Can the War on Drugs Be Won - Coursework Example

THE WAR ON DRUGS April 5, Introduction The terms “War on drugs” was coined by U.S President Richard Nixon on June 18,1971 to refer to the campaign for the prohibition of drugs, military intervention and military aid all aimed at not only defining but also reducing the trade of illegal drugs. The initiative has for decades included setting drug policies intended to discourage the production, he distribution as well as the consumption of drugs of what the United Nations and participating government’s term as psychoactive drugs. The United States is estimated to spend up to $51 billion on the war against drugs every year. The illegal drug trade is a back market that is dedicated to the manufacture the cultivation, distribution and the sale of drugs subject to prohibition laws. Despite the effort and the resources dedicated to the war against drugs, numbers show little to insignificant changes in trends relating to drug related offenses. For example, in 2003, 1.5 million people in the U.S were arrested on drug related charges. Research has shown that in 2013, over 2.2 million people were incarcerated in prisons across the United States. Out of the 2.2 million, 57 percent were incarcerated on drug related felonies. From these numbers the question as to whether or not the war on drugs can be won beckons. This paper seeks to debate this question in a bid to come up with an answer. Critics such as Inciardi believe that the war on drugs, especially in the United States, can never be won. The reason is simple, supply and demand. Some cite the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s as an example. According to them, one a market for a commodity has been established, the government can do little to nothing to stop its production and consumption. If there is demand for a product, someone will ultimately find a way to provide the product, regardless of government intervention. Take Madison for example. Police in the area scheduled patrols in areas where drugs are believed to be sold and used. All this did was drive up the cost of cocaine in Madison to twice the price in Chicago. For this reason, Madison became the choice market for drug dealers. Similarly, the United States has become the choice market for drug dealers around the world. This is because making drugs illegal ultimately drives up the price of said drugs. In a recent drug bust in a low welfare complex in Madison, police would confiscate drugs worth $60,000. When asked to comment on whether or not that was a big bust, the police commented saying that that was just a “typical weekend supply” in the area. This is evidence of the fact that even the poor in the U.S are a good market for drugs. To solve the drug problem therefore, the demand side has to be neutralized therefore eliminating the need for supply. (Inciardi 1999). However without doing this, the chances of winning this war remain slim. Another reason cited as to why the war on drugs cannot be won pertains to the fact that drugs are made illegal. By making drugs illegal, governments put control of drugs in the hands of the drug dealer. In a bid to control the ins and outs and the use of drugs within its borders, governments should perhaps consider legalizing some drugs for example marijuana. ((Inciardi 1999). By doing so, they can regulate consumption of said drugs and also tax them. Most harm is not caused by the drug but by the way people use them. By leaving control of the drugs to the drug dealer, governments are leaving drug users in the hands of criminals. Drug dealers will take advantage of the insatiable demand which will end up harming drug users and law enforcement will be helpless. (Stevenson et al. 2004). The war on drugs can only be won if governments have control of drugs. This is because they cannot control demand and have, since the beginning of the longest and the deadliest war in the history of the U.S, been unable to control or stop supply. To win the war against drugs therefore, or at least have a fighting chance, governments and the United Nations should re-think their whole strategy and try fight drugs from a different perspective. (Carrier et al. 2012). The war on drugs has been termed as being on autopilot. (Kroger 2008). Every year, hundreds, nay, thousands of people are being incarcerated for minor drug related offenses as a function of this autopilot mode. U.S attorneys continue to prosecute numbers of people for said minor offenses as nobody is making decisions in the war against drugs. Laws were simply put in place. Law makers expect that making laws will be enough to win the war against drugs. This has proved to be not only a gross misconception but also has led to failure of the whole concept. As stated previously in this paper, a change in strategy is very much called for. Simply setting laws and expecting law enforcement to do the rest may be sufficient for certain crimes but not in this case. Law enforcement has admitted that this was is a tall order. And it does not help that the world is looking at them to solve the problem. Laxity among policy makers has been noted. This is because despite research on drugs, not many pieces of legislation that have been tailored to the findings are currently in play. The research is going to waste. Research based methodology has been seen to be successful in many a field. Therefore chances that it will be successful in the war against drugs are promising. Drug cartels are responsible for most, if not all, drug trafficking across borders. The cartels have significant influence in not only the country they get the drugs they get the drugs from, but also the target country. The influence of drug cartels both in the society and in authority have made them an elusive enemy. The war on drugs against drug cartels has so far proved futile. Case and point, Contemporary Mexico. Ever since Mexico’s 2006 presidential election, the president of Mexico did in fact declare war on the country’s drug cartels. The drug trade in Mexico is known to have begun sometime in the 1960s with marijuana was the highest grossing commodity in the trade. In the 1980s, Mexico would join the cocaine trade. (Beittel 2013). Calderon, the then president of Mexico, had a strategy to defeat the drug cartels. His plan would involve deploying well over 40,000 Mexican soldiers across the country on executive order. The drug cartels then responded to this military attack by fighting back. The level of violence was out of control. From when President Calderon took office in 2006 to the end of his term in 2012, the rate of homicide in the country would triple. Over 75 per cent of the deaths were seen to be related to the drug war. The attacks by the military forces were primarily aimed at drug kingpins. The plan was to leave leadership vacuums. The conflict theory was in play in this case. The theory suggests that the society is in fact held together by coercion and power and it is those that are in power, in this case, the drug cartel heads benefit most. Calderon simply eliminated them and the cartels fell apart. This ended up causing fierce internecine conflicts. (Toro 2009). The war against drugs in Mexico was however also lost. See, the cartels may have been broken up by loss of their leaders but the drug trade in the country is anything but dead. This is proof that even with bloodshed, the war against drugs cannot be won. (Shannon 2008). It is however not all bad news for the war against drugs. There are many a believer who believe that the battle may have been lost, but the war can still be won. Proposers or optimists of the fact that the war can be won believe that it can be won if individual countries were to protect their own boarders. They believe that the battle has only be lost because those fighting drugs are losing the resolve to continue fighting. There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of locking down boarders and making them impenetrable to drag traffickers. Currently border security is not at its peak. Just over a decade after the biggest terrorist attack in the history of the United States, reports of underqualified federal agents dealing with boarder security are rampant. The department of Homeland Security has been reported to fail in tracking the proficiency if said officers. This not only leaves the country in a dangerous position vis-à-vis terrorism, but also nullifies all other efforts of fighting drugs. Drugs continue to find their way into the United States even with a $10 billion budget of training federal agents as well as a more than generous work force of about 20,000 federal agents. Those that insist that the war can be won, simply put, cite incompetence as the reason the high demand of drugs in the U.S is still being met. With heightened boarder security, the supply or drugs in the U.S can be reduced substantially. (Thompson 1998). The second reason why it is believed that the war on drugs can be won lies in the strategy used to fight this war. The strategy that has, in the past proved successful, pertains to attacking the demand for illegal drugs as a means to destroy the market and therefore supply. This strategy has worked in Sweden among the lowest consuming countries vis-à-vis illegal drugs. Sweden’s approach is a zero tolerance view on both the use and the supply of drugs. In fact, law enforcement in Sweden has the power to not only detain, but to test any suspected drug user. If found positive for drugs, the person is charged and then sent to court. Often, compulsory rehabilitation follows. This is done in a state-run facility and may last up to six months. It is only repeat offenders that get prison time though they are a minority. Sweden’s drug laws have no ambiguities. Swedes as a race mostly condemn consumption of drugs. Citizens support the police in the war against drugs while policy makers are always on the lookout for weaknesses in legislation. If the United States and the world would take a page out of Sweden’s playbook, chances of winning this war would be higher. By battling the demand for drugs, Sweden has eliminated the need for supply therefore ridding the country of drug trade. If this was applied in more countries, the drug trade would not be as lucrative as it is. Without demand, there can be no supply. The world should therefore look at drug consumers as the cause of drug trade and deal with them in such a way that will discourage such behavior. Drug users all over the world are just given a slap on the wrist. Optimists are of the opinion that winning the war on drugs will involve three steps. The first is stopping drug production in other countries. Although drug production is illegal in the U. K, U.S and other countries, some countries allow production of drugs. By advocating for drug production in other countries to cease, countries fighting the war against drugs will have one less thing to worry about. (Friman 2006) Drugs are produced in other countries and smuggled across borders to the market. If the countries stop making drugs, there will be less drugs in the international market. The second part of the strategy involves stopping drugs at the border. This has proved difficult in many a country. As stated earlier in this paper, boarder security in penetrable due to two reasons. The first is that those manning the boarder are not sufficiently qualified and the second is that drug cartels have the connections and influence to penetrate the boarders. Third and final blow would be to attack drug dealers within the country’s borders with the highest possible penalties. This trident of separate but related efforts will yield an inevitable fall in the international drug trade. The current problem is believed to lie in the fact that countries in this fight are only concerned about their own countries and only use a single method to fight drugs. If countries were united in this fight, the war on drugs will be won. Joint effort, coupled with attacking the problem from three sides is the ultimate strategy that promises swift and speedy results in eliminating the supply of drugs. This paper has three recommendations based on the above discussion. The first and perhaps the most important is that the strategy of fighting the trade of drugs has to be reviewed. Both parties agree that the demand for drugs has caused the need for supply. For this reason, efforts should target demand rather than simply supply. The second recommendation pertains to strengthen borders so as to keep drugs out of the country. The final recommendation is perhaps to use combined effort to end this fight once and for all. (Eldredge 2010). The war on drugs appera lost simply because no new strategies have been employed in decades. The ststem put in place to battle drugs and drug trade is unmanned leaving law enforcemnt to fight the fight alone. It is however up to citizens of the world tp mimic the Swedes and say not to drigs and aid law enforcement in stopping the trade. Finally, like in Sweden , law makers shouldensure that there exists no descrepancies in drug laws. Conclusion Based on the above debate, the question as to whether or not the war on drugs can be won is seen to be a difficult one to answer. Those that believe that the war is already lost have good grounds for making the claims. Citing the war against drugs in Mexico between 2006 and 2012, critics like Bennet and Inciardi say that the war will only yield bloodshed but the forces of demand will necessitate continuation of the trade. (Bennet, et al 1996). They also believe that demand for drugs is insatiable. This is a function of theories such as genetic theory of addiction that suggests that addiction is inherited and also the exposure theory that explain that once a person is exposed to a drug, their biology will crave the drug until it is completely out of one’s system. For this reason, there will always be supply. Another important reason they cited owes to the fact that countries have no control over drugs and their consumption. However, the other side also has reason to be optimistic. They simply believe that with the right strategy, the war can be won. Contemporary Sweden is cited as a success story in this regard. The zero tolerance on drug use, coupled with law enforcement and cooperation from the public have had Sweden win its own war against drugs. Bibliography Bennet, W. J., Dilulio, J. J. & Walters, J. P., 1996. Body count : oral poverty and how to win Americas war against crime and drugs. New York: Simon & Schuster. Carrier, N. C. M. & Klantschnig, G., 2012. Africa and the war on drugs. London: Zed Books. Eldredge, D. C., 2010. Ending the war on drugs : A solution for America. First Edition ed. Bridgehampton: Brodge Works Pub. Friman, H. R., 2006. NacroDiplomacy : Exporting the U.S. war on drugs. Ithaca: Cornell Unive. Press. Inciardi, J. A., 1999. The drug legalization debate. Second Edition ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Kroger, J., 2008. Conviction : A prosecutors battles against Mafia killers, drug kingpins and enron thieves. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Shannon, E., 2008. Desparados : Latin drug lords, U.S lawmen, and the war America can,t win. New York: Viking. Stevenson, R. C. & Merry, J., 2004. Winning the war on drugs : To legalise or not. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Thompson, S. P., 1998. The war on drugs : Opposing view points. San Diego: Greenhavens Press. Toro, M. C., 2009. Mexicos "war" on drugs : Causes and consequenses. Boulder: Rienner. Read More