Critical Analysis of the War on Drugs Policies

The report deals with the critical analysis of the policies of the war on drugs and presents an argument on the efficient implementation of the policies to ensure prevention of illegal drug abuse. It discusses the available strategies and argues on the degree of effectiveness of the strategies. Further, the paper would discuss some of the amendments that could be incorporated in order to increase the effectiveness of the legal proceedings under the ‘war on drugs’.

Running head: WAR ON DRUGS
WAR ON DRUGS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1WAR ON DRUGS
The literal meaning of the phrase ‘war on drugs’ refers to the ban imposed by the U.S
Federal government on the exploitation of a wide spectrum of drugs that finds application in
different sectors. These drugs are generally classified as the psychoactive drugs and are
abused by non-prescribed patients. However, it is critical here to note that even though an
annual sum of about $1 trillion is spent for enforcing strict laws on the extensive drug abuse
but still statistics have not testified a massive reduction in the number of illegal drug
exploitation for a tenure of about 10 years (Griffin,2017). The US federal government spends
a handsome amount of about $350 billion for the implementation of strict policies pertaining
to ‘war on drugs’, however only a meagre amount of about 7 billion dollars is spent for
improving policies on ways related to the preventative measures (Hari,2015). It must be
noted here that the ‘war on drug’ policies are majorly focused on the imposition of penalty
schemes on guilty organizations rather than being focused on developing strong strategies
that would lead to prevention of the crimes associated with drug abuse. This report deals with
the critical analysis of papers available on ‘war on drugs’ and further presents an argument on
the efficient implementation of the policies to ensure prevention of illegal drug abuse. The
paper would elaborately discuss the available strategies and argue on the degree of
effectiveness of the strategies. Further, the paper would discuss some of the amendments that
could be incorporated in order to increase the effectiveness of the legal proceedings under the
‘war on drugs’. ‘War on drugs has been a debatable topic since a long time and the US
government has failed to introduce strict reforms regarding the problem. It is significant to
note here that according to the data revealed by the statistics of the recent years, leading
developed nations hosts more than 25% of the prison inmates charged with the crime of
illegal drug abuse and exploitation. It has been testified that 2 out of 3 prisoners are charged
with the crime of drug trafficking and hence the American law believes in imposing severe
and strict punishments on culprits accused of the crime, which is extremely vague and

2WAR ON DRUGS
irrational an approach (Carpenter,2014). The law framing body believes in enforcing strict
punishments on the users so as to create a sense of terror that would develop among the
societies that are the master controllers of illegal drug trading (Bergen-Cico,2015). The
problem here is that, instead of punishing the culprits the law framing body first needs to
devise adequate measures that would help them identify the root cause that is responsible for
making the unlawful pharmaceutical drugs available to a major proportion of the common
population. On being able to identify the antisocial groups associated with drug trafficking,
developing preventative measures would become more absolute and convenient. Drug
trafficking has become a major concern in context of the present scenario and the situation
requires immediate attention and designing of firm laws so as to help in reducing the episodes
of criminal events to a great extent( Becker & Murphy,2013).
The ‘war on drugs’ has remained a controversial topic of discussion since time
immemorial. As stated before, it basically includes the policy of prohibition and protection of
illegal drug usage and also the inclusion of military aid being taken control of under the US
government (Ahrens,2013). It is important to consider the fact that to what extent are the
strategies being implemented for the protection of these drugs effective? President Richard
Nixon, was the first person to have introduced the term ‘war on drugs’ (Melanson,2015).
However, during the time period of Obama administration, it was brought to the notice of the
people that the use of the phrase ‘war on drugs’ created a negative feeling and henceforth, the
administration refrained from using the similar term. Global arguments pertaining to the
judgement of advantages and disadvantages of ‘war on drugs’ has been aglobal concern. It
has been documented through various informations published on the newspapers that ‘war on
drugs’ has been effective to quite an extent. According a newspaper article published on 11th
of March, 2010, the Swindon police confirmed the fact that the team has been quite
successful with the implementation of preventive policies and arrested as many as 60 people

3WAR ON DRUGS
who have been accused of practicing illegal drug trade (Abrams,2013). The Swindon police
has successfully investigated the drug trafficking trend and identified the major circles
involved in the unlawful practices. However there have been several different opinions on the
same practice. John Hawkins in an interview has expressed an honest and positive opinion
about the eradication of drug trafficking crime and has mentioned that despite the hard efforts
taken up the Drug Control Department’ it must be noted that ‘war on drugs’ is not an absolute
subject which means that the complete eradication of the issue pertaining to trafficking is
impossible to eradicate (Khenti,2014). The same reason explains why despite launching
invariable campaigns against sexual harassment and rapes, it is still impossible to eradicate
these two social evils completely.
It is a common notion that the scarcity of a commodity is directly proportional to
price hike. The ‘war on drug’ has initiated a ban on certain drugs pertaining to the cessation
of the coca plantation farm in Columbia (Lassiter,2015). The ban strategy is identified to be a
positive and sound approach because banning correlates with the decrease in supply of the
goods and as a result it leads to the scarcity of the distribution of the drugs (Golub &
Bennett,2013). Along with that the ban imposed on the drug leads to a legal consideration
and restriction in terms of circulation in the market. Hence it can be said that banning
initiated under the ‘war on drugs’ has significantly helped in minimising the circulation due
to reduced supply of the illegal drugs in the market (Seelve,2015). This also refers to a
positive argument in favour of the successful implementation of the policies on drug
trafficking in the market.
Another argument in favour of ‘war on drugs’ include the comments in favour of the
argument that ‘drugs fund terrorism’ (Netherland & Hansen,2016). The firm belief in favour
of the argument dates back to the time when the former president of the United States of
America, George Washington Bush signed the drug-free community act reauthorization bill

4WAR ON DRUGS
in the year 2001 and appealed to all the citizens of the United States of America to openly
detest the use of illegal drugs (Meier,2016). It is also mentioned that most of the crimes
committed in context of illegal drug use is committed mainly by the drug users and not by the
proportion of people engaged in the process of buying the drugs. Studies also reveal that the
launch of successful campaigns to promote the idea of drug abuse as a social evil among
people have led to a decrease in the rate of drug trafficking in many areas of the world
(McDermott,2015).
However, it is critical to note here that there are numerous counter arguments
published worldwide that depict the faults and lacuna associated with the policy of ‘war on
drugs’. The first set of counter argument state that the reduction in the number of drug
abusers based on the assumption of the fact that enforcing strict laws would lead to a decline
in the rate of addicts is not completely true. This is backed up by ample statistical evidences
that reveal the fact that despite Sweden and Great Britain enforcing stringent laws in order to
control drug abuse, the number of addicts is equal in proportion compared to liberal nations
like Norway (Meinhofer,2016). Also, illegal practice of consumption of drugs have been
blamed on the cultural and racial background of a certain set of population but the fact is the
mentioned criteria used for description is only theoretical in nature with not much substantial
proof to back up the fact (Baum,2016).
Another counter argument against the war on drugs policy states that despite spending
a trillion on trying to eradicate the evil of drug trafficking by all means pertaining to
manufacture, supply and consumption of illegal drugs, the efforts have not been able to bear
sweet fruits of success which is because despite all the preventative measures it is critical to
note that the concept of drug consumption would be there in the society without fail and also
that the percentage of the people concerned with the consumption of the drugs belong to the
young population that is extremely carefree and has submitted to addiction in every form

5WAR ON DRUGS
(Osorio,2015). It is a matter of acceptance that despite trying to incorporate reform laws in
terms of legalising consumption of certain drugs such as cocaine and heroin and increasing
the taxes on the drugs in order to generate a higher revenue, it is a significant point to note
that the target audience that practices drug abuse would still go for the purchase of the drugs
from the black market, which is because, legalising the drug is equivalent to imposing a tax
and doubling the market value of the same drug which although legal is an abnormally high
amount to be paid by the addicts (Rincon-Ruiz & Kallis,2013). Therefore, the drug abusers
would ultimately prefer resorting to the illegal use of these drugs. Hence, these are some of
the factors that highlight the shortcomings of the policies framed on the ‘war on drugs’.
Drug abuse and drug trafficking has been an area of indomitable topic of debate for
many years with arguments in favour and against the subject. Drug trafficking is a crime and
elicits dangerous responses among the people, the primary and the most serious one being
‘addiction’ (Walters,2014). The ‘War on drugs’ is nothing but an American law that had
initially been framed keeping in mind the dangerous impact of the drug exploitation all over
the world. The law was framed in order to combat with problems related to a significant hike
in the number of drug abusers globally and for the introduction and implementation of laws
that would safeguard the use of certain drugs and ensure preventative measure for the same.
Although the topic under discussion incorporates a number of counter arguments that
highlights the futility of the introduction of the laws but at the same time it must be admitted
that reforms take time to get noticed. As recommendations, the framing of laws with a shift in
the central focus from the drug abusers to identification of the network of people that are
involved with the racket of drug trafficking would help in better implementation and success
rates associated with the policies. Another important factor for consideration is to spread
awareness related to drug abuse at every level starting from school level to college level is
extremely necessary. There must be a substantial increase in the number of awareness

6WAR ON DRUGS
campaigns that would throw light on the disastrous side-effects of the illegal drugs would
help the people all over the world to know about the ugly side that is in store for them for the
‘one episode of happiness’ that they experience. It is important to note here that a society
with complete exclusion from social evils is something next to impossible. There have been
numerous attempts in order to eradicate several crimes from the world including human
trafficking, child labour and rapes but inspite of enforcing strict reform laws in certain parts
of the world that incorporates capital punishment as a penalty to the above said crimes, the
rate of crimes have not diminished completely. Hence, it can be said that in a society, social
evils are inevitable, however that does not mean that any effort or attempt taken to stop the
crime is invalid and futile. There has to be amendment in the policies pertaining to drug
abuse and drug trafficking with the aim of identification and cessation of communities that
are concerned with the marketing of the illegal drug use. Launching awareness schemes and
establishment of more number of rehabilitation centres would help in fighting drug abuse and
lowering the incidences related to drug trafficking. The primary motto of the awareness
campaigns should be create a ‘drug-free and a healthy’ society that would help in building a
happier and a healthy environment for one and all.

7WAR ON DRUGS
References:
Abrams, L. S. (2013). Juvenile justice at a crossroads: Science, evidence, and twenty-first
century reform. Social Service Review, 87(4), 725-752.
Ahrens, D. (2013). Drug panics in the twenty-first century: Ecstasy, prescription drugs, and
the reframing of the war on drugs. Alb. Gov't L. Rev., 6, 397.
Baum, D. (2016). Legalize it all. Harper’s magazine, 24.
Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. M. (2013). Have we lost the war on drugs?. Wall Street Journal,
4.
Bergen-Cico, D. K. (2015). War and drugs: The role of military conflict in the development
of substance abuse. Routledge.
Carpenter, T. G. (2014). Bad neighbor policy: Washington's futile war on drugs in Latin
America. St. Martin's Press.
Golub, A., & Bennett, A. S. (2013). Prescription opioid initiation, correlates, and
consequences among a sample of OEF/OIF military personnel. Substance use &
misuse, 48(10), 811-820.
Griffin III, O. H. (2017). War on Drugs. The Encyclopedia of Corrections, 1-7.
Hari, J. (2015). Chasing the scream: The first and last days of the war on drugs. Bloomsbury
Publishing USA.
Khenti, A. (2014). The Canadian war on drugs: Structural violence and unequal treatment of
Black Canadians. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25(2), 190-195.
Lassiter, M. D. (2015). Impossible Criminals: The Suburban Imperatives of America's War
on Drugs. Journal of American History, 102(1), 126-140.

8WAR ON DRUGS
McDermott, V. (2015). The war on drugs in sport: Moral panics and organizational
legitimacy. Routledge.
Meier, K. J. (2016). The Politics of Sin: Drugs, Alcohol and Public Policy: Drugs, Alcohol
and Public Policy. Routledge.
Meinhofer, A. (2016). The war on drugs: Estimating the effect of prescription drug supply-
side interventions.
Melanson, R. A. (2015). American foreign policy since the Vietnam War: The search for
consensus from Nixon to Clinton. Routledge.
Netherland, J., & Hansen, H. B. (2016). The war on drugs that wasn’t: wasted
whiteness,“Dirty Doctors,” and race in media coverage of prescription opioid
misuse. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 40(4), 664-686.
Osorio, J. (2015). The contagion of drug violence: spatiotemporal dynamics of the Mexican
war on drugs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(8), 1403-1432.
Rincón-Ruiz, A., &Kallis, G. (2013). Caught in the middle, Colombia’s war on drugs and its
effects on forest and people. Geoforum, 46, 60-78.
Seelye, K. Q. (2015). In heroin crisis, white families seek gentler war on drugs. The New
York Times, 30.
Walters, G. D. (2014). Drugs, Crime, and Their Relationships. Burlington, MA: Jones
&Barlett Learning.