War on Drugs - Research Paper Example

? War on drugs War on drugs Introduction The United s embraces policies that commit to building democracy and economic growth; however, the ‘war on drugs’ policy dwarfs spending of other policies. The war describes set of programs pursued by US administration starting with the Nixon administration aiming at reducing the use of illicit drugs in the US. The hallmark of the policies involves increasing supply disruption strategies that have been favored as opposed to demand curtailment. However, the Obama administration is yet to establish a definitive break with previous drug policies of the previous administrations. Nevertheless, there have been tentative signals that the administration is receptive to new approaches as indicated by recent call for change in domestic policy. The US war on drugs is wide-ranging and includes interdiction, eradication and criminal enforcement activities; however, despite the efforts, narcotic trafficking continues at an alarming level. History and scope of the issue In 1914, the US regulated narcotics with the Harrison Narcotics Act in order to ensure effectiveness in provisions of the Hague Convention of 1912. The act became the foundation for unlawful drugs in the early twentieth century since the act cut off legal supplies of narcotics for many users effectively; thus, it was responsible for the beginning of illicit drug industry. There are arguments that legislative change aimed at regulating the marketing of opiates; however, the actual implementation of the Act turned out to be essentially prohibitionist. Subsequent legislation, starting with Jones-Miller Act of 1920 criminalized importation of narcotics; moreover, the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 placed marijuana in the category of opium and cocaine. These early pieces of legislation have been the beginning of the ever-increasing criminalization of these substances use and a focal point on supply curtailment through prohibitions and criminal penalties (Miron, 2008). The 1970s saw major transformations in the legislature concomitant with the increase of illicit drug use, which was tracked by some individuals to the 1960s society of protests and social rebellion. At that time, the use of drugs transitioned from the domain of the marginalized Americans to the domain of middle class Americans. Thus, by 1975, most of the young individuals (55%) used banned drugs by the time they cleared high school (Saadatmand, Toma & Choquette, 2012). Illegal drug use reached fresh altitude during this era with the hippies, and the counterculture movement. The major impetus, which heightened response, to drug use was traceable to the migration of opiate drug use from the marginalized to the middle class. Nevertheless in the late 1960s, members of lower socioeconomic groups continued to be over-represented as heroin users, as well there was a greater representation within the affluent society (UNODC, 2010). Use of illegal narcotics has continuously been considered by the successive US administrations as a major social ill; nevertheless, Nixon administration viewed the problem as a national emergency and illicit drug use that was considered public enemy number one in the US. The Nixon government in 1970 approved a Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention and Control act that consolidated several drug-related laws; though, the act decoupled marijuana from the category of cocaine and other opiates it notably expanded the power of police for search and seizure (Miron, 2008). Thus, placing drug control at the top of the national agenda began a legislative fury that produced several acts that aimed at increasing the scope, breadth and reach of illicit drug control legislation. Perspectives and Analysis of policy The war on drugs is not a tightly defined initiative but a loose set of policies and programs, which gained momentum during the Nixon administration with signing of Comprehensive drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act and the increase in resources allocated to the effort. Nixon formed and initiated the first drug czar, as well, he established the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) with about 2775 workforce in 1972, and currently drug policies are continually administered through the established body that in 2009 controlled a budget of $2.6 billion and with more than 10,000 employees (US Drug Enforcement Administration). In order to move drugs to US consumers, Andean suppliers enjoy luxury of choosing either Mexicoor the Caribbean as transit states since these states serve as main conduits for drugs enroute to North America (Hesselroth, 2004; Francis and Mauser, 2011). The transit nations enjoy lucrative profits with Mexican cartels estimated to generate around $10 billion to $25 billion from drug trafficking or as much as 2.5 % of Mexico’s GDP. In addition to money, the drugs are traded for weapons, technology as well as other products and commodities (Saadatmand, Toma and Choquette, 2012). The Nixon administration began the US overseas departure in the name of drug control having various activities and initiatives that aimed at upsetting supplies of these drugs both in supply and transit countries. Under Nixon, the country’s customs agents and ambassadors attempted to exert US will on cocaine-producing nations and began a longstanding practice of direct interventions in judicial processes by pressuring the nations to extradite their nationals to the US in order to face drug charges. The move to extra-territorial intrusion and pressure as well as the efforts to decrease supply remain in the US’s policy on the ‘war on drugs’. Under Reagan administration, the ‘war on drugs’ increased, and within the US there were increases in prison sentences, compulsory minimum sentences, legislation that allowed apprehension of property without conviction. Moreover, during the Reagan reign, the CIA became included in the drug campaigns; thus, it became active participant in domestic and international drug war. Andean initiative that was first promulgated as part of anti-narco-trafficking ‘National drug Policy’ of President George H.W Bush administration is an illustrative approach of international sphere in the war against drugs. The Andean initiative was a supply containment strategy applied in cocaine growing and manufacturing nations; the ambitious plan initially budgeted more than $2 billion and had multiple aims that included strengthening of the political will of the various governments’ cooperation in dismantling cocaine trafficking organizations. Moreover, the intuitive plan included increasing effectiveness of law enforcement to deal with drug trafficking organizations as well as inflicting significant damage to drug trafficking organizations. In order to achieve the objectives, various security training and equipment as well as military and economic assistance were carried; however, analyses of the tactics suggest that the tactics were largely unsuccessful in appreciably curtailing supply of illicit drugs (Hesselroth, 2004). The war on drugs has been raging for decades with tens of millions of lives being lost or ruined because effects of illicit drugs and criminalization contributed to the toll. Recently, voters in Colorado and Washington approved measures that legalized and regulated production, distribution and ownership of recreational marijuana for individuals beyond the age of 21 years. The federal law prohibits use of marijuana even when utilized for medicinal purposes; moreover, under federal law considers cultivation and sale of marijuana for any purpose to be drug trafficking. This has put the Obama administration in the awkward position of deciding whether to enforce the federal laws that have increasingly become unpopular with the public and members of the president’s party or look the other way and allow members states to ignore federal statutes. The amendment in the drug policy in Colorado allowed adults beyond the age of 21 years to possess an ounce of marijuana provided they do not smoke in public; as well, the amendment allows individuals to grow up to six marijuana plants privately. In Massachusetts, voters approved legalization of medical marijuana, while in Montana voters approved legislation that imposes further regulation on the existing medical marijuana program. Therefore, both conservatives and reformists have to cede some ground if there is to be hope in coming up with ways of breaking the stalemate, recent unease regarding the uncomfortable ideological opinions formed in response to the war on drugs, partly drives some willingness to make concessions (Bowser, 2012). In 2009, after close to four decades since the declaration of the ‘war on drugs’ coined by President Eisenhower in 1954, the Obama administration’s czar affirmed the intention of throwing out the concept that the US is fighting the “war on drugs”. Instead of focusing on the criminalization of drugs, the administration’s fresh approach is treating the issue as a matter of public health; hence, placing great emphasis on treatment instead of incarceration. This new path may be the preliminary stride on the way to take the fight against drugs to its end. Imprisonment in the war against drugs can serve to be a deterrent as the individual considers the expected costs and benefits associated with criminal activities. The unsurprising conclusion is that more harsh punishment raises the costs of unlawful behavior thereby compelling at least some individuals to desist from crime. However, on the other hand, other scholars suggest that incarceration in fact can increase crime rates by weakening the controls on crime imposed by individuals and communities. For instance, the effect of incarceration on families is overwhelming which in itself can cause a rise in crime. Moreover, more incarceration reduces community unity and connectedness by lessening the possibility that ex-convicts obtain stable, decent jobs; hence, the war on drugs has led to destruction of many communities in US; thus, decriminalization of drugs by the Obama administration has been a heated debate recently. Impact of Policy and Analysis Any person is not mistaken in believing drugs are a scourge that devastates the society, tears as under the social fabric, ruins the lives of many young people and imposes heavy costs on some disadvantaged people within the society. The problem regarding the ‘war on drugs’ concerns not only demand, but also demand that operates in reclusive and illegal channels. This illegality develops high profits that support murderous tactics within drug lords; as well, the illegality results in dishonesty among law enforcement officials. In addition, the illegality dominates the honest law forces and deprives them of resources useful in fighting simple offenses like robbery, assault and theft. Therefore, the war on drugs produced many negative consequences among them being increased number of people in prison with over 50% of offenders being those that cannot be considered to have committed very serious crimes. Hence, the war on drugs also led to another war that involved the minority youth of the underclass (Saadatmand, Toma and Choquette, 2012). While the number of people incarcerated on drug-related offenses increased 15 times between 1980 and 2000, the impact on reduction of violent and property crime was very small, suggesting that dramatic increase in drug-related imprisonment was not cost effective. Moreover, others stress that ‘war on drugs’ contributed to increase of violent crime since the war substantially increased the prices of drugs which created highly profitable and violent market (Caulkins et al., 2005). Therefore, opponents of the policy argue that crime leads to increased use and not the reverse; moreover, they argue that ‘war on drugs’ failed to reduce violent and property crime and shifted criminal justice resources away from fighting violent property crime; hence, drug war put the citizens’ lives and property at great risk. One implication of the Anti-Drug Act and the increased concentration of drug-related convicts in the nation’s prisons could be contributing to the increased crime rates. With respect to policy implications, the laws enacted because of the war on drugs have been detrimental to society, which increases crime in various categories. Incarceration of drug offenders can increase other forms of crimes hence incarceration of drug-offenders is ineffective as the only means of reducing the use of illicit drugs and their potential adverse effects to the society. Therefore, I maintain that US has not persisted nor applied its full coercive resources to fight drugs with the policy being a clash between prohibition and protection in the cold war. Many groups that distribute illegal drugs in the US are linked to certain Mexican corporation just as US auto, livestock, cosmetics and computer exporters are connected to importers in Mexico. Gangs in United States clash mainly over obtaining drugs for street sale; however, majority of the imported narcotics pass into the hands of white-collar distributors with regular clients who can afford prices established for purchasing cocaine and other prohibited drugs. From a nation like Mexico, where the ever-deepening drug-related bloodshed claims thirty three people a day, the war on drugs as stated by Nixon 40 years ago can be observed as it is, a huge let down. Estimated to be worth more than one trillion dollars, the war involved many people such as customs officers, prosecution officers and custodial staff; however, the prohibited sedatives trade flourishes and is worth an estimated of over $300 billion a year and growing. Worse, the fight against drugs unleashed deadly set of unintended consequences; for instance, the crackdown on drug cartels increased the huge profits bestowed on the illegality; hence, violence intensified as opposing groups competed to fill the void left when key cartels were struck by government forces. The drug war is wearing out societies and infringing on self-governing rights; meanwhile, punishing drug users and sellers fill prisons and increase addiction. Despite the success of the ‘war on drugs’ efforts, the drug trade shows remarkable capacity to change and adapt, similarly flexibility is visible in the transit routes that bridge the supply with US and Europe. The ‘war on drugs’ involves interdiction and disruption of drugs supply chain; however, the region requires massive efforts given the vastness of the area that is used by drug traffickers to transport drugs to US markets. The net effect of Andean initiative is effective stemming of the flow of drugs into the US provoking international cartels to set up operations bases in new regions. Moreover, channeling drugs via the Caribbean passage brought with it noteworthy increases in activities of organized crime (Hesselroth, 2004; Francis & Mauser, 2011). Therefore, the ‘war on drugs’ strategies rely on traditional law enforcement approaches like interdiction, eradication and apprehension. Though the tactics are somehow successful, ironically they enhance instead of reducing violence in the country. The reason behind the increase in violence escalation is due to drug traffickers’ response since they are threatened with more violence from the law enforcement and competing criminal groups; thus, they often hold the society at ransom in the crossfire. The increase in crime rate not only affects those who are victims, but also has long-term negative consequences to economic growth and the governance of the society. Crime and corruption being an offshoot of illegal drug trafficking are connected to the decrease of institutional integrity of the society. Organized crime threatens political institutions and is a major cause of corruption within institutions of the society. Narcotic trafficking is considered as a means of normalizing illegal behavior, by subverting the justice system as well as other civil institutions that eventually undermine and corrupt such a society. Narco-trafficking can have destabilizing effect on governments in vulnerable states as drug organizations try to influence the political process in order to buy favors. As law implementation, pressure is enhanced either directly or via agreement with US ‘war on drugs’ policies, political uncertainty may succeed as drug organizations pursue to weigh in through different means apart from the ballot. Therefore, to tackle the problems that result from ‘war on drugs’ policies and drug trafficking requires a multifaceted approach (Baird, 201s2). Judgment As many people within major consuming communities agree to the remarkable upswing of people supporting legislation of some drugs, I believe this is one way of ensuring that the ‘war on drugs’ and drug lords succeeds. As counter insightful as it may appear, evidence advocates that criminalization of drugs never prevents the use of illegal drugs; however, decriminalization does. People do not willfully create havoc since they do things they find to assist them in their lives even if it is temporary, and eventually get them in all sorts of problems. It is clear that too many people believe that the prohibitive punitive system has essentially caused most of the current problems like poverty, filling of prisons and violence. These problems in return intensify the need for drugs and make it hard to stop. Although my argument is that there is need to legalize the drugs, I do not necessarily promote the use of such drugs. There are many models useful in reducing harm like the combination of decriminalization and supportive treatment since people are more likely to come off drugs faster once they realize there is nothing to fight against, anymore. Decriminalization deals with the supply side and the deadly nexus of money and violence because I believe drugs have little intrinsic value; hence, prohibition results in the astronomical prices that support traffickers. Since profits are extreme so is the violence and corruption required to protect them; thus, legislation and regulation has the ability to break the criminals’ hold of the drugs. References Baird, V. (2012). Legalize drugs - all of them! (Cover story). New Internationalist, (455), 12-17 Bowser, J. (2012). Social Issues Score Big. State Legislatures, 38(10), 18-19. Caulkins, J.P., et al., 2005. How goes the ‘war on drugs’? An assessment of US drug problems and policy. Rand Drug Policy Research Center, Rand Corporation. Francis, J. P., & Mauser, G. A. (2011). Collateral damage: the 'War on Drugs', and the Latin America and Caribbean region: policy recommendations for the Obama administration. Policy Studies, 32(2), 159-177. doi:10.1080/01442872.2010.544451 Hesselroth, A., 2004. Struggles of security in US foreign drug policy towards Andean countries. Peace studies journal, 5. Miron, J.A., 2008. The effect of marijuana decriminalization on the budgets of Massachusetts governments, with a discussion of decriminalization’s effect on marijuana use an update of Miron (2002a). Commissioned by the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts. Saadatmand, Y., Toma, M., & Choquette, J. (2012). The War On Drugs And Crime Rates. Journal Of Business & Economics Research, 10(5), 285-290. UNODC, 2010. World drug report 2010.UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna, 2010. US Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA staffing and budget Read More