Is the U.S. Winning the Drug War in Latin America - Essay Example

Is the U.S Winning the Drug War in Latin America? PROS: Yes, the U.S is winning the drug war because of the listed reasons 1. There is government will in both the U.S and the Latin America. 2. The war on drugs has a popular support from the legal, policy analyst, social, and medical groups. 3. There is increased public interest, which is demanding tough punitive measures for drug trade. 4. U.S has increased her budget to fight drug trafficking. 5. United has enacted strong policies to eradicate the growing and processing of narcotic products. CON: U.S is losing the drug war in Latin America 1. U.S government has failed to re-evaluate her strategy to fight the drug menace. 2. The war fight largely focuses on the users and therefore leaves the other partners in the trade to thrive well in the trade. 3. There is no concrete drug enforcement mechanism to restrict the production of drugs. 4. The affordability and cheap processing makes it difficulty to wipe drugs out of Latin America. 5. A lot of resistance from human rights organization derails the efforts to do away with the drugs. The U.S will to control drug trafficking and abuse in Latin America confirms that it is very committed to wipe the drugs from these region. To begin with, since 1960s, the government has invested a lot of her efforts and attention to wage war on drug trade in Latin America. Regan and Bush declared war on drugs in U.S and Latin America when they occupied their presidential offices. The Bush successor; Bin Clinton continued with the worth fight on drugs when he came into power in 19931. Since then, the U.S government has been strong on the war on drugs in Latin America. The U.S government recently got a support from Latin countries such as Mexico, Cuba, and Columbia. For instance, president of Mexico, Calderon has been in the forefront to combat drugs in the country2. Since he took office in 2006, he has made leaps towards the drugs war. For example, his government has formulated policies to deal with the consumers and traders of illicit drugs. These efforts have paid handsomely because the consumption of drugs has subsided. Obama’s government is in talks with Latin America Governments. Biden’s trip in 2012 to Latin America shows that the government has given negotiations a favorable chance. Biden was seeking to discuss on how leaders in that region can decriminalize drugs with an aim to stop its trade. Second, the new laws are in formulation stages. Policy analyst have advocated for a change in the current policies to allow U.S to win war on drugs. Arguably, their insights will provide new strategies to curb drugs trafficking in Latin America and U.S. The medical professionals have suggested programs to treat the drug victims. In addition, the social advocates suggests, that creation of awareness about dangers of engaging in drugs is the way to go. All these concerted efforts promise a win in the war on drugs in Latin America3. Third, the debates on drugs have attracted a lot of public interest. The Latin and the U.S population feel that drug consumption is not socially acceptable. They propose tough punishments for the growers, manufacturers, suppliers, and sellers. The public warns of the dangers of permitting drugs to get into the society. They provide a procedure, which can deter the abuse of drugs. The public suggests that, through identification, imprisonment, and persecution, the war can yield fruits4. Moreover, the drug user will be accountable for their actions. Implementation is now happening in the Latin America. This is a huge step towards gaining victory in the drug war. The increase of funds through budgetary allocation to fight drug abuse demonstrates U.S readiness to see the better end of the war. There has been a significant attention on the budget to allocate enough money in the drug war. In 1990, U.S budget on drugs was at $ 9.7 billion. This almost doubled in 2000 when it hit $ 17.7 billion mark. On top of this, the Drug Enforcement Administration department staffed her agents and raised their number to 4,561 in 2000. This was a remarkable increase from 3,191 recorded in 1990. In the light of this increased funding, it is quite evident that the government is still in the course to invest many resources in drug war5. Therefore, the government has devised policies and strategies to deal with drugs at various levels. The first attempt is eradication of crop growing in many parts of Latin America. Second, the government has tough policies to impose sanctions on Latin American. Third, it is pressuring foreign nations to cut production of the narcotic drugs. The logic behind these steps the government has taken is to make the drugs unaffordable and scarce. This will decrease the supply and thereby eradicate the trade of drugs. Further, it is a workable strategy and that reveals government commitment to win the drug war6. The police and antidrug agencies have taken an active role to arrest the drug dealers. Their actions have deterred other drug abusers and sellers in Latin America. Despite the dedicated efforts to kick out drug consumption and abuse, there are still evident drawbacks. To start with, the U.S government is still embracing old strategies to fight drugs that have worked against them. It focuses on the chief drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. The government strategy is to eradicate growing of these drugs and to make them expensive for pollutions in Latin America. This strategy works to some extent, but the benefits are very dismal. The reason to explain the unexpected observations is that, to limit drugs supply paradoxically increases their price. The increase of demand explains this paradox. When demand increases, the suppliers will always increase to meet it7. This means lucrative drug trade will still flourish. No matter how U.S continues to pour their money on this fight, under the explained circumstances they will not win the war. Second, the U.S war on drugs targets mostly the users. This narrow focus has left out the distributors, the manufactures, and the suppliers to continue with the drug trade. The policies to impose sanctions only on those people found to possess the drugs does not yield. The policymakers fail to contain the main supply of drugs, which leads to U.S fighting a loosing war8. Seizing drugs and punishment to drug consumers has only achieved little. Third, lack of law enforcement mechanisms to fight drugs derails U.S efforts to fight drugs in Latin America9. Mexicans have advocated for legalization of marijuana. This dooms every step U.S is making towards eliminating drug use and abuse in U.S. Some economists view that; to legalize marijuana will ease the financial burden facing the U.S government in her war on drugs10. The law enforcers are in dilemma. They are still grappling with their fears about the possibility of legalization of marijuana. The have not taken a strong stand to formulate and enact laws to restrict the drug trade. They simply perceive drug use is immoral and they seem to hold to popular opinions on the benefits of legalizing marijuana. The easy and affordable processing of many drugs affirms that the war on Drugs hitting a hard rock two break. Manufacturing of cocaine is a very cheap procedure. To start with, the cultivation of these drugs is very simple. Next, the growers have devised new methods of growing such as indoor propagation. Lastly, the processing only involves crushing the leaves of coca plant with a pestle. This step does not need any expertise. After this first step, it is the taken to vey affordable factories for manufacturing of cocaine. These are indications that the supply chain of these drugs is still strong and nothing can destabilize it. The last blow to U.S is war come from the Human rights organization. Activists from countries such as Peru and Guatemala express their dissatisfactory on the presence of U.S in their nations. They perceive that they have the capability to solve the drug menace11. They feel that, U.S arrests of drug traffickers and subsequent imprisonment is unethical. The increase of the number of prisons in their countries discontents them. This resistance has a negative effect in the U.S war on drugs in Latin America. From the discussion in this essay, it is evident that U.S will not win the battle on drugs. The forces of resistance are stronger than that of U.S tactics on the war. The poor strategies and policies that U.S uses are working to benefit the opponents of the war. The proliferation of many industries that manufacture drugs weakens U.S fight. The efforts to make drugs scarce have met a counter resistance. The demand goes up. Supply must increase too. This then becomes an open defeat of U.S war. Although the U.S government has remarkably increased the funds to fight the battle, it has made little achievements in the war. The drugs still find their entry inside the U.S and its chief source; the Latin America. The voices of human activists are louder than that of the U.S campaigns and negotiation mechanisms. In addition, the public has not been involved in active debates to strengthen the efforts to eradicate the drugs in Latin America. Lack of such initiates derails the U.S advancements in the war. The legal and policy analysts have made a positive move to create awareness on the effects of drugs. However, they need they have not made strong policies and laws and their efforts yields nothing. Even though there is a will from the government to fight the war, unless it looks at other tactics to deal with drugs in Latin America it will remain a loser. The drug issue in Latin America has a deep history and it is not a cheap war to fight. In addition, the traders on drugs enjoy a strong support not only from the perceived dealers but also from the economy of Latin America. This leaves the U.S without feasible alternative than to quit the war. Endnotes Read More