridgetown Printing. Read More