word image
Essay

Understa­nding the War on Drugs: A Comprehe­nsive Overview

2.568 Words / ~10 pages sternsternsternsternstern_0.25 Author Mario K. in Jan. 2014
<
>
Download
Genre/category

Essay
Political Studies

University, School

University of Washington - UW Seattle

Grade, Teacher, Year

Professor Frank

Author / Copyright
Mario K. ©
Metadata
Price 3.70
Format: pdf
Size: 0.15 Mb
Without copy protection
Rating
sternsternsternsternstern_0.25
ID# 36724







Professor Eklund - English 110


The “War” on Drugs


In 1973 Americas president, Richard Nixon, declared a “total war against public enemy number one in the United States; the problem of dangerous drugs.”  Since then, the use of drugs in America has increased exponentially, along with the potency of the drugs.  Today we currently incarcerate over 1.5 million people for drug arrests, and currently spend over 15 billion dollars combating this “war.”  It’s obvious that our current policy isn’t effective, as the amount of narcotics in the country increases yearly.  Is it really worth the 15 billion dollars spent per year?  And since our current policy is ineffective, why is the federal government so reluctant to make any changes to it.  To truly understand this ignorance we must first examine the motives behind it.  It’s imperative that we switch to an effective policy –which I shall later describe in detail - similar to the Netherlands, who decriminalized small amounts of “Soft Drugs,” yet, still combat “Hard Drugs.”   

          First off, we must examine the history of the government’s efforts to combat drugs in the United States.  The very first laws against narcotics were bans on opium dens in San Francisco in 1875.  By 1937 the first “actual” law was created by newly appointed chief of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics Henry J. Anslinger, which was called “The Marijuana Tax Act.”  These early laws were essentially created against Mexican and Asian immigrants in an effort to stamp out their traditional customs.  Propaganda films such as Reefer Madness, which depicted these drugs as violence inducing substances, fueled the public support for this law.  From then on America has been at a constant, costly, and ineffective war to stamp out the use of illegal drugs.   

          The United States currently operates on a Scheduling system.  The schedules start at Schedule I, and then progress down to Schedule V based on the drug’s safety and potential for addiction.  According to the U.S. Office of Diversion Control, Schedule I drugs “have a high potential for abuse, have no accepted medicinal use in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.”  These drugs include: marijuana, LSD, heroin, and hallucinogenic mushrooms.  Drugs in Schedule II by definition “have a high potential for abuse, have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions, and may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence."  These drugs, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency include cocaine, methamphetamine, and methadone.  Obviously there is something wrong with this picture.  According to our system, meth, PCP, and crack cocaine are “safer” than marijuana.

This has lead many people to question the motives behind the current laws.  As of now fourteen states within the US currently allow for the medicinal use of marijuana, despite its status as a Schedule I drug.  So how can it be a Schedule I drug when it has proven medicinal value?  And what is the accepted medical value for methamphetamine?  The answers to these questions lie in the politics behind our current laws.  It appears that we are still letting politicians play doctor when it comes to the regulations of illicit substances.  Even the American Medical Association recommended in a 2009 report of the Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes that it “has accepted medical benefits,” and also “urge [d] that marijuana’s status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be changed.”  Yet here we are in 2011 with the largest drug budget ever and tens of thousands of are people being incarcerated, creating an even larger problem within our penal system.  Prisons, such as California – with their gymnasium style construction - and the notorious Maricopa county “Tent City” are perfect examples of the overpopulation in prisons fostered by our government’s extreme focus on the war on drugs.  This prison overcrowding is an enormous expense to us, the taxpayer.  According to the US Department of Justices’ Bureau of Statistics, in 2010 we currently held 748,728 inmates in local jails, and according to the Bureau of Prisons, “state prison systems spend more than $30 billion annually”, while private prisons accounted for the 182,000 federal inmates that year.  This misallocation of money and resources opens up for a booming new trend, which is the implementation of private prisons.  On a positive note, these jobs not only provide economical support, but also help to support small towns with absolutely no financial future.  Those in “big business” may claim this is restricting the private market, which in their eyes is “socialist” or “communist” in nature.  I can definitely see that this would negatively affect the lives of the people running the prison.  However, is this practice even ethical?  Especially when one examines what the privatization of prisons has created; it is a disturbing and self-perpetuating cycle. 

Download Understa­nding the War on Drugs: A Comprehe­nsive Overview
• Click on download for the complete and text
• This is a sharing plattform for papers
Upload your paper and receive this one for free
• Or you can buy simply this text

These privatized prisons are essentially built to not only house inmates, but to profit from their incarceration.  For example:  When a new private prison has been created it needs inmates in order to meet its “quota,” and the more prisoners, the more profit.  This leads to many arrests for non-violent crimes, namely the possession of illicit substances, which are the most “common” arrests.

          According to the National Drug Control Strategy 2011 Budget Summary, this effort to eradicate the use of drugs will cost the taxpayers 15.5 billion dollars to fight a war, which simply can’t be won.  The budget for the DEA in 1973, according to the DEA’s staffing and budgeting board, was 65.2 million.  Today, the budget has increased exponentially to a staggering 15.5 million.  What is interesting and what demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the government’s efforts are the increase of both the quantity and the potency of drugs coming into the US, despite the increase in funding and manpower.  Another example is the failure of the “DARE” program and Nancy Reagan’s famous “Just Say No” campaign.  As it turns out, these programs did exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to do.  Programs today such as the Partnership for a Drug Free America seem like a good approach to the problem.  However, when one looks deeper, specifically the on the funding portion of their website, you find that eight out of the fifteen funders are pharmaceutical companies, and up until 1997 was also funded by big tobacco such as RJ-Reynolds, Winston-Salem, and big alcohol such as Anwheiser-Busch.  It’s obvious that these companies aim to keep their legal substances legal by funding campaigns against illegal substances, and also why the FDA approves and funds pharmaceutical companies.

According to the Center of Disease Control, tobacco killed over 435,000, alcohol killed 23,199, and the total (ever recorded) number of deaths for marijuana remains zero.  Yet it remains in the harshest Schedule.  I’m not suggesting that we decriminalize all drugs, but am suggesting that we make a distinction between “soft substances,” such as marijuana, and “hard” drugs, such as cocaine, ecstasy, and heroin.  It is obvious that substances such as crack, meth, and heroin kill and damage many lives, along with the societal effects.  Yet drugs such as marijuana have no recorded deaths or incidences of violence.  It seems as though the stubbornness of our government to hold traditional laws has fostered a generation of felons, as well as the lack of respect that police complain about.  Felons that are non-violent, but still receive the same treatment as rapists and murderers.  Instead of assuming kids won’t ever be curious about these substances, we should adopt educational programs that teach responsibility when it comes to experimenting with drugs and alcohol.  America has to get past its close mindedness and accept the fact that drugs are a part of life.  What is even more ironic is the fact that the general public, including the government, doesn’t view caffeine, nicotine, or alcohol as “drugs”.  All of these things fall under the category of drugs, which are defined by Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers as “a chemical substance that affects the processes of the mind or body.”  Other countries such as Portugal and the Netherlands recognize this, and also differentiate between “hard” and “soft” drugs.

Another major difference is the way they differentiate the types of drugs, not by scheduling, but by deeming them soft or hard.  According to the Dutch policy-entitled the “Opium Act”- narcotics are classified as either soft or hard, and the drug’s class depends on its potential for abuse and its negative effects on society.  Soft drugs include: marijuana, hashish, and psilocybin containing mushrooms.  These drugs, although not legal, have acceptable risks and therefore are separated from drugs with unacceptable risks, such as cocaine.  Small amounts of these “soft” substances, like marijuana, are tolerated by the government not only for medicinal use, but for recreation as well.  This is where the common image of the “Coffee shop” comes to mind.  However, due to our ignorance, we don’t realize that these coffee shops are some of the most regulated businesses within Holland. 

It’s clear when comparing the statistics of the US with the Netherlands that the Dutch clearly have a better understanding and willingness to make progress.  It’s due to the American governments stubbornness, ignorance, and close-mindedness that we haven’t seen a change in our ineffective policy.  According to a 2010 report by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), “an estimated 104 million Americans aged 12 or older have tried marijuana in their lifetimes, representing 41.5% of the total U.S. population.”  It’s pure ignorance on the part of our government to assume that we can completely stamp out marijuana use, or any drug for that matter.  As I said before, we spend 15 billion attempting to stop this “problem.”  Spending 15 billion a year, and 9 billion specifically combating marijuana, one questions if it is really worth all the tax dollars, manpower, and resources for a war that cannot be one.  This stubbornness of our government dates back to the Vietnam War and our reluctance to move out.  When one actually looks at the statistics it’s the legal substances that are the real killers and cause the most violence.  Again, reported by the CDC, tobacco directly killed 435,000 people, making it America’s number one killer.  Yet it’s still legal, and America spends more on alcohol and tobacco than it does on education.

Like the Netherlands, America needs to realize that drug use is never going to go away.  Instead of trying to eradicate the use, we must employ a policy identical to the Netherlands.  We must continue to fight against hard drugs; with less focus on soft drugs, more attention can be directed toward the hard drugs.  Decriminalizing marijuana would save taxpayers billions of dollars, and the sale of the drugs could even be taxed, just like cigarettes.  Another plus would be the eradication of Mexican cartels that supply marijuana to the US.  With dispensaries there’s no need to do it illegally.  The US government obviously has something to loose, or there is simply no “Hope,” as President Obama promised, to the 850,000 people who are incarcerated yearly due to a law created in the 1930’s, and a law the federal government isn’t willing to change. 




American Medical Association. Report 3 on the Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes. Rep. no. Report 3 (I-09). Vol. Resolution 910. Chicago: American Medical Association, 2009. Americans for Safe Access. 10 Nov. 2009. Web. 19 Apr. 2011. <

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Jail Inmates at Midyear 2010 - Statistical Tables. Prison Statistics. Chicago: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2010. Print.

"DEA Staffing & Budget." Welcome to the United States Department of Justice. United States Government. Web. 7 May 2011. <

"Definition - Drug." Medical Dictionary. Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers., 2007. Web. 3 May 2011. <

"Funding/Sponsors." The Partnership at Drugfree.org | Support and Resources for Parents Dealing with Teen Drug and Alcohol Abuse. United States Government. Web. 8 May 2011. <

"History of Marijuana." Drug Information. NARCONON International, 2010. Web. 4 May 2011. <

Myser, Michael. "Inside America's $37 Billion Prison Economy - December 1, 2006." Business, Financial, Personal Finance News - CNNMoney. 06 Dec. 2006. Web. 5 May 2011. <

"The Netherlands Compared With The United States | Drug War Facts." Welcome | Drug War Facts. Common Sense for Drug Policy. Web. 6 May 2011. <

"NSDUH: Latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Substance Abuse Data, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies." OAS Home: Alcohol, Tobacco & Drug Abuse and Mental Health Data from SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies. United States Government. Web. 7 May 2011. <

Reefer Madness. By Lawrence Meade, Arthur Hoerl, Paul Franklin, Jack Greenhalgh, Hans Weerin, Abe Meyer, and Carl Pierson. Dir. Louis J. Gasnier. Prod. George A. Hirliman and Robert Priestley. Perf. Dorothy Short, Kenneth Craig, Lillian Miles, Dave O'Brien, Thelma White, and Carleton Young. Broadway Roadshow Productions Present, 1938. Film.

US Dept. of Justice. "Controlled Substance Schedules." Office of Diversion Control. U.S. Department of Justice. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. <

US Drug Enforcement Administration. "Drug Scheduling." U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. US Government. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <

Xu, M.D, Jiaquan, Kenneth D. Kochanek, M.A, Sherry L. Murphy, B.S, and Betzaida Tejada-Vera, B.S. "Deaths: Final Data for 2007." National Vital Statistics Reports. Center for Disease Control, 20 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2011. <

 

References & Links

Swap your papers