Drug War: Failure or Success?

Drug War: Failure or Success?

Many people would claim that President Richard Nixon started the war on drugs. Although it is less well-known today that the Nixon Administration also repealed the federal 2–10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand for reduction programs. He also endorsed drug-treatment programs, and that Nixon only made an effort of continuation towards the states original acts of prohibition dating back to 1905-1914. Even with these programs the U.S. still has a high incarceration count for drug related arrest when compared to other countries. So, are these methods effective for reducing addiction, or is there a better alternative to the war on drugs?
“Did you know America ranks the lowest in education but the highest in drug use? It 's nice to be number one, but we can fix that. All we need to do is start the war on education. If it 's anywhere near as successful as our war on drugs, in no time we 'll all be hooked on phonics.” (Leighann)

There is a large majority of people arguing good points on either side of this drug war, in which they are opposed with one another, in which one side says, “Drug enforcement is engaged in controlling the spread and remedying the effects of drug abuse.” There are also those that state that these laws and programs are designed to help decrease America’s dependence on illicit substances. The people from the another side of this argument begs to differ, as they claim that the drug war is an utter failure, ex-presidential candidate Ron Paul explains, “This war on drugs has been a detriment to personal liberty and it 's been a real abuse of liberty." In another section Ron mentions that, “Our prisons are full with people who have used drugs who should be treated as patients -- and they 're non-violent. Someday we 're going to awaken and find out that the prohibition we are following right now with drugs is no more successful, maybe a lot less successful, than the prohibition of alcohol was in the '20s" (Ron). Some critics would argue by saying that Ron Paul’s statement is derived from exaggeration but one can admit that there is some truth behind his logic.
In retro-spec of Ron Paul’s previous statement, the United States government is proving to be no more successful at preventing the sale and distribution of drugs than the Mafia Dons were when they forbade their members to be involved with the drug trade under penalty of death. New York Don, Paul Castellano had forbidden any of his associates from being involved in dealing with drugs. John Gotti, Castellano’s capo, was secretly involved with the dealings of drugs in the New York area and Gotti, fearing Paul Castellano’s wrath if discovered, had Paul Castellano murdered in an attempt to erase his past unorthodox behavior and violation of the organizations policy. (Castellano) The moral in this case would be that even when someone is discovered of being engaged in drug trafficking and the after math of their action leads to their death it still drives them to take the risk of being associated with that activity, what is to say that the larger majority won’t take these same risk for a lesser penalty.
The United States Government should have realized by now that they cannot control an individual’s personal choices by legislation. An example being suicide, as suicide is against the law, but individuals still commit it every day. You cannot logically or legally protect anyone from their own desires or ambitions by passing a law rendering said desires or ambitions illegal.An example being that the abuse of drugs is usually a form of assisted suicide when the subject drug abuser encompasses a hard drug(s). The illegal drug dealer realizes the monetary gain derived from assisting individuals to kill themselves with habitual drug use over an extended period of years.
America’s war on drugs has largely focused on choking off supplies of drugs and imprisoning distributorsand users. Despite every high-profile arrest and seizure of drugs, the drug trade and underground market for these substances persists. America has rarely examined the demand side of the users. The solution to the equation is simply, dry up the demand. The contention with the majority of our elected representatives is that drug use would skyrocket if the United States government were to legalize or decriminalize drugs in this country. Eleven years ago an example of this effectively ending the violent, expensive war on drugs and replacing it with a system for the treatment of addicts and problem users was undertaken by the country of Portugal when the Portuguese government decriminalized all drugs rather than punishing them. Dr. Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drug Addiction stated, “There is no doubt that the phenomena of addiction is in decline in Portugal. This development can not only be attributed to decriminalization but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction polices.” (Joao) Dr. Goulao stressed the number of addicts had fallen by half since the early 1990s, due to treatment procedures by medical experts and psychologist in lieu of being merely arrested and locked up. This approach appears to reflect a reduction in demand for hard drugs and provides a more humane method to address drug abuse and social issues than the present methods being utilized by our current stance towards the war on drugs. Solving the problem at its core by reducing demand instead of the current methodology espoused by our government agencies which entrails the problem of drug abuse by introducing the additional problem of incarceration and ignoring the economical solution. So is there proof that the government and our representative’s opinions are influenced and weighed by money? Well, if no one has paid any attention to last few decades of society, perhaps they wouldn’t havenoticed the legal drugs being distributed across the globe by the white market, that market in this case being the pharmaceutical industry. This industry has obviously been abused, and acclaimed of corruption, as noticed by British writer and public speaker, David Icke, who is well known for his literature and public speaking. David stated, ‘The global pharmaceutical industry has racked up fines of more than 11 billion in the past three years for criminal wrong doing, including withholding safety data and promoting drugs for use beyond their licensed condition. In all, 26 companies, including eight of the top ten players in the global industry, have been found to be acting dishonestly. The scale of the wrong doings, revealed for the first time, has undermined public and professional trust in the industry and is holding back clinical progress, according to two papers published in today’s New England Journal of Medicine. Leading lawyers have warned that the multibillion-dollar fines are not enough to change the industry’s behavior.’ (David) David’s previous statement mentioned, “Promoting drugs for use beyond their licensed conditions” this section brings into focus the disparity in penalties between documented pharmaceutical suppliers and undocumented drug dealers. One should question the difference of justice doled out; only fined a monetary amount when it involves a documented pharmaceutical supplier versus perhaps a prison term and additional monetary fines when it is involving an undocumented drug dealer. Giant pharmaceutical corporations have spent millions in advertisements and political contributions to convince the populace that they have the pill to solve any medical problem. A pharmaceutical corporation’s bottom line of profits would seem to depend on creating pill dependant zombies of us all while supporting laws that keep an effective drug such as marijuana in an illegal status. The increasing influx of illegal drugs from Latin American countries such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine is created by the complete failure of the United States government to fully secure the borders.If indeed the United States government is sincere in its attempt to eliminate the inflow of illegal drugs, why do they not address it as a national security issue? The argument is this, if a smuggler can bring four tons of illegal substances across the border, what is to prevent them from smuggling weapons of mass destruction? The war on drugs and the war on terror should be consolidated. Narco-terrorism was experienced by the government of Columbia when a drug lord, known as Pablo Escobar, declared war against their government. The United States government appears to be embarking on such a consolidation. The pentagon is outsourcing the war on drugs to the private firm formally known as Blackwater.
David Icke states, ‘for skeptics of how the American government has conducted its so-called War on Drugs, don’t worry, it will soon be out of their hands. The US department of defense has transferred its armed efforts in Latin and Central America in the War on Drugs to Academi, the private military contractors formerly known as Blackwater, reports BBC Spanish. Before they altered their branding to be known as Xe, then most recently Academi, Blackwater underwent immense criticism for a series of scandals involving contract employees executing throughout the Middle East.’ (David) This outsource of aid is some regards an irresponsible move on behalf of our official representatives. It could be said that it is also a burden on our society, by means of charging the average taxpayer a cut out of their wages to pay for an outdated plan that has proven to implement more problems than in which it solves. This method of thinking relates to the question, “do the ends justify the means?” In this case, No, especially when there is other proven techniques that have been proven to yield in better results, and yet it is the path that remains untraveled by the United States.
“Making a war of this, puts it into win or lose context. So that, if we cannot claim victory, there are those who would insist we admit defeat and argue that we should then abandon the effort and let drugs have their way with us.”(Mitchell)

Works Cited
Kain, Erick. “Ten years after decriminalization, drug abuse down by half in Portugal.” Forbes, 5 July 2011, Web 30 November 2012 http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/ http://www.theweeklyconstitutional.com/news/headlines/1021-ten-years-in-portugal-declares-drug-decriminalization-a-success

Icke, David. “Drug Giants Fined $11 Billion for Criminal Wrongdoing” 21 September 2012, Print 30 November 2012 http://galacticconnection.com/drug-giants-fined-11billion-for-criminal-wrongdoing# Icke, David. “Pentagon Outsources War on Drugs to Blackwater” 28 November 2012, Print 30 November 2012 http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/75992-pentagon-outsources-war-on-drugs-to-blackwater- Lord, Leighann “quotations about drugs” Web, 30 November 2012 http://www.quotegarden.com/drugs.html Porter, Eduardo. “Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War” New York Times, pg.B1, 4 July 2012, Print 30 November 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/business/in-rethinking-the-war-on-drugs-start-with-the-numbers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D. “Q: Has the War on Drugs reduced addiction?” Web, 30 November 2012 http://www.thirteen.org/closetohome/viewpoints/html/addict.html Paul, Ron “Ron Paul: Drug War Could Be Bigger Failure Than Prohibition (VIDEO)” 1 January 2012, Web/Video, 30 November 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/ron-paul-war-on-drugs-prohibition_n_1183353.html “Paul Castellano (1915-1985) Assassinated Crime Boss”, Web, 30 November 2012
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/castellano.html

Cited: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/ron-paul-war-on-drugs-prohibition_n_1183353.html “Paul Castellano (1915-1985) Assassinated Crime Boss”, Web, 30 November 2012