drugs on war essay

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Analysis & Opinion

Race, Mass Incarceration, and the Disastrous War on Drugs

Unravelling decades of racially biased anti-drug policies is a monumental project.

• Nkechi Taifa
• Cutting Jail & Prison Populations
• Social & Economic Harm

This essay is part of the  Brennan Center’s series  examining  the punitive excess that has come to define America’s criminal legal system .

I have a long view of the criminal punishment system, having been in the trenches for nearly 40 years as an activist, lobbyist, legislative counsel, legal scholar, and policy analyst. So I was hardly surprised when Richard Nixon’s domestic policy advisor  John Ehrlichman  revealed in a 1994 interview that the “War on Drugs” had begun as a racially motivated crusade to criminalize Blacks and the anti-war left.

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing them both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night in the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did,” Ehrlichman said.

Before the War on Drugs, explicit discrimination — and for decades, overtly racist lynching — were the primary weapons in the subjugation of Black people. Then mass incarceration, the gradual progeny of a number of congressional bills, made it so much easier. Most notably, the 1984  Comprehensive Crime Control and Safe Streets Act  eliminated parole in the federal system, resulting in an upsurge of  geriatric prisoners . Then the 1986  Anti-Drug Abuse Act  established mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, including the infamous 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentences.  Its expansion  in 1988 added an overly broad definition of conspiracy to the mix. These laws flooded the federal system with people convicted of low-level and nonviolent drug offenses.

During the early 1990s, I walked the halls of Congress lobbying against various omnibus crime bills, which culminated in the granddaddy of them all — the  Violent Crime Control and Safe Streets Act  of 1994. This bill featured the largest expansion of the federal death penalty in modern times, the gutting of habeas corpus, the evisceration of the exclusionary rule, the trying of 13-year-olds as adults, and 100,000 new cops on the streets, which led to an explosion in racial profiling. It also included the elimination of Pell educational grants for prisoners, the implementation of the federal three strikes law, and monetary incentives to states to enact “truth-in-sentencing” laws, which subsidized an astronomical rise in prison construction across the country, lengthened the amount of time to be served, and solidified a mentality of meanness.

The prevailing narrative at the time was “tough on crime.” It was a narrative that caused then-candidate Bill Clinton to leave his presidential campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally challenged man in Arkansas. It was the same narrative that brought about the crack–powder cocaine disparity, supported the transfer of youth to adult courts, and popularized the myth of the Black child as “superpredator.”

With the proliferation of mandatory minimum sentences during the height of the War on Drugs, unnecessarily lengthy prison terms were robotically meted out with callous abandon. Shockingly severe sentences for drug offenses — 10, 20, 30 years, even life imprisonment — hardly raised an eyebrow. Traumatizing sentences that snatched parents from children and loved ones, destabilizing families and communities, became commonplace.

Such punishments should offend our society’s standard of decency. Why haven’t they? Most flabbergasting to me was the Supreme Court’s 1991  decision  asserting that mandatory life imprisonment for a first-time drug offense was not cruel and unusual punishment. The rationale was ludicrous. The Court actually held that although the punishment was cruel, it was not unusual.

The twisted logic reminded me of another Supreme Court  case  that had been decided a few years earlier. There, the Court allowed the execution of a man — despite overwhelming evidence of racial bias — because of fear that the floodgates would be opened to racial challenges in other aspects of criminal sentencing as well. Essentially, this ruling found that lengthy sentences in such cases are cruel, but they are usual. In other words, systemic racism exists, but because that is the norm, it is therefore constitutional.

In many instances, laws today are facially neutral and do not appear to discriminate intentionally. But the disparate treatment often built into our legal institutions allows discrimination to occur without the need of overt action. These laws look fair but nevertheless have a racially discriminatory impact that is structurally embedded in many police departments, prosecutor’s offices, and courtrooms.

Since the late 1980s, a combination of federal law enforcement policies, prosecutorial practices, and legislation resulted in Black people being disproportionately arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine. Five grams of crack cocaine — the weight of a couple packs of sugar — was, for sentencing purposes, deemed the equivalent of 500 grams of powder cocaine; both resulted in the same five-year sentence. Although household surveys from the National Institute for Drug Abuse have revealed larger numbers of documented white crack cocaine users, the overwhelming number of arrests nonetheless came from Black communities who were disproportionately impacted by the facially neutral, yet illogically harsh, crack penalties.

For the system to be just, the public must be confident that at every stage of the process — from the initial investigation of crimes by police to the prosecution and punishment of those crimes — people in like circumstances are treated the same. Today, however, as yesterday, the criminal legal system strays far from that ideal, causing African Americans to often question, is it justice or “just-us?”

Fortunately, the tough-on-crime chorus that arose from the War on Drugs is disappearing and a new narrative is developing. I sensed the beginning of this with the 2008  Second Chance Reentry  bill and 2010  Fair Sentencing Act , which reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. I smiled when the 2012 Supreme Court ruling in  Miller v. Alabama  came out, which held that mandatory life sentences without parole for children violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In 2013, I was delighted when Attorney General Eric Holder announced his  Smart on Crime  policies, focusing federal prosecutions on large-scale drug traffickers rather than bit players. The following year, I applauded President Obama’s executive  clemency initiative  to provide relief for many people serving inordinately lengthy mandatory-minimum sentences. Despite its failure to become law, I celebrated the  Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act  of 2015, a carefully negotiated bipartisan bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2015; a few years later some of its provisions were incorporated as part of the 2018  First Step Act . All of these reforms would have been unthinkable when I first embarked on criminal legal system reform.

But all of this is not enough. We have experienced nearly five decades of destructive mass incarceration. There must be an end to the racist policies and severe sentences the War on Drugs brought us. We must not be content with piecemeal reform and baby-step progress.

Indeed, rather than steps, it is time for leaps and bounds. End all mandatory minimum sentences and invest in a health-centered approach to substance use disorders. Demand a second-look process with the presumption of release for those serving life-without-parole drug sentences. Make sentences retroactive where laws have changed. Support categorical clemencies to rectify past injustices.

It is time for bold action. We must not be satisfied with the norm, but work toward institutionalizing the demand for a standard of decency that values transformative change.

Nkechi Taifa is president of The Taifa Group LLC, convener of the Justice Roundtable, and author of the memoir,  Black Power, Black Lawyer: My Audacious Quest for Justice.

Related Issues:

• Cutting Jail & Prison Populations
• Social & Economic Harm

The American ‘Punisher’s Brain’

U.S. sentencing practices seem especially extreme when compared with countries like Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Treating All Kids as Kids

Persistent and longstanding racism has fueled harsher treatment of young Black people in the justice system.

What Did You Call Me?

An incarcerated person writes about how dehumanizing language like “inmate” is destructive.

Informed citizens are democracy’s best defense

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay

Article Critique

• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

The War on Drugs, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1727

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The “Drug War” should be waged even more vigorously and is a valid policy; government should tell adults what they can or cannot ingest. This paper argues for the position that the United States government should ramp up its efforts to fight the war on drugs.  Drug trafficking adversely affects the nation’s economy, and increases crime.  The increase in crime necessitates a need for more boots on the ground in preventing illegal drugs from entering this country.  Both police and border patrol agents are on the frontline on the battle against the war on drugs.  The war on drugs is a valid policy because it is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens.  Citizens who are addicted to drugs are less likely to contribute to society in an economic manner, and many end up on government assistance programs and engage in crimes.

Introduction

This paper argues that The War on Drugs is a valid policy, and that government has a right, perhaps even a duty to protect citizens from hurting themselves and others.  Fighting drug use is an integral part of the criminal justice system.  Special taskforces have been created to combat the influx of illegal drugs into the United States. The cost of paying police and border control agents is just the beginning of the equation.  Obviously, the detriment to the US economy is tremendous.  But the emotional stress on the friends and family of the drug user represent the human cost of illegal drugs.  Families are literally torn apart by this phenomen.

(1). The cost of police resources to fight the drug war is exorbitant, but necessary .  In order for a war against drugs to be successful, federal, local and state authorities must make sure that there a plenty of drug enforcement officers to make the appropriate arrests.  This means that drug enforcement officers must be provided with the latest equipment, including technology to detect illegal drugs (Benson).  The cost of providing all the necessary equipment to border patrol agents and the policemen and policemen on the frontlines is well justified.  It is necessary to have a budget that will ensure that drug enforcers have everything they need to combat illegal drugs at their disposal.

(2). The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens.   If a substance is illegal, it should be hunted down by law enforcement authorities and destroyed.  The drug user is a victim of society who needs help turning his or her life around.  Without a proper drug policy in effect, the drug user will continue to purchase drugs without the fear of criminal punishment.  That is why the drug war is appropriate.  The government has a right to tell citizens what it cannot ingest, particularly substances that when ingested can cause severe harm to the individual.  This harm may take on the form of addiction.  Once a person is addicted to drugs, the government has treatment programs to help him or her get off drugs.  The economic cost of preventing illegal drugs from getting into the wrong hands, and the cost of drug treatment is worth the financial resources expended because people who are not addicted to drugs are more involved in society and in life in general (Belenko).

(3). Anti-drug policies tend to make citizens act responsibly .  Adult drug users must understand that what they are doing is negatively impacting society.  Purchasing illegal drugs drains the nation’s economy.  These users have probably been in and out of drug rehabilitation programs many times with little to no success.  These drug programs are run by either the federal, state, or local governments (Lynch).   Each failed incident of a patient going back to the world of drugs costs the taxpayers money.  Once the drug user is totally rehabbed, he or she will realize the drag that he or she has been on society.  Therefore, the drug treatment centers are a way to teach adults how to be more responsible.

(4). Drug regulation in the United States has an effect on the international community.  America’s image to the rest of the world is at stake.  If America cannot control its borders, rogue leaders of other countries will think that America is soft on drugs.  This in turn makes America’s leaders look weak (Daemmrich).  Border patrol agents on the United States-Mexican border represent the best that America has to offer in preventing illegal drugs from entering the United States.  It is imperative that part of the drug policy of the United States provides enough financial resources for the agents to do their job.  The international community must see a strong front from the United States against illegal drugs.  Anything less is a sign of weakness in the eyes of international leaders, including our allies.

(5). Women are disproportionately affected by illegal drug use and therefore neglect their children.   As emotional beings, women have to contend with many issues that evade men (Gaskins).  The woman’s primary responsibility is to her children.  If a woman is a drug user, her children will be neglected.  Most of the children end up becoming wards of the state.  Having to cloth and feed children places a major burden on organizations that take these children of addicts in.  A drug addict cannot take care of herself, and she certainly cannot take care of her children.  Both the woman and her children will become dependent on the government for food and shelter.  This person is not a productive member of society.  Increased prison sentences may seem harsh for women with children, but these sentences may serve as deterrence from using drugs.

(6 ). If students know that the criminal penalty is severe, it may serve as a deterrent to drug related crimes.   Educating students, while they are still in school about the harmful effects and consequences of using drugs is imperative in fighting the drug war.  However, many students may tune out the normal talk about how drugs affect them physically.  The key to effectively making the point to students that illegal drug use is wrong is to present them with the consequences of having a felony drug conviction on their record (Reynolds). In fact, having a criminal record is bad enough without the felony drug conviction.  Students should know that such a record can prevent them from obtaining employment in the future.  It should be stressed that many companies will not hire anyone with a criminal record, especially if the conviction was related to illegal drugs.  The threat of extensive incarceration should also deter students from using illegal drugs or participating in drug related activities.

(7). Parents who use drugs in front of their children are bad influences and contribute to the delinquency of the minor.    Children are extremely impressionable, and starting to use drugs at a young age can be devastating to their future.  The government fights the drug war to protect law abiding citizens, and to punish criminals.  People who use illicit drugs are criminals, and parents who influence their children by introducing and approving of their drug use need to suffer severe penalties under the law (Lynch).  It is more than likely that the parents that use drugs have been incarcerated at one time or the other.  This incarceration may be drug related.  Children see their parents go in and out of jail, so that becomes their “normal.” Thus you have generational incarcerations which are an expense to prison sector and taxpayers.  The government is right in ramping up the penalties on drug use in front of children.

(8). People who use drugs are likely to drive under the influence which has all sorts of possible negative outcomes. There are so many consequences resulting from illegal drug use that they are too numerous to list.  One of the “unspoken” consequences is driving under the influence.  The entire population has made a concerted effort to curtail drinking and driving, and the deaths from alcohol related traffic accidents gave gone down significantly since strict laws have been put in place.  The government needs to find a way to crack down on drivers who are under the influence of illegal drugs (Belenko).  Drivers must be clear headed and focused to driver responsibly.  The government should get harsher, and find a way to test (as in the breathalyzer for alcohol) for marijuana.  The government has been successful in keeping the number of drunken drivers down.  However, many drivers are still legally able to pass a breathalyzer test if they are smoking marijuana, or using other drugs.  Accidents can still happen regardless of what drug the driver is under the influence of.  The government must find a way to crack down on these drivers who think that they are beating the system.

If the United States wants to get serious on the war on drugs, it should wage the war more vigorously.  Although the war on drugs is a valid policy, it needs to receive more attention and financial resources from the Federal government.  Preventing illegal drugs from crossing our borders is costly, but highly effective if there are plenty of border patrol agents on the United States-Mexican border.  This is the main avenue by which illegal drugs make it into the United States.  The argument that the government has the right to tell citizens what they can ingest is correct.  This is because it is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens.  Keeping people off of drugs makes for productive citizens who contribute to building a drug free society.

Works Cited

Belenko, Steven R., ed. Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Benson, Bruce L., Ian Sebastian Leburn, and David W. Rasmussen. “The Impact of Drug Enforcement on Crime: An Investigation of the Opportunity Cost of Police Resources.” Journal of Drug Issues 31.4 (2001): 989+. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Daemmrich, Arthur A. Pharmacopolitics: Drug Regulation in the United States and Germany. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 2004. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Gaskins, Shimica. “”Women of Circumstance”-The Effects of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing on Women Minimally Involved in Drug Crimes.” American Criminal Law Review 41.4 (2004): 1533+. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Lynch, Timothy, ed. After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2000. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Reynolds, Marylee. “Educating Students about the War on Drugs: Criminal and Civil Consequences of a Felony Drug Conviction.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 32.3/4 (2004): 246+. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Dr. Strangelove, Essay Example

Valuing Caring Behaviors Within Simulated Emergent Situations, Article Critique Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

War on Drugs

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system
• Cato Institute - The International War on Drugs
• Academia - The "War on Drugs" as Imperialism
• The Guardian - Nixon's 'war on drugs' began 40 years ago, and the battle is still raging
• Drug Policy Alliance - A Brief History of the Drug War
• PBS Frontline - Thirty Years Of America's Drug War
• History Today - Has a War on Drugs Ever Been Won?
• GlobalSecurity.org - War on Drugs

War on Drugs , the effort in the United States since the 1970s to combat illegal drug use by greatly increasing penalties, enforcement, and incarceration for drug offenders.

The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres. Richard Nixon declared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” and increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and drug-treatment efforts. In 1973 the Drug Enforcement Administration was created out of the merger of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and the Office of Narcotics Intelligence to consolidate federal efforts to control drug abuse.

The War on Drugs was a relatively small component of federal law-enforcement efforts until the presidency of Ronald Reagan , which began in 1981. Reagan greatly expanded the reach of the drug war and his focus on criminal punishment over treatment led to a massive increase in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 1984 his wife, Nancy , spearheaded another facet of the War on Drugs with her “ Just Say No” campaign, which was a privately funded effort to educate schoolchildren on the dangers of drug use. The expansion of the War on Drugs was in many ways driven by increased media coverage of—and resulting public nervousness over—the crack epidemic that arose in the early 1980s. This heightened concern over illicit drug use helped drive political support for Reagan’s hard-line stance on drugs. The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of “ mandatory minimum ” prison sentences for various drug offenses. A notable feature of mandatory minimums was the massive gap between the amounts of crack and of powder cocaine that resulted in the same minimum sentence: possession of five grams of crack led to an automatic five-year sentence while it took the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger that sentence. Since approximately 80% of crack users were African American , mandatory minimums led to an unequal increase of incarceration rates for nonviolent Black drug offenders, as well as claims that the War on Drugs was a racist institution.

Concerns over the effectiveness of the War on Drugs and increased awareness of the racial disparity of the punishments meted out by it led to decreased public support of the most draconian aspects of the drug war during the early 21st century. Consequently, reforms were enacted during that time, such as the legalization of recreational marijuana in an increasing number of states and the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 that reduced the discrepancy of crack-to-powder possession thresholds for minimum sentences from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. Prison reform legislation enacted in 2018 further reduced the sentences for some crack cocaine–related convictions . While the War on Drugs is still technically being waged, it is done at a much less intense level than it was during its peak in the 1980s.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• Political History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Linguistics
• Browse content in Literature
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Technology and Society
• Browse content in Law
• Company and Commercial Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Local Government Law
• Criminal Law
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Public International Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Police Regional Planning
• Property Law
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Microbiology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Palaeontology
• Environmental Science
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Browse content in Environment
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Environmental Politics
• International Relations
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Economy
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Russian Politics
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• Native American Studies
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Migration Studies
• Organizations
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Reviews and Awards
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Drugs and Thugs: The History and Future of America's War on Drugs

• Cite Icon Cite

How can the United States chart a path forward in the war on drugs? This book uncovers the full history of this war that has lasted more than a century. The book provides an essential view of the economic, political, and human impacts of U.S. drug policies. It takes readers from Afghanistan to Colombia, to Peru and Mexico, to Miami International Airport and the border crossing between El Paso and Juarez to trace the complex social networks that make up the drug trade and drug consumption. Through historically driven stories, the book reveals how the war on drugs has evolved to address mass incarceration, the opioid epidemic, the legalization and medical use of marijuana, and America's shifting foreign policy.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — War on Drugs

Essays on War on Drugs

The "War on Drugs" is more than just a catchphrase; it's a socio-political battleground that has shaped nations and lives. Writing an essay on the war on drugs isn't just an academic exercise; it's an opportunity to explore the complexities, controversies, and consequences of this enduring struggle. 🚀 So, let's dive in and uncover the layers of this significant topic!

Essay Topics for "War on Drugs" 📝

Picking the right essay topic is crucial for an engaging and insightful essay. Here's how to choose one:

War on Drugs Argumentative Essay 🤨

Argumentative essays on the war on drugs require you to take a stance on drug-related issues. Here are ten compelling topics to consider:

• 1. Assess the effectiveness of the "War on Drugs" policy in reducing drug-related crime and addiction.
• 2. Analyze the racial disparities in drug-related arrests and sentencing in the context of the war on drugs.
• 3. Debate whether drug decriminalization or legalization would be a more effective approach to combating drug addiction.
• 4. Discuss the impact of the war on drugs on public health, particularly regarding drug-related diseases like HIV.
• 5. Evaluate the role of pharmaceutical companies in the opioid epidemic and the government's response.
• 6. Examine the relationship between drug policy and the prison industrial complex.
• 7. Debate the ethical implications of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug offenses.
• 8. Analyze the impact of drug legalization in certain countries and its lessons for the United States.
• 9. Discuss the connection between drug trafficking and violence in the context of the war on drugs.
• 10. Explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of harm reduction strategies in drug policy.

War on Drugs Cause and Effect Essay 🤯

Cause and effect essays on the war on drugs focus on the reasons and consequences. Here are ten topics to explore:

• 1. Investigate the historical events and social factors that led to the initiation of the war on drugs.
• 2. Analyze the causes of drug addiction and its impact on individuals and communities.
• 3. Examine the effects of drug criminalization on marginalized communities and racial disparities.
• 4. Discuss the role of pharmaceutical companies in the opioid crisis and its consequences on public health.
• 5. Investigate the economic implications of the war on drugs, including law enforcement costs and lost tax revenue.
• 6. Examine the effects of mandatory minimum sentencing on the prison population and overcrowding.
• 7. Analyze the consequences of drug legalization in certain countries on drug use rates and crime.
• 8. Discuss the impact of drug addiction on family dynamics and social relationships.
• 9. Investigate the causes and effects of the opioid epidemic and its lasting impact on communities.
• 10. Examine the relationship between drug trafficking and violence in drug-producing regions.

War on Drugs Opinion Essay 😌

Opinion essays on the war on drugs allow you to express your personal viewpoints. Here are ten topics to consider:

• 1. Share your opinion on whether the war on drugs has been effective in achieving its goals.
• 2. Discuss your perspective on the role of addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one.
• 3. Express your thoughts on the influence of drug policy on racial and social inequalities.
• 4. Debate the ethical implications of the pharmaceutical industry's role in drug addiction.
• 5. Share your views on the potential benefits and drawbacks of legalizing or decriminalizing certain drugs.
• 6. Discuss the impact of drug addiction on individuals' lives and the importance of rehabilitation.
• 7. Express your opinion on the relationship between drug policy and incarceration rates.
• 8. Debate the merits of harm reduction strategies and their role in drug policy.
• 9. Share your perspective on the effectiveness of alternative approaches to drug addiction treatment.
• 10. Discuss your favorite documentary or book on the war on drugs and its impact on your understanding of the issue.

War on Drugs Informative Essay 🧐

Informative essays on the war on drugs aim to educate readers. Here are ten informative topics to explore:

• 1. Explore the history and timeline of the war on drugs in the United States.
• 2. Provide an in-depth analysis of the economics of the illegal drug trade and its global impact.
• 3. Investigate the origins and development of drug cartels and their influence on drug trafficking.
• 4. Analyze the role of drug education and prevention programs in reducing addiction rates.
• 5. Examine the effectiveness of various drug rehabilitation and treatment approaches.
• 6. Explore the impact of the opioid epidemic on healthcare systems and communities.
• 7. Provide insights into the historical context of drug criminalization and its consequences.
• 8. Analyze the relationship between drug policy and international cooperation in combating drug trafficking.
• 9. Discuss the effects of drug addiction on mental health and the importance of dual diagnosis treatment.
• 10. Examine the cultural and societal implications of drug use and the portrayal of addiction in the media.

War on Drugs Essay Example 📄

War on drugs thesis statement examples 📜.

Here are five examples of strong thesis statements for your war on drugs essay:

• 1. "The war on drugs, while well-intentioned, has largely failed in achieving its goals, leading to a cycle of incarceration, addiction, and social inequality."
• 2. "In analyzing the consequences of drug criminalization, we uncover a complex web of racial disparities, overburdened prisons, and missed opportunities for effective addiction treatment."
• 3. "The opioid epidemic in the United States highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to drug addiction, one that includes harm reduction, treatment, and a reevaluation of drug policy."
• 4. "The war on drugs has disproportionately affected minority communities, perpetuating a cycle of poverty, addiction, and incarceration that demands systemic change."
• 5. "By examining the historical context and global impact of the war on drugs, we gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted challenges it poses and the need for a more humane approach."

War on Drugs Essay Introduction Examples 🚀

Here are three captivating introduction paragraphs to kickstart your essay:

• 1. "In the shadow of political slogans and criminalization, the war on drugs has silently raged on, leaving behind a trail of consequences that span generations. As we embark on this essay journey into the heart of the drug war, we peel back the layers of policy, addiction, and societal impact that have shaped the world we live in."
• 2. "Picture a battlefield where the combatants are not armies but ideologies, and the casualties are not soldiers but individuals and communities. The war on drugs is a battleground of ideas and actions, where the stakes are high, and the consequences profound. Join us as we navigate this terrain and confront the complex issues at its core."
• 3. "In a world divided by perspectives and policy, the war on drugs stands as a symbol of the challenges that society faces in addressing addiction and its consequences. As we venture into this essay's exploration, we are confronted with a paradox: the pursuit of justice intertwined with a cycle of injustice. Together, let's uncover the truth of this enduring struggle."

War on Drugs Conclusion Examples 🌟

Conclude your essay with impact using these examples:

• 1. "As we draw the curtains on this exploration of the war on drugs, we are left with a sobering realization: the battle is far from over. The path forward demands not only a reevaluation of policy but also a commitment to compassion, rehabilitation, and a society that understands the complexities of addiction."
• 2. "In the closing chapter of our essay, we reflect on the enduring legacy of the war on drugs, where victory remains elusive. The pages we've explored bear witness to a struggle that transcends generations, calling for a more empathetic and holistic approach to addiction and drug policy."
• 3. "As the echoes of the drug war persist, we stand at a crossroads of policy, justice, and humanity. The essay's journey marks a beginning—a call to action. Together, we have dissected the layers of the war on drugs, and it is now our responsibility to shape a future that prioritizes healing over punishment."

Discussion on The Issue of The War on Drugs

My views on the war on drugs in the philippines, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Why The War on Drugs Was Really a War on Race

The war on drugs and its impact on black and latino people, why the war on drugs is a waste of time, the importance of war on drugs in the united states, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A Brief History of The War on Drugs

Approving drugs as a solution to war on drugs, the failure of war on drugs in america, negative outcomes of the war on drugs in north america, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Failure of America's War on Drugs

The consequences of the drug ban in switzerland, war on drugs in the usa: laws and issues, ending the drug war and changing policies, ending the war on drugs in america, anti-drug education: dare program, overview of the war on drugs in canada, the issue of drug trafficking on a global scale, an overview and evaluation of dare program, solving the heroin epidemic: improving the judiciary and relevant laws, the good versus bad in the war on drugs in the film the house i live in, theme of on the rainy river, the war on drugs in the film the house i live in by eugene jarecki, an overview of the legitimization and the improvement of drug rules in america, the problem of drug trafficking and its effects in the us, critical issue of drug decriminalization, the effects of the war on drugs on society, the pyrrhic defeat theory: reevaluating victory in warfare, analysis of brian turner's "here, bullet", the sniper summary.

The war on drugs is a global campaign, led by the U.S. federal government, of drug prohibition, military aid, and military intervention, with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade in the United States.

The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres. Richard Nixon declared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” and increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and drug-treatment efforts.

Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Anti-Drug Abuse Act, Fair Sentencing Act (FSA).

The US spent $1 trillion fighting the war on drugs. More than 80% of all drug-related arrests in the US are for possession, not for sale. People of color are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for possession than whites, even though they use the same amount of drugs. 80% of all globally produced opioids are consumed by Americans.

Relevant topics

• School Shooting
• Serial Killer
• Drunk Driving
• Domestic Violence
• Animal Cruelty
• Child Abuse

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

We need your support today

Independent journalism is more important than ever. Vox is here to explain this unprecedented election cycle and help you understand the larger stakes. We will break down where the candidates stand on major issues, from economic policy to immigration, foreign policy, criminal justice, and abortion. We’ll answer your biggest questions, and we’ll explain what matters — and why. This timely and essential task, however, is expensive to produce.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

The war on drugs, explained

by German Lopez

The US has been fighting a global war on drugs for decades. But as prison populations and financial costs increase and drug-related violence around the world continues, lawmakers and experts are reconsidering if the drug war’s potential benefits are really worth its many drawbacks.

What is the war on drugs?

In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon formally launched the war on drugs to eradicate illicit drug use in the US. “If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us,” Nixon told Congress in 1971. “I am not prepared to accept this alternative.”

Over the next couple decades, particularly under the Reagan administration, what followed was the escalation of global military and police efforts against drugs. But in that process, the drug war led to unintended consequences that have proliferated violence around the world and contributed to mass incarceration in the US, even if it has made drugs less accessible and reduced potential levels of drug abuse.

Nixon inaugurated the war on drugs at a time when America was in hysterics over widespread drug use. Drug use had become more public and prevalent during the 1960s due in part to the counterculture movement, and many Americans felt that drug use had become a serious threat to the country and its moral standing.

Over the past four decades, the US has committed more than $1 trillion to the war on drugs. But the crackdown has in some ways failed to produce the desired results: Drug use remains a very serious problem in the US, even though the drug war has made these substances less accessible. The drug war also led to several — some unintended — negative consequences, including a big strain on America’s criminal justice system and the proliferation of drug-related violence around the world.

While Nixon began the modern war on drugs, America has a long history of trying to control the use of certain drugs. Laws passed in the early 20th century attempted to restrict drug production and sales. Some of this history is racially tinged , and, perhaps as a result, the war on drugs has long hit minority communities the hardest.

In response to the failures and unintended consequences, many drug policy experts and historians have called for reforms: a larger focus on rehabilitation , the decriminalization of currently illicit substances, and even the legalization of all drugs.

The question with these policies, as with the drug war more broadly, is whether the risks and costs are worth the benefits. Drug policy is often described as choosing between a bunch of bad or mediocre options, rather than finding the perfect solution. In the case of the war on drugs, the question is whether the very real drawbacks of prohibition — more racially skewed arrests, drug-related violence around the world, and financial costs — are worth the potential gains from outlawing and hopefully depressing drug abuse in the US.

Is the war on drugs succeeding?

The goal of the war on drugs is to reduce drug use. The specific aim is to destroy and inhibit the international drug trade — making drugs scarcer and costlier, and therefore making drug habits in the US unaffordable. And although some of the data shows drugs getting cheaper, drug policy experts generally believe that the drug war is nonetheless preventing some drug abuse by making the substances less accessible.

The prices of most drugs, as tracked by the Office of National Drug Control Policy , have plummeted. Between 1981 and 2007, the median bulk price of heroin is down by roughly 93 percent, and the median bulk price of powder cocaine is down by about 87 percent. Between 1986 and 2007, the median bulk price of crack cocaine fell by around 54 percent. The prices of meth and marijuana, meanwhile, have remained largely stable since the 1980s.

Much of this is explained by what’s known as the balloon effect : Cracking down on drugs in one area doesn’t necessarily reduce the overall supply of drugs. Instead, drug production and trafficking shift elsewhere, because the drug trade is so lucrative that someone will always want to take it up — particularly in countries where the drug trade might be one of the only economic opportunities and governments won’t be strong enough to suppress the drug trade.

The balloon effect has been documented in multiple instances, including Peru and Bolivia to Colombia in the 1990s, the Netherlands Antilles to West Africa in the early 2000s, and Colombia and Mexico to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala in the 2000s and 2010s.

Sometimes the drug war has failed to push down production altogether, like in Afghanistan. The US spent $7.6 billion between 2002 and 2014 to crack down on opium in Afghanistan, where a bulk of the world’s supply for heroin comes from. Despite the efforts, Afghanistan’s opium poppy crop cultivation reached record levels in 2013.

On the demand side, illicit drug use has dramatically fluctuated since the drug war began. The Monitoring the Future survey , which tracks illicit drug use among high school students, offers a useful proxy: In 1975, four years after President Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs, 30.7 percent of high school seniors reportedly used drugs in the previous month. In 1992, the rate was 14.4 percent. In 2013, it was back up to 25.5 percent.

Still, prohibition does likely make drugs less accessible than they would be if they were legal. A 2014 study by Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, suggested that prohibition multiplies the price of hard drugs like cocaine by as much as 10 times. And illicit drugs obviously aren’t available through easy means — one can’t just walk into a CVS and buy heroin. So the drug war is likely stopping some drug use: Caulkins estimates that legalization could lead hard drug abuse to triple, although he told me it could go much higher.

But there’s also evidence that the drug war is too punitive: A 2014 study from Peter Reuter at the University of Maryland and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago found there’s no good evidence that tougher punishments or harsher supply-elimination efforts do a better job of pushing down access to drugs and substance abuse than lighter penalties. So increasing the severity of the punishment doesn’t do much, if anything, to slow the flow of drugs.

Instead, most of the reduction in accessibility from the drug war appears to be a result of the simple fact that drugs are illegal, which by itself makes drugs more expensive and less accessible by eliminating avenues toward mass production and distribution.

The question is whether the possible reduction of potential drug use is worth the drawbacks that come in other areas, including a strained criminal justice system and the global proliferation of violence fueled by illegal drug markets. If the drug war has failed to significantly reduce drug use, production, and trafficking, then perhaps it’s not worth these costs, and a new approach is preferable.

How does the US decide which drugs are regulated or banned?

The US uses what’s called the drug scheduling system . Under the Controlled Substances Act , there are five categories of controlled substances known as schedules, which weigh a drug’s medical value and abuse potential.

Medical value is typically evaluated through scientific research, particularly large-scale clinical trials similar to those used by the Food and Drug Administration for pharmaceuticals. Potential for abuse isn’t clearly defined by the Controlled Substances Act, but for the federal government, abuse is when individuals take a substance on their own initiative, leading to personal health hazards or dangers to society as a whole.

Under this system, Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Schedule 2 drugs have high potential for abuse but some medical value. As the rank goes down to Schedule 5, a drug’s potential for abuse generally decreases.

It may be helpful to think of the scheduling system as made up of two distinct groups: nonmedical and medical. The nonmedical group is the Schedule 1 drugs, which are considered to have no medical value and high potential for abuse. The medical group is the Schedule 2 to 5 drugs, which have some medical value and are numerically ranked based on abuse potential (from high to low).

Marijuana and heroin are Schedule 1 drugs, so the federal government says they have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Cocaine, meth, and opioid painkillers are Schedule 2 drugs, so they’re considered to have some medical value and high potential for abuse. Steroids and testosterone products are Schedule 3, Xanax and Valium are Schedule 4, and cough preparations with limited amounts of codeine are Schedule 5. Congress specifically exempted alcohol and tobacco from the schedules in 1970.

Although these schedules help shape criminal penalties for illicit drug possession and sales, they’re not always the final word. Congress, for instance, massively increased penalties against crack cocaine in 1986 in response to concerns about a crack epidemic and its potential link to crime. And state governments can set up their own criminal penalties and schedules for drugs as well.

Other countries, like the UK and Australia , use similar systems to the US, although their specific rankings for some drugs differ.

How does the US enforce the war on drugs?

The US fights the war on drugs both domestically and overseas.

On the domestic front, the federal government supplies local and state police departments with funds, legal flexibility, and special equipment to crack down on illicit drugs. Local and state police then use this funding to go after drug dealing organizations.

“[Federal] assistance helped us take out major drug organizations, and we took out a number of them in Baltimore,” said Neill Franklin, a retired police major and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition , which opposes the war on drugs. “But to do that, we took out the low-hanging fruit to work up the chain to find who was at the top of the pyramid. It started with low-level drug dealers, working our way up to midlevel management, all the way up to the kingpins.”

Some of the funding, particularly from the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program , encourages local and state police to participate in anti-drug operations. If police don’t use the money to go after illicit substances, they risk losing it — providing a financial incentive for cops to continue the war on drugs.

Although the focus is on criminal groups, casual users still get caught in the criminal justice system. Between 1999 and 2007, Human Rights Watch found at least 80 percent of drug-related arrests were for possession, not sales.

It seems, however, that arrests for possession don’t typically turn into convictions and prison time. According to federal statistics , only 5.3 percent of drug offenders in federal prisons and 27.9 percent of drug offenders in state prisons in 2004 were in for drug possession. The overwhelming majority were in for trafficking, and a small few were in for an unspecified “other” category.

Mexican officials incinerate 130 tons of seized marijuana.

Internationally, the US regularly aids other countries in their efforts to crack down on drugs. For example, the US in the 2000s provided military aid and training to Colombia — in what’s known as Plan Colombia — to help the Latin American country go after criminal organizations and paramilitaries funded through drug trafficking.

Federal officials argue that helping countries like Colombia attacks the source of illicit drugs, since such substances are often produced in Latin America and shipped north to the US. But the international efforts have consistently displaced , not eliminated, drug trafficking — and the violence that comes with it — to other countries.

Given the struggles of the war on drugs to meet its goals , federal and state officials have begun moving away from harsh enforcement tactics and tough-on-crime stances. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy now advocates for a bigger focus on rehabilitation and less on law enforcement. Even some conservatives, like former Texas Governor Rick Perry , have embraced drug courts , which place drug offenders into rehabilitation programs instead of jail or prison.

The idea behind these reforms is to find a better balance between locking up more people for drug trafficking while moving genuinely problematic drug users to rehabilitation and treatment services that could help them. “We can’t arrest our way out of the problem,” Michael Botticelli, US drug czar, said , “and we really need to focus our attention on proven public health strategies to make a significant difference as it relates to drug use and consequences to that in the United States.”

How has the war on drugs changed the US criminal justice system?

The escalation of the criminal justice system’s reach over the past few decades, ranging from more incarceration to seizures of private property and militarization, can be traced back to the war on drugs.

After the US stepped up the drug war throughout the 1970s and '80s, harsher sentences for drug offenses played a role in turning the country into the world's leader in incarceration . (But drug offenders still make up a small part of the prison population: About 54 percent of people in state prisons — which house more than 86 percent of the US prison population — were violent offenders in 2012, and 16 percent were drug offenders, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics .)

Still, mass incarceration has massively strained the criminal justice system and led to a lot of overcrowding in US prisons — to the point that some states, such as California , have rolled back penalties for nonviolent drug users and sellers with the explicit goal of reducing their incarcerated population.

In terms of police powers, civil asset forfeitures have been justified as a way to go after drug dealing organizations. These forfeitures allow law enforcement agencies to take the organizations’ assets — cash in particular — and then use the gains to fund more anti-drug operations. The idea is to turn drug dealers’ ill-gotten gains against them.

But there have been many documented cases in which police abused civil asset forfeiture, including instances in which police took people’s cars and cash simply because they suspected — but couldn’t prove — that there was some sort of illegal activity going on. In these cases, it’s actually up to people whose private property was taken to prove that they weren’t doing anything illegal — instead of traditional legal standards in which police have to prove wrongdoing or reasonable suspicion of it before they act.

Similarly, the federal government helped militarize local and state police departments in an attempt to better equip them in the fight against drugs. The Pentagon’s 1033 program , which gives surplus military-grade equipment to police, was created in the 1990s as part of President George HW Bush’s escalation of the war on drugs. The deployment of SWAT teams, as reported by the ACLU, also increased during the past few decades, and 62 percent of SWAT raids in 2011 and 2012 were for drug searches.

Various groups have complained that these increases in police power are often abused and misused. The ACLU, for instance, argues that civil asset forfeitures threaten Americans’ civil liberties and property rights, because police can often seize assets without even filing charges. Such seizures also might encourage police to focus on drug crimes, since a raid can result in actual cash that goes back to the police department, while a violent crime conviction likely would not. The libertarian Cato Institute has also criticized the war on drugs for decades, because anti-drug efforts gave cover to a huge expansion of law enforcement’s surveillance capabilities, including wiretaps and US mail searches.

The militarization of police became a particular sticking point during the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the police shooting of Michael Brown . After heavily armed police responded to largely peaceful protesters with armored vehicle that resemble tanks, tear gas, and sound cannons, law enforcement experts and journalists criticized the tactics.

Since the beginning of the war on drugs, the general trend has been to massively grow police powers and expand the criminal justice system as a means of combating drug use. But as the drug war struggles to halt drug use and trafficking, the heavy-handed policies — which many describe as draconian — have been called into question. If the war on drugs isn’t meeting its goals, critics say these expansions of the criminal justice system aren’t worth the financial strain and costs to liberty in the US.

How has the drug war contributed to violence around the world?

The war on drugs has created a black market for illicit drugs that criminal organizations around the world can rely on for revenue that payrolls other, more violent activities. This market supplies so much revenue that drug trafficking organizations can actually rival developing countries’ weak government institutions.

In Mexico, for example, drug cartels have leveraged their profits from the drug trade to violently maintain their stranglehold over the market despite the government’s war on drugs. As a result, public decapitations have become a particularly prominent tactic of ruthless drug cartels. As many as 80,000 people have died in the war. Tens of thousands of people have gone missing since 2007, including 43 students who vanished in 2014 in a widely publicized case.

But even if Mexico were to actually defeat drug cartels, this potentially wouldn’t reduce drug war violence on a global scale. Instead, drug production and trafficking, and the violence that comes with both, would likely shift elsewhere, because the drug trade is so lucrative that someone will always want to take it up — particularly in countries where the drug trade might be one of the only economic opportunities and governments won’t be strong enough to suppress the drug trade.

In 2014, for instance, the drug war significantly contributed to the child migrant crisis. After some drug trafficking was pushed out of Mexico, gangs and drug cartels stepped up their operations in Central America’s Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. These countries, with their weak criminal justice and law enforcement systems, didn’t seem to have the capacity to deal with the influx of violence and crime.

The war on drugs “drove a lot of the activities to Central America, a region that has extremely weakened systems,” Adriana Beltran of the Washington Office on Latin America explained . “Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a strong commitment to building the criminal justice system and the police.”

As a result, children fled their countries by the thousands in a major humanitarian crisis . Many of these children ended up in the US, where the refugee system simply doesn’t have the capacity to handle the rush of child migrants.

Although the child migrant crisis is fairly unique in its specific circumstances and effects, the series of events — a government cracks down on drugs, trafficking moves to another country, and the drug trade brings violence and crime — is pretty typical in the history of the war on drugs. In the past couple of decades it happened in Colombia , Mexico , Venezuela , and Ecuador after successful anti-drug crackdowns in other Latin American countries.

The Wall Street Journal explained :

Ironically, the shift is partly a by-product of a drug-war success story, Plan Colombia. In a little over a decade, the U.S. spent nearly $8 billion to back Colombia’s efforts to eradicate coca fields, arrest traffickers and battle drug-funded guerrilla armies such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Colombian cocaine production declined, the murder rate plunged and the FARC is on the run. But traffickers adjusted. Cartels moved south across the Ecuadorean border to set up new storage facilities and pioneer new smuggling routes from Ecuador’s Pacific coast. Colombia’s neighbor to the east, Venezuela, is now the departure point for half of the cocaine going to Europe by sea.

As a 2012 report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime explained, "one country’s success became the problem of others."

This global proliferation of violence is one of the most prominent costs of the drug war. When evaluating whether the war on drugs has been successful, experts and historians weigh this cost, along with the rise of incarceration in the US, against the benefits, such as potentially depressed drug use, to gauge whether anti-drug efforts have been worth it.

How much does the war on drugs cost?

Enforcing the war on drugs costs the US more than $51 billion each year, according to the Drug Policy Alliance . As of 2012, the US had spent $1 trillion on anti-drug efforts.

The spending estimates don’t account for the loss of potential taxes on currently illegal substances. According to a 2010 paper from the libertarian Cato Institute, taxing and regulating illicit drugs similarly to tobacco and alcohol could raise $46.7 billion in tax revenue each year.

These annual costs — the spending, the lost potential taxes — add up to nearly 2 percent of state and federal budgets, which totaled an estimated $6.1 trillion in 2013. That’s not a huge amount of money, but it may not be worth the cost if the war on drugs is leading to drug-related violence around the world and isn’t significantly reducing drug abuse .

Is the war on drugs racist?

In the US, the war on drugs mostly impacts minority, particularly black, communities. This disproportionate effect is why critics often call the war on drugs racist .

Although black communities aren’t more likely to use or sell drugs, they are much more likely to be arrested and incarcerated for drug offenses.

When black defendants are convicted for drug crimes, they face longer prison sentences as well. Drug sentences for black men were 13.1 percent longer than drug sentences for white men between 2007 and 2009, according to a 2012 report from the US Sentencing Commission.

The Sentencing Project explained the differences in a February 2015 report: “Myriad criminal justice policies that appear to be race-neutral collide with broader socioeconomic patterns to create a disparate racial impact… Socioeconomic inequality does lead people of color to disproportionately use and sell drugs outdoors, where they are more readily apprehended by police.”

One example: Trafficking crack cocaine, one of the few illicit drugs that’s more popular among black Americans, carries the harshest punishment. The threshold for a five-year mandatory minimum sentence of crack is 28 grams. In comparison, the threshold for powder cocaine, which is more popular among white than black Americans but pharmacoligically similar to crack, is 500 grams.

As for the broader racial disparities, federal programs that encourage local and state police departments to crack down on drugs may create perverse incentives to go after minority communities. Some federal grants , for instance, previously required police to make more drug arrests in order to obtain more funding for anti-drug efforts. Neill Franklin, a retired police major from Maryland and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition , said minority communities are “the low-hanging fruit” for police departments because they tend to sell in open-air markets, such as public street corners, and have less political and financial power than white Americans.

In Chicago, for instance, an analysis by Project Know , a drug addiction resource center, found enforcement of anti-drug laws is concentrated in poor neighborhoods, which tend to have more crime but are predominantly black :

“Doing these evening and afternoon sweeps meant 20 to 30 arrests, and now you have some great numbers for your grant application,” Franklin said. “In that process, we also ended up seizing a lot of money and a lot of property. That’s another cash cow.”

The disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates have clearly detrimental effects on minority communities. A 2014 study published in the journal Sociological Science found boys with imprisoned fathers are much less likely to possess the behavioral skills needed to succeed in school by the age of 5, starting them on a vicious path known as the school-to-prison pipeline .

As the drug war continues, these racial disparities have become one of the major points of criticism against it. It’s not just whether the war on drugs has led to the widespread, costly incarceration of millions of Americans, but whether incarceration has created “the new Jim Crow” — a reference to policies, such as segregation and voting restrictions, that subjugated black communities in America.

What are the roots of the war on drugs?

Beyond the goal of curtailing drug use , the motivations behind the US war on drugs have been rooted in historical fears of immigrants and minority groups.

The US began regulating and restricting drugs during the first half of the 20th century, particularly through the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 , the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 , and the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 . During this period, racial and ethnic tensions were particularly high across the country — not just toward African Americans, but toward Mexican and Chinese immigrants as well.

As the New York Times explained , the federal prohibition of marijuana came during a period of national hysteria about the effect of the drug on Mexican immigrants and black communities. Concerns about a new, exotic drug, coupled with feelings of xenophobia and racism that were all too common in the 1930s, drove law enforcement, the broader public, and eventually legislators to demand the drug’s prohibition. “Police in Texas border towns demonized the plant in racial terms as the drug of ‘immoral’ populations who were promptly labeled ‘fiends,’” wrote the Times’s Brent Staples.

These beliefs extended to practically all forms of drug prohibition. According to historian Peter Knight , opium largely came over to America with Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. Americans, already skeptical of the drug, quickly latched on to xenophobic beliefs that opium somehow made Chinese immigrants dangerous. “Stories of Chinese immigrants who lured white females into prostitution, along with the media depictions of the Chinese as depraved and unclean, bolstered the enactment of anti-opium laws in eleven states between 1877 and 1900,” Knight wrote .

Cocaine was similarly attached in fear to black communities, neuroscientist Carl Hart wrote for the Nation. The belief was so widespread that the New York Times even felt comfortable writing headlines in 1914 that claimed “Negro cocaine ‘fiends’ are a new southern menace.“ The author of the Times piece — a physician — wrote, ”[The cocaine user] imagines that he hears people taunting and abusing him, and this often incites homicidal attacks upon innocent and unsuspecting victims.” He later added, “Many of the wholesale killings in the South may be cited as indicating that accuracy in shooting is not interfered with — is, indeed, probably improved — by cocaine. … I believe the record of the ‘cocaine n----r’ near Asheville who dropped five men dead in their tracks using only one cartridge for each, offers evidence that is sufficiently convincing.”

Most recently, these fears of drugs and the connection to minorities came up during what law enforcement officials characterized as a crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980s and ‘90s. Lawmakers, judges, and police in particular linked crack to violence in minority communities. The connection was part of the rationale for making it 100 times easier to get a mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine over powder cocaine, even though the two drugs are pharmacologically identical. As a result, minority groups have received considerably harsher prison sentences for illegal drugs. (In 2010, the ratio between crack’s sentence and cocaine’s was reduced from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1.)

Hart explained , after noting the New York Times’s coverage in particular: “Over the [late 1980s], a barrage of similar articles connected crack and its associated problems with black people. Entire specialty police units were deployed to ‘troubled neighborhoods,’ making excessive arrests and subjecting the targeted communities to dehumanizing treatment. Along the way, complex economic and social forces were reduced to criminal justice problems; resources were directed toward law enforcement rather than neighborhoods’ real needs, such as job creation.”

None of this means the war on drugs is solely driven by fears of immigrants and minorities, and many people are genuinely concerned about drugs’ effects on individuals and society. But when it comes to the war on drugs, the historical accounts suggest the harshest crackdowns often follow hysteria linked to minority drug use — making the racial disparities in the drug war seem like a natural consequence of anti-drug efforts’ roots.

What about the band The War on Drugs?

They’re pretty great, though they don’t have much to do with the actual war on drugs.

But since you mentioned them, take a break and listen to a couple songs from their latest album, Lost in the Dream .

The War on Drugs, “Red Eye”:

The War on Drugs, “Under the Pressure”:

Bonus from their 2011 album, Slave Ambient : The War on Drugs, “Best Night”:

What are the most dangerous drugs?

This is actually a fairly controversial question among drug policy experts. Although some researchers have tried to rank drugs by their harms, some experts argue the rankings are often far more misleading than useful.

In a report published in The Lancet , a group of researchers evaluated the harms of drug use in the UK, considering factors like deadliness, chance of developing dependence, behavioral changes such as increased risk of violence, and losses in economic productivity. Alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine topped the chart.

There are at least two huge caveats to this report. First, it doesn’t entirely control for the availability of these drugs, so it’s likely heroin and crack cocaine in particular would be ranked higher if they were as readily available as alcohol. Second, the scores were intended for British society, so the specific scores may differ slightly for the US. David Nutt, who led the analysis, suggested meth’s harm score could be much higher in the US, since it’s more widely used in America.

But drug policy experts argue the study and ranking miss some of the nuance behind the harm of certain drugs.

Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, gave the example of an alien race visiting Earth and asking which land animal is the biggest. If the question is about weight, the African elephant is the biggest land animal. But if it’s about height, the giraffe is the biggest. And if the question is about length, the reticulated python is the biggest.

“You can always create some composite, but composites are fraught with problems,” Caulkins said. “I think it’s more misleading than useful.”

The blunt measures of drug harms present similar issues. Alcohol, tobacco, and prescription painkillers are likely deadlier than other drugs because they are legal, so comparing their aggregate effects to illegal drugs is difficult. Some drugs are very harmful to individuals, but they’re so rarely used that they may not be a major public health threat. A few drugs are enormously dangerous in the short term but not so much the long term (heroin), or vice versa (tobacco). And looking at deaths or other harms caused by certain drugs doesn’t always account for substances, such as prescription medications, that are often mixed with others, making them more deadly or harmful than they would be alone.

Given the diversity of drugs and their effects, many experts argue that trying to establish a ranking of the most dangerous drugs is a futile, misleading exercise. Instead of trying to base policy on a ranking, experts say, lawmakers should build individual policies that try to minimize each drug’s specific set of risks and harms.

Why are alcohol and tobacco exempted from the war on drugs?

Tobacco and alcohol are explicitly exempted from drug scheduling, despite their detrimental impacts on individual health and society as a whole, due to economic and cultural reasons.

Tobacco and alcohol have been acceptable drugs in US culture for hundreds of years, and they are still the most widely used drugs , along with caffeine, in the nation. Trying to stop Americans — through the threat of legal force — from using these drugs would likely result in an unmitigated policy disaster, simply because of their popularity and cultural acceptance.

In fact, exactly that happened in the 1920s: In 1920, the federal government attempted to prohibit alcohol sales through the 18th Amendment . Experts and historians widely consider this policy, popularly known as Prohibition, a failure and even a disaster , since it led to a massive black market for alcohol that funded criminal organizations across the US. It took Congress just 14 years to repeal Prohibition.

Alcohol and tobacco are also major parts of the US economy. In 2013, alcohol sales totaled $124.7 billion (excluding purchases in bars and restaurants), and tobacco sales amounted to $108 billion. If lawmakers decided to prohibit and dismantle these legal industries, it would cost the economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Lawmakers were well aware of these cultural and economic issues when they approved the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 . So they exempted alcohol and tobacco from the definition of controlled substances.

If these drugs weren’t exempted, tobacco and alcohol would likely be tightly controlled under the current scheduling regime. Mark Kleiman , one of the nation’s leading drug policy experts, argued both would be considered schedule 1 substances if they were evaluated today, since they’re highly abused, addictive, detrimental to one’s health and society, and have no established medical value.

All of this gets to a key point about the war on drugs: Policymakers don’t evaluate drugs in a vacuum. They also consider the socioeconomic implications of banning a substance, and whether those potential drawbacks are worth the gains of potentially reducing substance use and abuse.

But this type of analysis of the pros and cons is also why critics want to end the war on drugs today. Even if the drug war has successfully brought down drug use and abuse, its effects on budgets , civil rights , and international violence are so great and detrimental that the minor impact it may have on drug use might not be worth the costs.

How much of the war on drugs is tied to international treaties?

If lawmakers decided to stop the war on drugs tomorrow, a major hurdle could be international agreements that require restrictions and regulations on certain drugs.

There are three major treaties: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 , the Convention on Psychotropic Drugs of 1971 , and the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 . Combined, the treaties require participants to limit and even prohibit the possession, use, trade, and distribution of drugs outside of medical and scientific purposes, and work together to stop international drug trafficking.

There is a lot of disagreement among drug policy experts, enforcers, and reformers about the stringency of the treaties. Several sections of the conventions allow countries some flexibility so they don’t violate their own constitutional protections. The US, for example, has never enforced penalties on inciting illicit drug use on the basis that it would violate rights to freedom of speech.

Many argue that any move toward legalization of use, possession, and sales is in violation of international treaties. Under this argument, some governments — including several US states and Uruguay — are technically in violation of the treaties because they legalized marijuana for personal possession and sales.

Others say that countries have a lot of flexibility due to the constitutional exemptions in the conventions. Countries could claim, for instance, that their protections for right to privacy and health allow them to legalize drugs despite the conventions. When it comes to individual states in the US, the federal government argues that America’s federalist system allows states some flexibility as long as the federal government keeps drugs illegal.

“It’s pretty clear that the war on drugs was waged for political reasons and some countries have used the treaties as an excuse to pursue draconian policies,” said Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, director of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program. “Nevertheless, we’ve seen a number of countries drop criminal penalties for minor possession of all drugs. We’ve seen others put drugs into a pharmaceutical model, including the prescription of heroin to people with serious addictions. This seems completely possible within the treaties.”

Even if a country decided to dismantle prohibition and violate the treaties, it’s unclear how the international community would respond. If the US, for example, ended prohibition, there’s little other countries could do to interfere; there’s no international drug court, and sanctions would be very unlikely for a country as powerful as America.

Still, Martin Jelsma, an international drug policy expert at the Transnational Institute, argued that ignoring or pulling out of the international drug conventions could seriously damage America’s standing around the world. “Pacta sunt servanda (‘agreements must be kept’) is the most fundamental principle of international law and it would be very undermining if countries start to take an ‘a-la-carte’ approach to treaties they have signed; they cannot simply comply with some provisions and ignore others without losing the moral authority to ask other countries to oblige to other treaties,” Jelsma wrote in an email. “So our preference is to acknowledge legal tensions with the treaties and try to resolve them.”

To resolve such issues, many critics of the war on drugs hope to reform international drug laws in 2016 during the next General Assembly Special Session on drugs .

“There is tension with the tax-and-regulate approach to marijuana in some jurisdictions,” Malinowska-Sempruch said. “But it’s all part of a process, and that’s why we hope the UN debate in 2016 is as open as possible, so that we can settle some of these questions and, if necessary, modernize the system.”

Until then, any country taking steps to revamp its drug policy regime could face criticisms and a loss of credibility from its international peers.

How do other countries deal with drugs?

There is a lot of variety in how different countries have adopted the UN conventions , ranging from levels of enforcement even more stringent than US drug laws to outright decriminalization. Here are a few examples:

• China carries out some of the harshest punishments for illicit drug trafficking. In the lead-up to International Anti-Drug Day , Chinese officials unveiled executions and other harsh punishments for drug traffickers in 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2010 , and 2009 .
• The United Kingdom maintains a classification system similar to America’s scheduling system , with criminal penalties set based on a drug’s classification. For example, selling class A substances can get someone up to life in prison, while class B sentences are limited to a maximum of 14 years.
• Portugal in 2001 decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. A 2009 report authored by Glenn Greenwald for the libertarian Cato Institute found drug use fell among teenagers in Portugal following decriminalization, but use ticked up for young adults ages 20 to 24.
• Uruguay in 2012 legalized marijuana for personal use and sales to eliminate a major source of revenue for violent drug cartels. The government is now working to establish regulations for the sales and distribution of pot.

The varied approaches show that even though the US has been a major leader in the global war on drugs, its model of combating drug use and trafficking domestically is hardly the only option. Other countries have looked at the pros and cons and decided on vastly different drug policy regimes, with varying degrees of success.

What’s the case for focusing more on rehabilitation and addiction treatment?

The most cautious reform to the drug war puts more emphasis on rehabilitation instead of locking up drug users in prison, but it does this without decriminalizing or legalizing drugs.

This is the approach recently embraced by the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, which plans to increase funding for rehabilitation programs in the coming years. The Obama administration also approved several legal and regulatory reforms , including Obamacare , that increased access to addiction treatment through health insurance. (However, the federal government still spends billions each year on conventional law enforcement operations against drugs.)

Drug courts , which even some conservatives like former Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) support, are an example of the rehabilitation-focused approach. Instead of throwing drug offenders into jail or prison, these courts send them to rehabilitation programs that focus on treating addiction as a medical, not criminal, problem. (The Global Commission on Drug Policy, however, argues that drug courts can end up nearly as punitive as the full criminalization of drugs, because the courts often enforce total drug abstinence with the threat of incarceration. Since relapse is a normal part of rehabilitation, the threat of incarceration means a lot of nonviolent drug offenders can end up back in jail or prison through drug courts.)

Other countries have taken even more drastic steps toward rehabilitation, some of which acknowledge that not all addicts can be cured of drug dependency. Several European countries prescribe and administer , with supervision, heroin to a small number of addicts who prove resistant to other treatments. These programs allow some addicts to satisfy their drug dependency without a large risk of overdose and without resorting to other crimes to obtain drugs, such as robbery and burglary.

Researchers credit the heroin-assisted treatment program in Switzerland, the first national scheme of its kind, with reductions in drug-related crimes and improvements in social functioning, such as stabilized housing and employment. But some supporters of the war on drugs, such as the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy , argue that these programs give the false impression that drug habits can be managed safely, which could weaken the social stigma surrounding drug use and lead more people to try dangerous drugs.

For drug policymakers, the question is whether potentially breaking this stigma — and perhaps leading to more drug use — is worth the benefit of getting more people the treatment they need. Generally, drug policy experts agree that this tradeoff is worth it.

What’s the case for decriminalizing drugs?

Pointing to the drug war’s failure to significantly reduce drug use, many drug policy experts argue that the criminalization of drug possession is flawed and has contributed to the massive rise of incarceration in the US. To these experts, the answer is decriminalizing all drug possession while keeping sales and trafficking illegal — a scheme that would, in theory, keep nonviolent drug users out of prison but still let law enforcement go after illicit drug supplies.

Mark Kleiman , one of the leading drug policy experts in the country, once opposed the idea of decriminalization, but he warmed up to it after looking at the evidence. “What I’ve learned since then,” he said, “is nobody’s got any empirical evidence that shows criminalization reduces consumption noticeably.”

Kleiman said decriminalization could be paired with a focus on rehabilitation. He advocated for policies like 24/7 Sobriety Programs that require twice-daily alcohol testing for every single person convicted of drunk driving; anyone who fails the test is swiftly sent to jail for a few days. In South Dakota, alcohol-related traffic deaths declined by 33 percent between 2006 and 2007 — the highest decrease in the nation — after implementation of a 24/7 Sobriety Program.

In a paper , Kleiman analyzed a similar program in Hawaii for illicit drug users. Participants in that program had large reductions in positive drug tests and were significantly less likely to be arrested during follow-ups at three months, six months, and 12 months.

"Nobody's got any empirical evidence that shows criminalization reduces consumption noticeably"

A 2009 report from the libertarian Cato Institute found that after Portugal decriminalized all drugs, people were more willing to seek out rehabilitation programs. “The most substantial barrier to offering treatment to the addict population was the addicts’ fear of arrest,” Glenn Greenwald, who authored the paper, wrote. “One prime rationale for decriminalization was that it would break down that barrier, enabling effective treatment options to be offered to addicts once they no longer feared prosecution. Moreover, decriminalization freed up resources that could be channeled into treatment and other harm reduction programs.”

As with heroin-assisted treatment programs, supporters of the war on drugs argue decriminalization legitimizes and increases drug use by removing the social stigma attached to it. But the research doesn’t appear to support this point.

Some drug policy reform advocates and experts, however, are critical of decriminalization without the legalization of sales. Isaac Campos , a drug historian at the University of Cincinnati, argued that keeping the drug market in criminal hands lets them maintain a huge source of revenue. “The black market might even be fueled somewhat by the fact that people won’t be arrested anymore, because maybe more people will use,” Campos said. “We don’t know if that’s the case, but it’s possible.”

The concern for decriminalization supporters is that letting businesses come in and sell drugs could lead to aggressive marketing and advertising, similar to how the alcohol industry behaves today. This could lead to more drug use, particularly among problem users who would likely make up most of the demand for drugs. The top 10 percent of alcohol drinkers, for example, account for more than half the alcohol consumed in any given year in the US.

Decriminalization, then, is a bit of a compromise in reforming the war on drugs. It would reduce some of the incarceration caused by the drug war, but it would continue operations that seek to reduce drug trafficking and hopefully make a drug habit less affordable and accessible.

What’s the case for legalizing drugs?

Given the concerns about the illicit drug market as a source of revenue for violent drug cartels , some advocates call for outright legalization of drug use, possession, distribution, and sales. Exactly what legalization entails, however, can vary.

Drug policy experts point out that there are several ways to legalize a drug. For example, in a January 2015 report about marijuana legalization for the Vermont legislature , some of the nation's top drug policy experts outlined several alternatives, including allowing possession and growing but not sales (like DC), allowing distribution only within small private clubs, or having the state government operate the supply chain and sell pot.

The report particularly favors a state-run monopoly for marijuana production and sales to help eliminate the black market and produce the best public health outcomes, since regulators could directly control prices and who buys pot. Previous research found that states that maintained a government-operated monopoly for alcohol kept prices higher, reduced access to youth, and reduced overall levels of use — all benefits to public health. A similar model could be applied to other drugs.

There are other options. Governments could spend much, much more on prevention and treatment programs alongside legalization to deal with a potential wave of new drug users. They could require and regulate licenses to buy drugs, as some states do with guns. Or they could limit drug use to special facilities, like supervised heroin-injection sites or special facilities in which people can legally use psychedelics.

But Jeffrey Miron , an economist at Harvard University and the libertarian Cato Institute, supports full legalization, even it means the commercialization of drugs that are currently illegal. This, he said, is the only complete answer to eliminating the black market as a source of revenue for violent criminal groups.

When asked about full legalization, Mark Kleiman , a drug policy expert who supports decriminalization, pushed back against the concept. He said full legalization could foster and encourage more problem drug users. For-profit drug businesses, just like alcohol and tobacco companies, would prefer heavy users, because the heavy users tend to buy way more of their product. In Colorado’s legal marijuana market , for example, the heaviest 30 percent of users make up nearly 90 percent of demand for pot. “They are an industry with a set of objectives that flatly contradicts public interest,” Kleiman said.

Miron argued that even if sales or distribution are legalized, the harder drugs could be taxed and regulated similarly to or more harshly than tobacco and alcohol, although he personally doesn’t support that approach. “You could absolutely legalize it and have restrictions on commercialization,” Miron said. “Those should be separate questions.”

Kleiman argued the alcohol model has clear pitfalls . Alcohol still causes health problems that kill tens of thousands each year, it’s often linked to violent crime, and some experts consider it one of the most dangerous drugs .

Still, some evidence suggests the alcohol model could be adjusted to reduce its issues. In a big review of the evidence , Alexander Wagenaar, Amy Tobler, and Kelli Komro concluded that increasing alcohol taxes — and, as a result, getting people to drink less alcohol — would significantly reduce violence, crime, and other negative repercussions of alcohol use.

But there’s evidence that the drug war increases prices and decreases accessibility far beyond taxes and regulation could. A 2014 study by Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, found that prohibition multiplies hard drug prices by as much as 10 times, so legalization — by eliminating prohibition and allowing greater access to drugs — could greatly increase the rates of drug abuse.

The question of legalization, then, goes back once again to considerations about balancing the good and the bad: Is reducing the rates of drug abuse, particularly in the US, worth the carnage enabled by the money violent criminal organizations make off the black market for drugs? This is a common refrain of drug policy that’s repeated again and again by experts: A perfect solution doesn’t exist, so policymaking should focus on picking the best of many bad options.

“There are always choices,” Keith Humphreys, a drug policy expert at Stanford University, explained. “There is no framework available in which there’s not harm somehow. We’ve got freedom, pleasure, health, crime, and public safety. You can push on one and two of those — maybe even three with different drugs — but you can’t get rid of all of them. You have to pay the piper somewhere.”

Most Popular

• What the polls show about Harris’s chances against Trump
• The state of the 2024 race, explained in 7 charts
• America isn’t ready for another war — because it doesn’t have the troops
• Take a mental break with the newest Vox crossword
• Two astronauts are stranded in space. This one is jealous.

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in archives

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

The economy’s stacked against us.

A Texas judge issued a national ruling against medication abortion. Here’s what you need to know.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The War On Drugs: 50 Years Later

After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us'.

During the War on Drugs, the Brownsville neighborhood in New York City saw some of the highest rates of incarceration in the U.S., as Black and Hispanic men were sent to prison for lengthy prison sentences, often for low-level, nonviolent drug crimes. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

During the War on Drugs, the Brownsville neighborhood in New York City saw some of the highest rates of incarceration in the U.S., as Black and Hispanic men were sent to prison for lengthy prison sentences, often for low-level, nonviolent drug crimes.

When Aaron Hinton walked through the housing project in Brownsville on a recent summer afternoon, he voiced love and pride for this tightknit, but troubled working-class neighborhood in New York City where he grew up.

He pointed to a community garden, the lush plots of vegetables and flowers tended by volunteers, and to the library where he has led after-school programs for kids.

But he also expressed deep rage and sorrow over the scars left by the nation's 50-year-long War on Drugs. "What good is it doing for us?" Hinton asked.

Revisiting Two Cities At The Front Line Of The War On Drugs

Critics Say Chauvin Defense 'Weaponized' Stigma For Black Americans With Addiction

As the United States' harsh approach to drug use and addiction hits the half-century milestone, this question is being asked by a growing number of lawmakers, public health experts and community leaders.

In many parts of the U.S., some of the most severe policies implemented during the drug war are being scaled back or scrapped altogether.

Hinton, a 37-year-old community organizer and activist, said the reckoning is long overdue. He described watching Black men like himself get caught up in drugs year after year and swept into the nation's burgeoning prison system.

"They're spending so much money on these prisons to keep kids locked up," Hinton said, shaking his head. "They don't even spend a fraction of that money sending them to college or some kind of school."

Aaron Hinton, a 37-year-old veteran activist and community organizer, said it's clear Brownsville needed help coping with the cocaine, heroin and other drug-related crime that took root here in the 1970s and 1980s. His own family was devastated by addiction. Brian Mann hide caption

Aaron Hinton, a 37-year-old veteran activist and community organizer, said it's clear Brownsville needed help coping with the cocaine, heroin and other drug-related crime that took root here in the 1970s and 1980s. His own family was devastated by addiction.

Hinton has lived his whole life under the drug war. He said Brownsville needed help coping with cocaine, heroin and drug-related crime that took root here in the 1970s and 1980s.

His own family was scarred by addiction.

"I've known my mom to be a drug user my whole entire life," Hinton said. "She chose to run the streets and left me with my great-grandmother."

Four years ago, his mom overdosed and died after taking prescription painkillers, part of the opioid epidemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Hinton said her death sealed his belief that tough drug war policies and aggressive police tactics would never make his family or his community safer.

The nation pivots (slowly) as evidence mounts against the drug war

During months of interviews for this project, NPR found a growing consensus across the political spectrum — including among some in law enforcement — that the drug war simply didn't work.

"We have been involved in the failed War on Drugs for so very long," said retired Maj. Neill Franklin, a veteran with the Baltimore City Police and the Maryland State Police who led drug task forces for years.

He now believes the response to drugs should be handled by doctors and therapists, not cops and prison guards. "It does not belong in our wheelhouse," Franklin said during a press conference this week.

Aaron Hinton has lived his whole life under the drug war. He has watched many Black men like himself get caught up in drugs year after year, swept into the nation's criminal justice system. Brian Mann/NPR hide caption

Aaron Hinton has lived his whole life under the drug war. He has watched many Black men like himself get caught up in drugs year after year, swept into the nation's criminal justice system.

Some prosecutors have also condemned the drug war model, describing it as ineffective and racially biased.

"Over the last 50 years, we've unfortunately seen the 'War on Drugs' be used as an excuse to declare war on people of color, on poor Americans and so many other marginalized groups," said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a statement sent to NPR.

On Tuesday, two House Democrats introduced legislation that would decriminalize all drugs in the U.S., shifting the national response to a public health model. The measure appears to have zero chance of passage.

But in much of the country, disillusionment with the drug war has already led to repeal of some of the most punitive policies, including mandatory lengthy prison sentences for nonviolent drug users.

In recent years, voters and politicians in 17 states — including red-leaning Alaska and Montana — and the District of Columbia have backed the legalization of recreational marijuana , the most popular illicit drug, a trend that once seemed impossible.

Last November, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize small quantities of all drugs , including heroin and methamphetamines.

Many critics say the course correction is too modest and too slow.

"The war on drugs was an absolute miscalculation of human behavior," said Kassandra Frederique, who heads the Drug Policy Alliance, a national group that advocates for total drug decriminalization.

She said the criminal justice model failed to address the underlying need for jobs, health care and safe housing that spur addiction.

Indeed, much of the drug war's architecture remains intact. Federal spending on drugs — much of it devoted to interdiction — is expected to top $37 billion this year.

The Coronavirus Crisis

Drug overdose deaths spiked to 88,000 during the pandemic, white house says.

The U.S. still incarcerates more people than any other nation, with nearly half of the inmates in federal prison held on drug charges .

But the nation has seen a significant decline in state and federal inmate populations, down by a quarter from the peak of 1.6 million in 2009 to roughly 1.2 million last year .

There has also been substantial growth in public funding for health care and treatment for people who use drugs, due in large part to passage of the Affordable Care Act .

"The best outcomes come when you treat the substance use disorder [as a medical condition] as opposed to criminalizing that person and putting them in jail or prison," said Dr. Nora Volkow, who has been head of the National Institute of Drug Abuse since 2003.

Volkow said data shows clearly that the decision half a century ago to punish Americans who struggle with addiction was "devastating ... not just to them but actually to their families."

From a bipartisan War on Drugs to Black Lives Matter

Wounds left by the drug war go far beyond the roughly 20.3 million people who have a substance use disorder .

The campaign — which by some estimates cost more than $1 trillion — also exacerbated racial divisions and infringed on civil liberties in ways that transformed American society.

Frederique, with the Drug Policy Alliance, said the Black Lives Matter movement was inspired in part by cases that revealed a dangerous attitude toward drugs among police.

In Derek Chauvin's murder trial, the former officer's defense claimed aggressive police tactics were justified because of small amounts of fentanyl in George Floyd's body. Critics described the argument as an attempt to "weaponize" Floyd's substance use disorder and jurors found Chauvin guilty.

Breonna Taylor, meanwhile, was shot and killed by police in her home during a drug raid . She wasn't a suspect in the case.

"We need to end the drug war not just for our loved ones that are struggling with addiction, but we need to remove the excuse that that is why law enforcement gets to invade our space ... or kill us," Frederique said.

The United States has waged aggressive campaigns against substance use before, most notably during alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s.

The modern drug war began with a symbolic address to the nation by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.

Speaking from the White House, Nixon declared the federal government would now treat drug addiction as "public enemy No. 1," suggesting substance use might be vanquished once and for all.

"In order to fight and defeat this enemy," Nixon said, "it is necessary to wage a new all-out offensive."

President Richard Nixon's speech on June 17, 1971, marked the symbolic start of the modern drug war. In the decades that followed Democrats and Republicans embraced ever-tougher laws penalizing people with addiction.

Studies show from the outset drug laws were implemented with a stark racial bias , leading to unprecedented levels of mass incarceration for Black and brown men .

As recently as 2018, Black men were nearly six times more likely than white men to be locked up in state or federal correctional facilities, according to the U.S. Justice Department .

Researchers have long concluded the pattern has far-reaching impacts on Black families, making it harder to find employment and housing, while also preventing many people of color with drug records from voting .

In a 1994 interview published in Harper's Magazine , Nixon adviser John Ehrlichman suggested racial animus was among the motives shaping the drug war.

"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the [Vietnam] War or Black," Ehrlichman said. "But by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."

Despite those concerns, Democrats and Republicans partnered on the drug war decade after decade, approving ever-more-severe laws, creating new state and federal bureaucracies to interdict drugs, and funding new armies of police and federal agents.

At times, the fight on America's streets resembled an actual war, especially in poor communities and communities of color.

Police units carried out drug raids with military-style hardware that included body armor, assault weapons and tanks equipped with battering rams.

President Richard Nixon explaining aspects of the special message sent to the Congress on June 17, 1971, asking for an extra $155 million for a new program to combat the use of drugs. He labeled drug abuse "a national emergency." Harvey Georges/AP hide caption

President Richard Nixon explaining aspects of the special message sent to the Congress on June 17, 1971, asking for an extra $155 million for a new program to combat the use of drugs. He labeled drug abuse "a national emergency."

"What we need is another D-Day, not another Vietnam, not another limited war fought on the cheap," declared then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., in 1989.

Biden, who chaired the influential Senate Judiciary Committee, later co-authored the controversial 1994 crime bill that helped fund a vast new complex of state and federal prisons, which remains the largest in the world.

On the campaign trail in 2020, Biden stopped short of repudiating his past drug policy ideas but said he now believes no American should be incarcerated for addiction. He also endorsed national decriminalization of marijuana.

While few policy experts believe the drug war will come to a conclusive end any time soon, the end of bipartisan backing for punitive drug laws is a significant development.

More drugs bring more deaths and more doubts

Adding to pressure for change is the fact that despite a half-century of interdiction, America's streets are flooded with more potent and dangerous drugs than ever before — primarily methamphetamines and the synthetic opioid fentanyl.

"Back in the day, when we would see 5, 10 kilograms of meth, that would make you a hero if you made a seizure like that," said Matthew Donahue, the head of operations at the Drug Enforcement Administration.

As U.S. Corporations Face Reckoning Over Prescription Opioids, CEOs Keep Cashing In

"Now it's common for us to see 100-, 200- and 300-kilogram seizures of meth," he added. "It doesn't make a dent to the price."

Efforts to disrupt illegal drug supplies suffered yet another major blow last year after Mexican officials repudiated drug war tactics and began blocking most interdiction efforts south of the U.S.-Mexico border.

"It's a national health threat, it's a national safety threat," Donahue told NPR.

Last year, drug overdoses hit a devastating new record of 90,000 deaths , according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The drug war failed to stop the opioid epidemic

Critics say the effectiveness of the drug war model has been called into question for another reason: the nation's prescription opioid epidemic.

Beginning in the late 1990s, some of the nation's largest drug companies and pharmacy chains invested heavily in the opioid business.

State and federal regulators and law enforcement failed to intervene as communities were flooded with legally manufactured painkillers, including Oxycontin.

"They were utterly failing to take into account diversion," said West Virginia Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who sued the DEA for not curbing opioid production quotas sooner.

"It's as close to a criminal act as you can find," Morrisey said.

Courtney Hessler, a reporter for The (Huntington) Herald-Dispatch in West Virgina, has covered the opioid epidemic. As a child she wound up in foster care after her mother became addicted to opioids. "You know there's thousands of children that grew up the way that I did. These people want answers," Hessler told NPR. Brian Mann/NPR hide caption

Courtney Hessler, a reporter for The (Huntington) Herald-Dispatch in West Virgina, has covered the opioid epidemic. As a child she wound up in foster care after her mother became addicted to opioids. "You know there's thousands of children that grew up the way that I did. These people want answers," Hessler told NPR.

One of the epicenters of the prescription opioid epidemic was Huntington, a small city in West Virginia along the Ohio River hit hard by the loss of factory and coal jobs.

"It was pretty bad. Eighty-one million opioid pills over an eight-year period came into this area," said Courtney Hessler, a reporter with The (Huntington) Herald-Dispatch.

Public health officials say 1 in 10 residents in the area still battle addiction. Hessler herself wound up in foster care after her mother struggled with opioids.

In recent months, she has reported on a landmark opioid trial that will test who — if anyone — will be held accountable for drug policies that failed to keep families and communities safe.

"I think it's important. You know there's thousands of children that grew up the way that I did," Hessler said. "These people want answers."

A needle disposal box at the Cabell-Huntington Health Department sits in the front parking lot in 2019 in Huntington, W.Va. The city is experiencing a surge in HIV cases related to intravenous drug use following a recent opioid crisis in the state. Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images hide caption

A needle disposal box at the Cabell-Huntington Health Department sits in the front parking lot in 2019 in Huntington, W.Va. The city is experiencing a surge in HIV cases related to intravenous drug use following a recent opioid crisis in the state.

During dozens of interviews, community leaders told NPR that places like Huntington, W.Va., and Brownsville, N.Y., will recover from the drug war and rebuild.

They predicted many parts of the country will accelerate the shift toward a public health model for addiction: treating drug users more often like patients with a chronic illness and less often as criminals.

But ending wars is hard and stigma surrounding drug use, heightened by a half-century of punitive policies, remains deeply entrenched. Aaron Hinton, the activist in Brownsville, said it may take decades to unwind the harm done to his neighborhood.

"It's one step forward, two steps back," Hinton said. "But I remain hopeful. Why? Because what else am I going to do?"

• drug policy
• war on drugs
• public health
• opioid epidemic

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

War on Drugs

By: History.com Editors

Updated: December 17, 2019 | Original: May 31, 2017

The War on Drugs is a phrase used to refer to a government-led initiative that aims to stop illegal drug use, distribution and trade by dramatically increasing prison sentences for both drug dealers and users. The movement started in the 1970s and is still evolving today. Over the years, people have had mixed reactions to the campaign, ranging from full-on support to claims that it has racist and political objectives.

The War on Drugs Begins

Drug use for medicinal and recreational purposes has been happening in the United States since the country’s inception. In the 1890s, the popular Sears and Roebuck catalogue included an offer for a syringe and small amount of cocaine for $1.50. (At that time, cocaine use had not yet been outlawed.)

In some states, laws to ban or regulate drugs were passed in the 1800s, and the first congressional act to levy taxes on morphine and opium took place in 1890.

The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act in 1909 banned the possession, importation and use of opium for smoking. However, opium could still be used as a medication. This was the first federal law to ban the non-medical use of a substance, although many states and counties had banned alcohol sales previously.

In 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and cocaine.

Alcohol prohibition laws quickly followed. In 1919, the 18th Amendment was ratified, banning the manufacture, transportation or sale of intoxicating liquors, ushering in the Prohibition Era. The same year, Congress passed the National Prohibition Act (also known as the Volstead Act), which provided guidelines on how to federally enforce Prohibition.

Prohibition lasted until December, 1933, when the 21st Amendment was ratified, overturning the 18th.

Marijuana Tax Act of 1937

In 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act” was passed. This federal law placed a tax on the sale of cannabis, hemp, or marijuana .

The Act was introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina and was drafted by Harry Anslinger. While the law didn’t criminalize the possession or use of marijuana, it included hefty penalties if taxes weren’t paid, including a fine of up to $2000 and five years in prison.

Controlled Substances Act

President Richard M. Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) into law in 1970. This statute calls for the regulation of certain drugs and substances.

The CSA outlines five “schedules” used to classify drugs based on their medical application and potential for abuse.

Schedule 1 drugs are considered the most dangerous, as they pose a very high risk for addiction with little evidence of medical benefits. Marijuana , LSD , heroin, MDMA (ecstasy) and other drugs are included on the list of Schedule 1 drugs.

The substances considered least likely to be addictive, such as cough medications with small amounts of codeine, fall into the Schedule 5 category.

Nixon and the War on Drugs

In June 1971, Nixon officially declared a “War on Drugs,” stating that drug abuse was “public enemy number one.”

A rise in recreational drug use in the 1960s likely led to President Nixon’s focus on targeting some types of substance abuse. As part of the War on Drugs initiative, Nixon increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and proposed strict measures, such as mandatory prison sentencing, for drug crimes. He also announced the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), which was headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe.

Nixon went on to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1973. This agency is a special police force committed to targeting illegal drug use and smuggling in the United States. 

At the start, the DEA was given 1,470 special agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Today, the agency has nearly 5,000 agents and a budget of $2.03 billion.

Ulterior Motives Behind War on Drugs?

During a 1994 interview, President Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, provided inside information suggesting that the War on Drugs campaign had ulterior motives, which mainly involved helping Nixon keep his job.

In the interview, conducted by journalist Dan Baum and published in Harper magazine, Ehrlichman explained that the Nixon campaign had two enemies: “the antiwar left and black people.” His comments led many to question Nixon’s intentions in advocating for drug reform and whether racism played a role.

Ehrlichman was quoted as saying: “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”

The 1970s and The War on Drugs

In the mid-1970s, the War on Drugs took a slight hiatus. Between 1973 and 1977, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession.

Jimmy Carter became president in 1977 after running on a political campaign to decriminalize marijuana. During his first year in office, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize up to one ounce of marijuana.

Say No to Drugs

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan reinforced and expanded many of Nixon’s War on Drugs policies. In 1984, his wife Nancy Reagan launched the “ Just Say No ” campaign, which was intended to highlight the dangers of drug use.

President Reagan’s refocus on drugs and the passing of severe penalties for drug-related crimes in Congress and state legislatures led to a massive increase in incarcerations for nonviolent drug crimes. 

In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses. This law was later heavily criticized as having racist ramifications because it allocated longer prison sentences for offenses involving the same amount of crack cocaine (used more often by black Americans) as powder cocaine (used more often by white Americans). Five grams of crack triggered an automatic five-year sentence, while it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to merit the same sentence.

Critics also pointed to data showing that people of color were targeted and arrested on suspicion of drug use at higher rates than whites. Overall, the policies led to a rapid rise in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 2014, nearly half of the 186,000 people serving time in federal prisons in the United States had been incarcerated on drug-related charges, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

A Gradual Dialing Back

Public support for the war on drugs has waned in recent decades. Some Americans and policymakers feel the campaign has been ineffective or has led to racial divide. Between 2009 and 2013, some 40 states took steps to soften their drug laws, lowering penalties and shortening mandatory minimum sentences, according to the Pew Research Center .

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100:1 to 18:1.

The recent legalization of marijuana in several states and the District of Columbia has also led to a more tolerant political view on recreational drug use.

Technically, the War on Drugs is still being fought, but with less intensity and publicity than in its early years.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Foreign Affairs
• CFR Education
• Newsletters

Climate Change

Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America

• Defense & Security
• Diplomacy & International Institutions
• Energy & Environment

Human Rights

• Politics & Government
• Social Issues

Myanmar’s Troubled History

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022

• Europe & Eurasia
• Global Commons
• Middle East & North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa

How Tobacco Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on Cancer

Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program

• Backgrounders
• Special Projects

United States

Book by Max Boot September 10, 2024

• Centers & Programs
• Books & Reports
• Independent Task Force Program
• Fellowships

Oil and Petroleum Products

Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil

Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023

• Students and Educators
• State & Local Officials
• Religion Leaders
• Local Journalists

NATO’s Future: Enlarged and More European?

Virtual Event with Emma M. Ashford, Michael R. Carpenter, Camille Grand, Thomas Wright, Liana Fix and Charles A. Kupchan June 25, 2024 Europe Program

• Lectureship Series
• Webinars & Conference Calls
• Member Login

Human Rights and Duterte’s War on Drugs

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs has led to thousands of extrajudicial killings, raising human rights concerns, says expert John Gershman in this interview.

Interview by Michelle Xu , Interviewer John Gershman , Interviewee

December 16, 2016 3:56 pm (EST)

Since becoming president of the Philippines in June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte has launched a war on drugs that has resulted in the extrajudicial deaths of thousands of alleged drug dealers and users across the country. The Philippine president sees drug dealing and addiction as “major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress,” says John Gershman, an expert on Philippine politics. The drug war is a cornerstone of Duterte’s domestic policy and represents the extension of policies he’d implemented earlier in his political career as the mayor of the city of Davao. In December 2016, the United States withheld poverty aid to the Philippines after declaring concern over Duterte’s war on drugs.

How did the Philippines’ war on drugs start?  

When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug addiction were major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress. He promised a large-scale crackdown on dealers and addicts, similar to the crackdown that he engaged in when he was mayor of Davao, one of the Philippines’ largest cities on the southern island of Mindanao. When Duterte became president in June, he encouraged the public to “go ahead and kill” drug addicts. His rhetoric has been widely understood as an endorsement of extrajudicial killings, as it has created conditions for people to feel that it’s appropriate to kill drug users and dealers. What have followed seem to be vigilante attacks against alleged or suspected drug dealers and drug addicts. The police are engaged in large-scale sweeps. The Philippine National Police also revealed a list of high-level political officials and other influential people who were allegedly involved in the drug trade.

“When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug addiction were major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress.”

Philippines

Rodrigo Duterte

Drug Policy

The dominant drug in the Philippines is a variant of methamphetamine called shabu. According to a 2012 United Nations report , among all the countries in East Asia, the Philippines had the highest rate of methamphetamine abuse. Estimates showed that about 2.2 percent of Filipinos between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four were using methamphetamines, and that methamphetamines and marijuana were the primary drugs of choice. In 2015, the national drug enforcement agency reported that one fifth of the barangays, the smallest administrative division in the Philippines, had evidence of drug use, drug trafficking, or drug manufacturing; in Manila, the capital, 92 percent of the barangays had yielded such evidence.

How would you describe Duterte’s leadership as the mayor of Davao?

After the collapse of the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship, there were high levels of crime in Davao and Duterte cracked down on crime associated with drugs and criminality more generally. There was early criticism of his time as mayor by Philippine and international human rights groups because of his de facto endorsement of extrajudicial killings, under the auspices of the “Davao Death Squad.”

Duterte was also successful at negotiating with the Philippine Communist Party. He was seen broadly as sympathetic to their concerns about poverty, inequality, and housing, and pursued a reasonably robust anti-poverty agenda while he was mayor. He was also interested in public health issues, launching the first legislation against public smoking in the Philippines, which he has claimed he will launch nationally.

What have been the outcomes of the drug war?

By early December , nearly 6,000 people had been killed: about 2,100 have died in police operations and the remainder in what are called “deaths under investigation,” which is shorthand for vigilante killings. There are also claims that half a million to seven hundred thousand people have surrendered themselves to the police. More than 40,000 people have been arrested.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with cfr analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.  weekdays., think global health.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.  Weekly.

Although human rights organizations and political leaders have spoken out against the crackdown, Duterte has been relatively successful at not having the legislature engaged in any serious oversight of or investigation into this war. Philippine Senator Leila de Lima, former chairperson of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and a former secretary of justice under the previous administration, had condemned the war on drugs and held hearings on human rights violations associated with these extrajudicial killings. However, in August, Duterte alleged that he had evidence of de Lima having an affair with her driver, who had been using drugs and collecting drug protection money when de Lima was the justice secretary. De Lima was later removed from her position chairing the investigative committee in a 16-4 vote by elected members of the Senate committee.

What is the public reaction to the drug war?

The war on drugs has received a high level of popular support from across the class spectrum in the Philippines. The most recent nationwide survey on presidential performance and trust ratings conducted from September 25 to October 1 by Pulse Asia Research showed that Duterte’s approval rating was around 86 percent. Even through some people are concerned about these deaths, they support him as a president for his position on other issues. For example, he has a relatively progressive economic agenda, with a focus on economic inequality.

Duterte is also supporting a range of anti-poverty programs and policies. The most recent World Bank quarterly report speaks positively about Duterte’s economic plans. The fact that he wants to work on issues of social inequality and economic inequality makes people not perceive the drug war as a war on the poor.

How is Duterte succeeding in carrying out this war on drugs?

The Philippine judicial system is very slow and perceived as corrupt, enabling Duterte to act proactively and address the issue of drugs in a non-constructive way with widespread violations of human rights. Moreover, in the face of a corrupt, elite-dominated political system and a slow, ineffective, and equally corrupt judicial system, people are willing to tolerate this politician who promised something and is now delivering.

“Drug dealers and drug addicts are a stigmatized group, and stigmatized groups always have difficulty gaining political support for the defense of their rights.”

There are no trials, so there is no evidence that the people being killed are in fact drug dealers or drug addicts. [This situation] shows the weakness of human rights institutions and discourse in the face of a popular and skilled populist leader. It is different from college students being arrested under the Marcos regime or activists being targeted under the first Aquino administration, when popular outcry was aroused. Drug dealers and drug addicts are a stigmatized group, and stigmatized groups always have difficulty gaining political support for the defense of their rights.

How has the United States reacted to the drug war and why is Duterte challenging U.S.-Philippines relations?

It’s never been a genuine partnership. It’s always been a relationship dominated by U.S. interests. Growing up in the 1960s, Duterte lived through a period when the United States firmly supported a regime that was even more brutal than this particular regime and was willing to not criticize that particular government. He noticed that the United States was willing to overlook human rights violations when these violations served their geopolitical interests. He was unhappy about the double standards. [Editor’s Note: The Obama administration has expressed concern over reports of extrajudicial killings and encouraged Manila to abide by its international human rights obligations.] For the first time, the United States is facing someone who is willing to challenge this historically imbalanced relationship. It is unclear what might happen to the relationship under the administration of Donald J. Trump, but initial indications are that it may not focus on human rights in the Philippines. President-Elect Trump has reportedly endorsed the Philippine president’s effort, allegedly saying that the country is going about the drug war "the right way," according to Duterte .

The interview has been edited and condensed.

Explore More on Philippines

President Marcos Jr. Meets With President Biden—But the U.S. Position in Southeast Asia is Increasingly Shaky

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick May 2, 2023 Asia Unbound

Marcos Jr. Tries to Escape Duterte’s Legacy, But Can He Be Trusted?

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick November 22, 2022 Asia Unbound

Why Democracy in Southeast Asia Will Worsen in 2023

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick September 9, 2022 Asia Unbound

Top Stories on CFR

Ukraine’s Attack on Kursk, With Liana Fix

Podcast with James M. Lindsay and Liana Fix August 27, 2024 The President’s Inbox

The IMF’s Latest External Sector Report Misses the Mark

Blog Post by Brad W. Setser August 26, 2024 Follow the Money

Democratic Republic of Congo

DRC-Rwanda Talks Underway, But Lasting Peace Remains Elusive

Blog Post by Michelle Gavin August 20, 2024 Africa in Transition

Essay on War Against Drugs

Students are often asked to write an essay on War Against Drugs in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on War Against Drugs

What is the war against drugs.

The War Against Drugs refers to the global campaign initiated to reduce the illegal drug trade and consumption. Governments have taken a tough stance against the production, distribution, and use of illegal drugs to protect their citizens from the harmful effects of drug abuse.

Scope of the War Against Drugs

The War Against Drugs is not just about fighting drug traffickers and users. It also includes campaigns to educate people about the dangers of drugs, provide drug addiction treatment and support, and reduce drug-related crime. Governments around the world work together to share information and resources to combat drug trafficking and abuse.

Success and Challenges

The War Against Drugs has been successful in reducing drug trafficking and abuse in some countries. This has been achieved by strict law enforcement, effective drug prevention programs, and international cooperation. However, the problem of drug trafficking and abuse still exists, and it continues to be a major challenge for law enforcement agencies, governments, and communities around the world.

250 Words Essay on War Against Drugs

War against drugs: a futile battle.

The “War Against Drugs” is a worldwide campaign led by the United States government to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal drugs. It began in the 1970s and has since been a topic of intense debate.

A Disastrous Approach

Failed policies.

The focus on harsh drug laws and punitive measures has done little to reduce drug use or trafficking. In fact, it has driven the drug trade underground, making it more dangerous and profitable for criminal organizations. The “War Against Drugs” has also failed to address the root causes of drug abuse, such as poverty, mental health issues, and lack of opportunities.

Alternative Approaches

Instead of relying on criminalization and punishment, a more effective approach would be to focus on harm reduction, public health measures, and evidence-based treatment programs. Decriminalization of drugs has been shown to reduce crime, improve public health, and free up resources that can be invested in treatment and prevention programs. Expanding access to affordable and quality healthcare, including mental health services, can also help address the underlying issues that contribute to drug abuse.

The ongoing “War Against Drugs” has been a colossal waste of resources and has caused immense harm to individuals and communities, particularly marginalized groups. Embracing a more compassionate and evidence-based approach, one that prioritizes public health, harm reduction, and treatment, is essential for addressing drug-related issues effectively and humanely.

500 Words Essay on War Against Drugs

War against drugs: a global perspective.

The War on Drugs is a worldwide campaign that began in the early 20th century. It includes various government actions aimed at stopping the illegal drug trade, reducing drug use, and punishing people involved in drug-related activities.

The History of the War on Drugs

The War on Drugs started in the United States in the early 1900s, when the government banned drugs like opium, cocaine, and heroin. In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one” and launched a massive campaign against drug trafficking. This led to more arrests, harsher sentences, and increased funding for law enforcement. The War on Drugs has since spread to many other countries, and it has had a significant impact on global society.

The Impact of the War on Drugs

The future of the war on drugs.

The War on Drugs has been a costly and controversial policy. In recent years, there has been a growing debate about the effectiveness of the War on Drugs and the need for reform. Some countries, such as Portugal and Uruguay, have decriminalized the possession and use of small amounts of drugs. Other countries are considering legalizing and regulating the sale of certain drugs. The future of the War on Drugs is uncertain, but it is clear that the current approach is not sustainable.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

“War On Drugs” Essays

War on drugs, has the “war on drugs” in the united states been successful, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Dr Ian Marder Why seizing drugs might cause more harm than it prevents

WHEN POLICE SEIZE illegal drugs, they catch the bad guys who import and sell them and reduce the supply. This protects us all from drug dealers and traffickers and from the drugs themselves.

Simple, right?

It is often assumed that arresting suppliers and seizing drugs will deter people from engaging in drug distribution while raising prices and reducing supply in ways that lower consumption.

The research, however, paints a much less certain picture – so much so, that we should question why we invest so many resources in this potentially harmful practice.

All seizures great and small

Drug seizures come in all shapes and sizes. The largest, like the cocaine ‘ mother ship ’ seized near Cork in 2023, often happens as drugs are in transit between countries.

Seizures can also be quite small. Convictions in recent years for €10 and €4 of cannabis suggest that police and court resources are wasted on even the most trivial drug enforcement operations. Indeed, most seizures are small and relate to possession – not trafficking.

A large proportion of resources dedicated to responding to drugs flows through the police. A large proportion of police resources goes towards drugs. As such, we may expect strong evidence that the police’s actions reduce drug-related harms. It is it far from clear, however, that society benefits from greater drug seizures.

What effects do police seizures have on drug markets?

One issue is that disrupting drug markets can increase the violence associated with prohibition. A 2011 research review concluded that law enforcement actually increases violence, as arrests create opportunities for other people to fight over control of profitable black markets. Meanwhile, Gardaí have a specific ‘ reporting programme ’ for drug intimidation, but a 2014 study on the illicit drug markets in Ireland found that most such violence is related to debts that often rack up because of Garda seizures.

The overall picture does not indicate that police action clearly helps. As one 2020 review explains, we cannot ‘definitively conclude that arresting suppliers and seizing from suppliers will lead to desired outcomes such as reducing drug crime, drug use and other drug harms’, throwing further doubt on the merits of enforcement.

To understand why, we need to understand the scale and economics of drugs markets . Recently, Gardaí claimed that seizures increased wholesale cocaine prices. Yet, research does not suggest a close association between policing and drug prices. Rather, large seizures represent only a tiny proportion of overall supply, having at most a limited, localised, short-term effect on availability. In any case, price increases raise profits and motivate people to participate in the supply chain.

Moreover, the volume of drugs that is lost to seizures is reasonably predictable, meaning that this risk may be mostly priced in. For cocaine, recent UN estimates suggest that seizure volumes have risen faster than production since 2010 (p. 21), but the cultivation of coca bush has skyrocketed in that time. Meanwhile, its purity in Western and Central Europe has grown in line with seizures since 2015 (p. 47), allowing prices to remain relatively stable. Police often take credit when prices rise, but it is not actually obvious that they can meaningfully affect prices.

Danger for consumers

A related problem with police seizures is that they introduce a perverse incentive on suppliers to maximise product strength . Both a higher product purity and stronger alternatives (e.g., synthetic opioids instead of heroin) create more profit from lower volumes. They also endanger consumers, who don’t know how strong or adulterated a product is until it’s too late.

For example, in line with the historically strong MDMA in circulation internationally , the HSE has warned festival goers about the potency of MDMA in use at Electric Picnic, while hospitalisations at Portlaoise Prison were reportedly caused by a highly potent benzodiazepine not seen before in the community in Ireland. The HSE’s National Clinical Lead on addiction services stated that this reflects the volatility in drug markets – a volatility that will only increase as reduced Afghan opium production means synthetic opioids replace heroin in Europe.

Drug seizures can also disrupt local drug markets in ways that put people at risk. For example, an American study saw seizures double fatal overdoses locally, with two possible explanations: they cause a gap in use that decreases tolerance, or people seek new suppliers whose substances are less predictable to them.

All this begs the question: if drug seizures are not likely to reduce harm – and might even increase it – why do they play such a significant role in our response to drugs?

Drug seizures as PR

Almost every day, some kind of drug seizure features atop the news feeds. This week,  RTÉ reported  that ‘cannabis worth €500,000 [was] seized at Dublin Airport’. In another headline , ‘drugs worth €181,000’ were ‘seized in Louth’.

Each article was accompanied by a photograph of the drugs in question. This is what sociologist Travis Linnemann calls the ‘ police trophy shot ’ – a visual representation of a successful ‘bust’, or what a police chief in The Wire refers to as ‘ dope on the table ’.

This is ‘ symbolic policing ’. Where our expectations of the police are so out of line with reality , they must at least be seen to be doing something – whether it prevents harm or not.

Even the police tend not to contest that they take engaging in public relations through the media seriously, or that drug seizures play an important role in this. Gardaí even won a prize last year for ‘Best Public Relations Event’ for an organised crime ‘media conference’.

It is difficult to assess how much weight police put on the PR opportunities associated with drug policing. There may be an underlying belief that drug policing has a social benefit, even if there is little evidence to support this. It is precisely because seizures are so rarely questioned as a tactic that we must raise awareness of the lack of supporting evidence.

Counting the costs of the war on drugs

Each study mentioned notes that it’s difficult to conduct scientific research on drug markets. Yet, as one article mentions , the social costs of enforcement are so high that more scrutiny is merited. Gardaí, too, are often put in harm’s way by our obsession with drug seizures.

As Ireland continues to invest substantial resources on drug policing, there’s a growing realisation among police in the UK that this might be a harmful waste of time and life. Police researchers are starting to consider what ‘ harm reduction policing ’ can look like. Certainly, this requires changes in drug laws , reinvesting resources, and a major shift in police culture.

The solution is not to give up on reducing drug harms, but to adopt an evidence-led policy in which the harms criminalisation causes are factored into calculations and harm reduction is prioritised. We need brave police and government leaders to question the criminalisation of drug supply.

Dr. Ian Marder is Assistant Professor in Criminology at Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology. In September 2023, he was invited to address the Citizens’ Assembly on Drugs Use, where he discussed restorative responses to drugs and criminalisation-related harms.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal

To embed this post, copy the code below on your site

600px wide <iframe width="600" height="460" frameborder="0" style="border:0px;" src="https://www.thejournal.ie/https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/war-on-drugs-6474988-Aug2024/?embedpost=6474988&width=600&height=460" ></iframe>

400px wide <iframe width="600" height="460" frameborder="0" style="border:0px;" src="https://www.thejournal.ie/https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/war-on-drugs-6474988-Aug2024/?embedpost=6474988&width=400&height=460" ></iframe>

300px wide <iframe width="600" height="460" frameborder="0" style="border:0px;" src="https://www.thejournal.ie/https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/war-on-drugs-6474988-Aug2024/?embedpost=6474988&width=300&height=460" ></iframe>

• Defamation Damaging the good reputation of someone, slander, or libel.
• Racism or Hate speech An attack on an individual or group based on religion, race, gender, or beliefs.
• Trolling or Off-topic An attempt to derail the discussion.
• Inappropriate language Profanity, obscenity, vulgarity, or slurs.
• Spam Advertising, phishing, scamming, bots, or repetitive posts.

Leave a comment cancel

Access to the comments facility has been disabled for this user

Create an email alert based on the current article

Mobile Menu Overlay

• Take Action
• Media & Resources

The Persistent Impact of the War on Drugs in Federal Marijuana Policy

By Rosie Fatt

Marijuana laws have changed rapidly over the past decade, and recreational use has been legalized across many states . Recent data show that there are now more Americans who smoke or ingest marijuana daily than those who drink alcohol. Marijuana, however, remains a federally controlled substance scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act . As the country moves into an era where drug-related sentencing and incarceration become less punitive, we must also couple these advancements with restorative actions to repair the harm done to communities, particularly communities of color who have been disproportionately affected by these policies.

Over the last 50 years, criminal penalties and mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession and certain trafficking offenses have caused an explosion in the incarcerated population. Initiated in the 1980s during the Reagan administration, the War on Drugs has led to ongoing punitive punishments and mass incarceration for drug offenses that disproportionately impact communities of color. Even as federal policy around drug possession changes — particularly around marijuana — the inequitable impacts of past “tough on crime” policies persist, with drug arrests more often impacting Black, Latino, and Indigenous people and people with low incomes.

Despite similar usage rates, Black people are approximately four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people. Nearly 75 percent of people in federal prison and almost 55 percent of people in state prison for drug offenses are Black or Latino. According to a report from the United States Sentencing Commission, the number of people federally sentenced for simple possession of marijuana decreased to only 145 in fiscal year 2021 (compared to 2,172 in fiscal year 2014). The commission, however, still disproportionately uses prior sentences, at the federal and state level, for simple marijuana possession in its sentencing calculations. This creates a means by which people are still punished for this offense with disproportionate consequences for people initially impacted and targeted by the War on Drugs. At the same time, federal funds have supported ineffective harm reduction policies and used punitive approaches to drug treatment .

Progressive steps must include developing policies that are driven by impacted communities and formerly incarcerated people and are responsive to their experiences and needs. Recently, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) solicited comments on a proposed rule to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to Schedule III controlled substance. Rescheduling is a step in the right direction, but it would leave most of the harms and racial disparities associated with criminalization unaddressed . As The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights noted in its comments to the DEA, a fully restorative policy approach requires full descheduling. Marijuana must be legalized with a focus on a racial justice framework that includes remedies such as expungements and resentencing to repair the damage of prohibition and punishment. Further, federal money must be reinvested and focused on the communities most harmed by the War on Drugs.

The Vision for Justice platform, developed by The Leadership Conference and Civil Rights Corps, presents an alternative solution that prioritizes impacted communities. The platform explains that providing more resources — like high-quality health services, well-resourced schools, good-paying jobs, and affordable housing — is what keeps communities safe. Further, investing in community safety models that shift power into the hands of communities most impacted by policing and criminalization is a necessary part of the solution.

Moving forward, federal drug policy requires acknowledging and affirmatively working to repair communities impacted by the War on Drugs. The federal government has made progress in its approaches to drug scheduling, prosecution, and sentencing. Still, as it does so — and particularly around marijuana — it must also incorporate strategies that acknowledge, restore, and uplift the communities most impacted by its prior policies. The forward-looking vision is a future where every voice is heard, every right is protected, and every individual is free to live without fear of discrimination or oppression.

Rosie Fatt was a summer 2024 legal intern at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

A Worker-Resistant Approach to AI Is Harming Our Workforce, Economy, and Civil Rights.

Join the fight for justice, inclusion, and fairness for all..

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

Failed U.S. ‘war on drugs’ endangers Central American bird habitats, study warns

Share this article.

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• Migratory and resident forest birds in Central America are being threatened by habitat loss due to narco-trafficking activity, according to a recent study.
• Antidrug policies have pushed traditional trafficking routes in Central America into more remote, forested regions, where they threaten to destroy two-thirds of important bird landscapes.
• One-fifth of bird species that migrate to the region every year from North America have more than half of their global population within landscapes where narco-trafficking is expected to increase.
• A study co-author attributes the problem to the failed U.S.-led “war on drugs,” saying that “drug policy creates narcos and keeps them moving around.”

Every year, between November and February, the golden-cheeked warbler makes its way down from the U.S. state of Texas to Central America. But as it travels to find refuge from the winter, this tiny, endangered bird, Setophaga chrysoparia , with its bright-yellow cheeks and a buzzing song, seems unable to evade habitat loss. More than 90% of the golden-cheeked warbler population winters in a region that is at increased risk of deforestation, experts are warning.

It isn’t alone. Dozens of migratory and native forest birds in Central America could see as much as two-thirds of their habitats threatened by encroaching narco-trafficking activity that drives deforestation, according to recently published research . More than half of the migratory species analyzed had more than a quarter of their global populations in landscapes that have become more vulnerable to drug-related deforestation in Central America. And this is only for the migratory species that breed in North America, the study authors say.

They found that antidrug policies can push narco-trafficking into more remote forest areas, many of which represent important bird landscapes. Some of the areas that have become more vulnerable as a result lie within Central America’s Five Great Forests: the Maya Forest in Guatemala, the Indio-Maiz in Nicaragua, the Tortuguero in Costa Rica, and the Moskitia in Honduras. The study found that since 1970, deforestation had pushed half of the population of resident and migratory birds in the affected areas into decline.

“The degree to which we found that the most important areas for these forest residents and migratory species overlapped with areas becoming more impacted by deforestation due to drug trafficking was higher than we expected,” said study lead author Amanda Rodewald, senior director of the Center for Avian Population Studies at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in the U.S.

“Two-thirds is pretty sizable. And I think the biggest surprise was really just how much of the global population for some of these migratory species are located or concentrated in areas that are becoming more vulnerable,” Rodewald told Mongabay. “When you’re seeing that one in five species see half of their global population impacted, we can start expecting some serious population impacts.”

Research has shown that Central America’s role in the illegal drug trade has shifted over the years, from being a transit zone for cocaine from Colombia, Peru and Bolivia destined for the U.S., to a starting point for smuggling drugs into Europe.

Study co-author Steven Sesnie, a researcher at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was the lead author of a 2017 study on cocaine trafficking and forest loss in the region that estimated drug trafficking could be responsible for 15-30% of forest loss in Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala, with 30-60% of forest loss occurring in protected areas. This earlier study was the first to research the impact of drug trafficking on birds in the region.

“Traffickers have begun to focus on Central America. Most of the drugs on their way to North America go through Central America,” Sesnie told Mongabay.

He added that drug traffickers are moving deeper into the rainforests of Central America due to antidrug policies, but also because clearing forests for farmland that they can sell is a means of laundering drug money. This laundering scheme and the carving-out of new smuggling routes are causing an irreversible impact on flora and fauna, according to Sesnie. “The only way to stop this is to look at the environment when you start tackling drug smuggling.”

To track which important bird landscapes are becoming exposed to what researchers call narco-deforestation, the new study used satellite imagery of deforestation in Central America, combined with modeling techniques to estimate how drug cartels are expanding their territories under pressure from antidrug policies, and then juxtaposing these data against populations of resident and migratory birds in the region. The researchers also delved into the U.S. government’s Consolidated Counterdrug Database for a better sense of how drug trafficking operates in the region.

Antidrug policies can negatively affect biodiversity and communities

According to Rodewald, antidrug policies in Central America are largely driven by or adopted from the United States. “U.S. drug policy is very supply-side focused,” she said. That puts the focus of law enforcement on intercepting the traffickers, “without considering the whole range of social processes that cause the problem. They knock it down, and the problem pops up elsewhere.”

“Narcos aren’t the problem,” said study co-author Kendra McSweeney, a geographer at Ohio State University. “Our argument is that drug policy creates narcos and keeps them moving around.”

The way authorities in the U.S. are trying to crack down on drug smuggling in Central America, historically considered their “backyard,” is counterproductive, she told Mongabay, adding that the “war on drugs” has been a disaster.

“Stop putting billions of dollars in supply-side efforts to stop the flow of drugs. They make the problem worse. Stop eradicating plantations. Stop trying to intercept the boats. Stop funding the military. Stand down,” McSweeney said. “Basically, stop having U.S. policy in Central America.”

According to her, the long-standing U.S. model of trying to keep drugs from entering communities is having a heavy impact on the region. “Use the money to invest in things that keep Central Americans at home. Instead of giving money to the military, give it to civil society. To protect forests, to invest in education.”

“We have spoken at U.N. General Assembly, at three offices of U.N. drug policy,” McSweeney said. “I’ve given presentations to the military, to drugs agencies. I’ve spoken with pretty much everyone in the State Department. They never disagree, they are actually very responsive. But they seem to think that continuing to fight the war of drugs as they have done in the last 50 years will magically change things. Yet, they lack imagination for alternatives.”

The study also points to the links between drug trafficking, deforestation and the loss of Indigenous habitat in Central America.

“When smugglers enter an area, they build roads, airstrips and fields,” Rodewald said. “We are also really trying to emphasize in this study that, by working with local communities and governments, forests and communities can be better protected.”

Rodewald, A. D., Lello-Smith, A., Magliocca, N. R., McSweeney, K., Strimas-Mackey, M., Sesnie, S. E., & Nielsen, E. A. (2024). Intersection of narco trafficking, enforcement and bird conservation in the Americas.  Nature Sustainability ,  7 (7), 855-859. doi: 10.1038/s41893-024-01365-z

Sesnie, S. E., Tellman, B., Wrathall, D., McSweeney, K., Nielsen, E., Benessaiah, K., … Rey, L. (2017). A spatio-temporal analysis of forest loss related to cocaine trafficking in Central America.  Environmental Research Letters ,  12 (5), 054015. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6fff

Banner image : A golden-cheeked warbler. Image via Wikimedia Commons .

FEEDBACK: Use this form  to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.

To wipe or to wash? That is the question

Toilet paper: Environmentally impactful, but alternatives are rolling out

Rolling towards circularity? Tracking the trace of tires

Getting the bread: What’s the environmental impact of wheat?

Consumed traces the life cycle of a variety of common consumer products from their origins, across supply chains, and waste streams. The circular economy is an attempt to lessen the pace and impact of consumption through efforts to reduce demand for raw materials by recycling wastes, improve the reusability/durability of products to limit pollution, and […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

In Vietnam, environmental defense is increasingly a crime

Protected areas in SE Asia could do better with more resources, study finds

Meet the Miombo, the largest forest you’ve never heard of

As a medicine, study finds rhino horn useless — and potentially toxic

Crop fields make way for profitable orchards in Bangladesh, imperiling food security

Wildlife-rich mangroves suffer as Indonesia ramps up construction of new capital

Nearly all Brazilian gold imported by EU is likely illegal, report says

you're currently offline

• News & Stories

Washington state puts $29 million toward loans for communities most impacted by 'war on drugs'

A Washington state program meant to address the disparate impacts of the “war on drugs” has given $29 million to 12 homeownership and loan programs for Black, Indigenous, and Latino communities.

A slice of that funding has gone to community development financing institutions and other programs that provide low-interest loans for things like a second mortgage to renovate a home, or a loan for a small business or to buy a used car.

The effort is only one part of the state Department of Commerce’s $200 million dollar Community Reinvestment Project to help address the legacy of punitive state and federal policy for low-level drug offenses.

The war on drugs, launched by the Nixon administration in 1971, “disproportionately harmed the health and well-being of Black, Latino, and Indigenous families and communities in Washington,” according to a 2023 state report. That includes negative impacts to finding financial stability, via low-interest loans to start businesses or buy property.

Tamra Marlowe De Nova runs the Chehalis Tribal Loan Fund in Grays Harbor County, which will receive $1 million under the state’s Community Reinvestment Plan. Marlowe De Nova said that money will be used to bolster how many small business and car loans her organization can provide, as well as fund internships and financial literacy programs.

“We match that education and that empowerment with access to lending that's fair, that is not predatory, and is also underwritten in a way that recognizes racial injustices and misunderstandings in the general banking world,” she said.

At least 70% of the people served by the Chehalis Tribal Loan Fund are Native American, and the tribe has many artisans and craftspeople who don’t participate in the same kind of economy that a nine-to-five worker does, Marlowe De Nova said.

The Chehalis Tribal Loan Fund doesn’t have the capacity to offer mortgages to future homeowners yet, but that’s in the plans, she added.

Homesight on the other hand does. It’s a statewide homeownership capital accelerator program that connects people to mortgage programs, including ones that address the impacts of racist housing covenants. It also teaches applicants how to pay for a house and stay on top of mortgage payments.

“Our homeowners are very successful with their mortgages because they're armed with knowledge about how the program works, how their mortgages work, ”said Darryl Smith, executive director of Homesight.

The program will receive $2.85 million from the Community Reinvestment Plan to expand mortgage programs for people making up to 120% of the area median income, depending on where they live in the state.

“Middle class folks, essentially,” Smith said, adding that even people making 120% of the area median income in this region often don’t have enough home-buying power.

Previously they were only serving people making 80% of the area median income. He added that he expects that money to translate into helping 8 to 10 people in getting a loan to buy a house.

“The impacts are big. I'm not prepared to say if it is enough to fix the harm that was done ...but overall, we certainly need to let the community know that there are opportunities out there for them in a variety of different ways,” he said.

That’s also a concern for Jesse Miller, founder of the Harriet Tubman Foundation for Safe Passage, who was contracted by the Department of Commerce to draft the initial plan for the Community Reinvestment Project.

“The system will work, but you have to participate,” she said. “If you don't know [how to participate], it makes it hard.”

She said her intention for the original plan was to take a ground-up approach.

So far, the Community Reinvestment Project has released 14 different programs giving grants to dozens of nonprofits, including for workforce development, with more to come. The funding for all of these programs will end in the middle of next year.

“While we’re excited to make this investment in healing and strengthening communities, we also recognize that this will not definitively address the impacts of the war on drugs,” a spokesperson for the state Department of Commerce said in an email statement.

“We will work with our grantees to monitor the impact of these investments and learn how we can continue to serve our communities even better. Promoting homeownership and building assets is a critical step to decreasing housing disparities and outcomes of the war on drugs,” the statement continues.

Race & Identity Reporter

Gustavo covers the intersection of race and identity for KUOW, writing stories that center voices often not catered to in typical news. He's most interested in covering how communities effect the levers of power they hold, to effect change.

Recommended Stories

Light rail is helping Mountlake Terrace find its heart

Youth jail should be improved, not closed, King County Council votes

Western Washington tribe could get back 72 acres of old-growth forest under congressional bill

Get local stories, delivered to your inbox daily, weekly, or monthly..

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

A decision on a major policy shift on marijuana won’t come until after the presidential election

FILE - A cashier rings up a marijuana sale, July 1, 2017, at a cannabis dispensary in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/John Locher, File)

FILE - A marijuana plant is visible at a medical marijuana dispensary in Egg Harbor Township, N.J., March 22, 2019. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)

FILE - Caretakers oversee a grow room for medical marijuana at ShowGrow, a medical marijuana dispensary in Los Angeles, April 20, 2017. (AP Photo/Richard Vogel, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — A decision on whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the U.S. won’t come until after the November presidential election , a timeline that raises the chances it could be a potent political issue in the closely contested race.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration last week set a hearing date to take comment on the proposed historic change in federal drug policy for Dec. 2.

The hearing date means a final decision could well come in the next administration. While it’s possible it could precede the end of President Joe Biden’s term, issuing it before Inauguration Day “would be pretty expedited,” said cannabis lawyer Brian Vicente.

That could put a new spotlight on the presidential candidates’ positions on marijuana. Vice President Kamala Harris has backed decriminalizing the drug and said it’s “absurd” to have it in the DEA’s Schedule I category alongside heroin and LSD. The Democratic nominee’s position has shifted over the years; she once oversaw the enforcement of cannabis laws and opposed legalized recreational use for adults in California while running for attorney general in 2010.

Former President Donald Trump , the Republican nominee, signaled support for a Florida legalization measure on Saturday, following earlier comments that he increasingly agrees that people shouldn’t be jailed for the drug now legal in multiple states, “whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.”

During his run for president in 2016, Trump said that he backed medical marijuana and that pot should be left up to the states. But during his first term, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions lifted an Obama-era policy that kept federal authorities from cracking down on the pot trade in states where the drug is legal.

Trump’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a query about his position on rescheduling the drug.

The Justice Department proposed reclassifying it in May, saying the change would recognize marijuana’s medical uses and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. The proposal, which would not legalize marijuana for recreational use, came after a call for review from Biden, who has called the change “monumental.”

The DEA has said it doesn’t yet have a position on whether to go through with the change, stating in a memo that it would keep weighing the issue as the federal rulemaking process plays out.

The new classification would be the most significant shift in U.S. drug policy in 50 years and could be a potent political issue, especially with younger voters. But it faces opposition from groups such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Its president, Kevin Sabet, argues there isn’t enough data to move cannabis to the less-dangerous Schedule III category, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids. The DEA’s move to hold the hearing is “a huge win in our fight to have this decision guided by medical science, not politics,” he said in a statement, adding that 18 states’ attorneys general are backing his opposition.

The hearing sparked some consternation among pot industry players, though little surprise about the DEA decision to hold one.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Today’s news: Follow live updates from the campaign trail from the AP.
• Ground Game: Sign up for AP’s weekly politics newsletter to get it in your inbox every Monday.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.

“While the result ultimately may be better, I think we’re so used to seeing delays that it’s just a little disappointing,” said Stephen Abraham, chief financial officer at The Blinc Group, supplier of cartridges and other hardware used in pot vapes. “Every time you slow down or hold resources from the legal market, it’s to the benefit of the illicit market.”

The proposal, which was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland rather than DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, followed a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Federal drug policy has lagged behind that of many states in recent years, with 38 having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use .

Lawmakers from both major political parties have pushed for the change as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted. A Gallup poll last year found 70% of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly three in 10 who backed it in 2000.

The marijuana industry has also grown quickly, and state-licensed pot companies are keen on rescheduling partly because it could enable them to take federal business-expense tax deductions that aren’t available to enterprises involved in “trafficking” any Schedule I or II drug. For some of Vicente’s clients, the change would effectively reduce the tax rate from 75% to 25%.

Some legalization advocates also hope rescheduling could help persuade Congress to pass legislation aimed at opening banks’ doors to cannabis companies. Currently, the drug’s legal status means many federally regulated banks are reluctant to lend to such businesses, or sometimes even provide checking or other basic services.

Rescheduling could also make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances. Some medical marijuana patient advocates fear that the discussion has already become deeply politicized and that the focus on rescheduling’s potential effect on the industry has shifted attention from the people who could benefit.

“It was our hope that we could finally take the next step and create the national medical cannabis program that we need,” said Steph Sherer, founder and president of Americans for Safe Access. The organization advocates for putting cannabis in a drug category all its own and for creating a medical cannabis office within DHS.

The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation’s criminal justice system, though, would likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years.

Peltz reported from New York.

Indiana man tried to poison wife's Coke with drugs 'so he could have sex' with stepdaughter, court papers say

An Indiana man who admitted he spiked his wife's Coca-Cola with cocaine and other drugs in hope of killing her and running off with his stepdaughter was sentenced to four years in prison, court documents say.

Alfred W. Ruf, 71, pleaded guilty Monday to aggravated battery posing a risk of death. A charge of conspiracy to commit murder was dismissed as part of a plea deal, court documents say.

Authorities began investigating the case in 2022 after Ruf's wife, Lisa Bishop, told police conducting a welfare check at their Richmond home that she had been hospitalized several times and believed Ruf was trying to kill her, a probable cause affidavit says.

Ruf came clean to his wife and confessed "because he felt bad," the affidavit alleges.

Bishop gave officers a pill bottle containing a white powdery substance and told them that Ruf had been putting the powder into her drinks without her knowledge, the filing says. Bishop also gave officers a Coke can she drank out of and cut open. At the bottom was the powdery substance, according to the affidavit.

Bishop was taken to a hospital, where she tested positive for cocaine, MDMA — commonly known as molly or ecstasy — and benzodiazepine, a class of depressant drugs, the affidavit says. She denied using drugs.

An attorney for Ruf said that the pair had a volatile marriage and that Bishop had run Ruf over with a car and "beat him bloody" about a year before his arrest.

The probable cause affidavit says that Bishop and Ruf were known to officers and that police were frequently called to their home because of domestic violence issues.

"She wasn't prosecuted. Maybe none of this would have happened if some prosecutorial action had been taken when she did those things," attorney John L. Tompkins said Wednesday. "It was a mutually destructive relationship, and it's just unfortunate. And what she did to him doesn't excuse what he did."

The affidavit alleges Ruf told detectives that his wife's daughter from a previous relationship would give him a white powdery substance to put in Bishop's drink.

"Alfred stated that the substance would then make Lisa go to sleep for approximately thirteen hours or so," it says. "Alfred stated that he would do this to eventually kill Lisa."

The affidavit says the daughter and her friend "would call him and tell him to give the substance to Lisa." The daughter and her friend would then come to the house and give Bishop "more of an unknown substance."

Ruf told investigators he was in a sexual relationship with the daughter and friend, the affidavit alleges. But Tompkins said that wasn't true.

Ruf alleged that the daughter mentioned a life insurance policy Bishop had and instructed him to "get mom out of the picture," the filing says. The daughter's friend is alleged to have hinted at wanting to marry him "after they took care of Lisa."

According to Tompkins, the daughter has denied being involved in the attempted poisoning.

Ruf told authorities he gave Bishop the powdery substance about 12 times from the beginning of September 2021 to the end of December 2021. Ruf said he took his wife to the hospital about six times because of reactions she had to the drugs, according to the affidavit.

Bishop told police that she had been suffering from headaches, drowsiness and lightheadedness but did not know what was wrong with her, the filing says. In one incident, Bishop said, she felt she was going to pass out and cut open a can of Coke she had drunk from.

When she saw a powdery substance at the bottom, she confronted Ruf, who admitted drugging her, the filing alleges.

"Alfred kept going back and forth about what his intentions were for giving his wife the substance," it says. "He would state that he knew it would kill his wife. ... But then Alfred would explain that he would give his wife the substance just to make her pass out so the other two females would come over so he could have sex with them."

Ruf was sentenced to four years in prison, followed by five years of probation.

When Ruf was arrested in 2022 , police said they were still investigating two other suspects, WXIN-TV of Indianapolis reported. The daughter and her friend have not been arrested or charged.

Minyvonne Burke is a senior breaking news reporter for NBC News.

Study combines data, molecular simulations to accelerate drug discovery

New research involving the uc college of medicine may lead to finding effective therapies faster.

Researchers from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital have found a new method to increase both speed and success rates in drug discovery.

The study, published Aug. 30 in the journal Science Advances, offers renewed promise when it comes to discovering new drugs.

“The hope is we can speed up the timeline of drug discovery from years to months,” said Alex Thorman, PhD, co-first author and a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences in the College of Medicine. 

Researchers combined two approaches for screening potential new drugs. First, they used a database from the Library of Integrated Network-based Cellular Signatures (LINCS) to screen tens of thousands of small molecules with potential therapeutic effects simultaneously. Then they combined the search with targeted docking simulations used to model the interaction between small molecules and their protein targets to find compounds of interest. That sped up the timing of the work from months to minutes — taking weeks of work required for initial screening down to an afternoon.

“Accuracy will only improve, hopefully offering new hope to many people who have diseases with no known cure, including those with cancer."

Alex Thorman, PhD Co-first author and postdoctoral fellow

Thorman said this faster screening method for compounds that could become drugs accelerates the drug research process. But it’s not only speed that is crucial. 

He added that this newer approach is more efficient at identifying potentially effective compounds.

“And the accuracy will only improve, hopefully offering new hope to many people who have diseases with no known cure, including those with cancer,” Thorman said.

It can also create more targeted treatment options in precision medicine, an innovative approach to tailoring disease prevention and treatment that takes into account differences in people's genes, environments and lifestyles. 

“An accelerated drug discovery process also could be a game changer in the ability to respond to public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Thorman. “The timeline for developing effective drugs could be expedited.” 

Feature image at top: Collection of prescription drug bottles and pills. Photo/Provided.

Innovation Lives Here

The University of Cincinnati is leading public urban universities into a new era of innovation and impact. Our faculty, staff and students are saving lives, changing outcomes and bending the future in our city's direction.  Next Lives Here.

Other co-first authors included Jim Reigle, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and Somchai Chutipongtanate, PhD, an associate professor in the Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences in the College of Medicine.

The corresponding authors of the study were Jarek Meller, PhD, a professor of biostatistics, health informatics and data sciences in the College of Medicine, and Andrew Herr, PhD, a professor of immunobiology in the Department of Pediatrics in the College of Medicine. 

Other co-investigators included Mario Medvedovic, PhD, professor and director of the Center for Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Services in the College of Medicine, and David Hildeman, PhD, professor of immunobiology in the College of Medicine. Both Herr and Hildeman have faculty research labs at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. 

This research was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, a Department of Veterans Affairs merit award, a UC Cancer Center Pilot Project Award and a Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Innovation Fund award.

Those involved in the research are also co-inventors on three U.S. patents that are related to their work and have been filed by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. 

• Faculty Staff
• College of Medicine
• Environmental Health
• Academic Health Center
• Biomedical Informatics

Related Stories

August 30, 2024

Researchers from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital have found a new method to increase both speed and success rates in drug discovery. The study, published Aug. 30 in the journal Science Advances, offers renewed promise when it comes to discovering new drugs.

U.S. News & World Report: Metformin may help young patients with bipolar disorder avoid weight gain

October 31, 2023

U.S. News & World Report highlighted recent research led by the University of Cincinnati and Northwell Health that found the drug metformin can help prevent or reduce weight gain in youth taking medication to treat bipolar disorder.

Shedding light on post-incarceration syndrome

July 12, 2024

University of Cincinnati researcher Rachael Nolan and justice advocate Chazidy Robinson are collaborating to learn more about post-incarceration syndrome and implementing programs to help those experiencing its effects.

Drug distributors strike $300 mln opioid settlement with US health plans

• Medium Text

• Cardinal Health Inc Follow
• Cencora Inc Follow
• Mckesson Corp Follow

Sign up here.

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at [email protected].

Australia economy stuck in slow lane, household spending drags

Australia's economy stayed stuck in the slow lane in the June quarter as stiff borrowing costs and stubborn inflation squeezed consumers, leaving government spending as the main driver of growth.

Positive Results of the War on Drugs Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The War on Drugs, over the course of its forty-year history, has gained widespread notoriety and sparked fierce criticism, with many going as far as to claim that this policy was a complete failure. Given the complex nature of the illicit drug trade phenomenon, this simplification and reduction of a project of such scale to a definite verdict is quite surprising. The present section argues that the War on Drugs yielded some significant results in the United States, mainly thanks to the country’s advantageous geographic position, in terms of reducing both production and consumption of drugs through price increases and public perception changes.

War on Drugs, in essence, is a public policy that extended beyond the United States borders as to eradicate production in the drugs’ countries of origin. Just like any other public policy, it has been often viewed in comparison with other countries with successful or failing drug policies, for instance, Portugal and the Netherlands. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed as it fails to take into account the unique geographic position of the United States which borders only on two countries: Canada and Mexico. The ever strict Transportation Security Administration’s regulations, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, make import of drugs by air nearly impossible.

Therefore, ground transportation through Mexico is the main import channel, with as much as 90% of cocaine coming from Mexico alone (“US Claims Success” par. 6). When enforcement efforts concern only two countries, the task becomes unprecedentedly manageable, especially since the Mexican authorities have been highly supportively of the US drug eradication program (“US Claims Success” par. 10-11). The United States government is also able to concentrate all of its efforts on the southern border, bringing the necessary “personnel, infrastructure and technology” to it and doubling the size of the US Border Patrol since 2009 (Kerlikowske par. 1). This strategy allows the US to curb drug trafficking in the country.

The second important achievement of the War on Drugs is that it forces drug cartels to reduce or even stop their production or, at the very least, it disintegrates them into smaller groups. Up until the 1980s, the southern Andean countries Peru and Bolivia were the major producers of cocaine, responsible for 65% and 25% of the total supply, respectively. Thanks to the US-funded crop eradication project in these two countries, supported by the local governments, cocaine production largely shifted to Colombia in the second half of the 1990s (Bagley 3).

While many have argued that this victory was insignificant as it merely chased drug cultivators to a different region, battling the problem of cocaine in Colombia presented an easier task. According to David Murray, the former chief scientist of the Office of National Drug Policy Control (NDPC), supply reduction programs combined with the efforts of local citizens yielded a 75% decrease in Colombia’s “productive capacity” (“Has the War on Drugs Been Lost?” par. 24). The program also dismantled two of Colombia’s largest drug cartels, and 300 smaller “cartelitos” appeared to take advantage of this drug trafficking opportunity (Bagley 4). This is significant because smaller organizations lack the resources and networks to engage successfully in the international drug trade.

The changing dynamics of cocaine cultivation and production resulting in supply shortages had an impact on the use of the drug in the United States. Cocaine became far less affordable – and consequently, far less attractive – to American citizens, with the nationwide average price going up by 24%, and almost doubling in some places (“US Claims Success” par. 9). According to John Walters, the head of the Office of NDPC, this change affected at least 37 major American cities (“US Claims Success” par. 2).

Thus, even though the War on Drugs primarily uses the supply-side approach, meaning that it targets production rather than consumption, its successful implementation also results in decreasing use of drugs, as buyers are highly sensitive to their price. As costs incurred by drug suppliers increase, they have no other choice but to drive the street price up, as well, thus reducing the prevalence of cocaine in the society (Kindle 66).

With supply going down and prices going up, the War on Drugs yielded some favorable consequences as far as drug consumption is concerned. Even though the overall illicit drug use has been slowly rising, this upward trend is explained by the increased consumption of such substances as marijuana and pain relievers – both obviously undesirable but nevertheless not as detrimental to human health. Far more important is that the policy succeeded to reduce the use of such dangerous drugs as methamphetamine and cocaine, including crack cocaine (Kerlikowske par. 2).

This decline in consumption brought about some visible social benefits, as fewer Americans had positive drug test results and the number of “cocaine-related hospital admissions” also went down (“US Claims Success” par. 14). David Murray estimates the decline in the cocaine consumption rate to be as high as 45% – meaning that the drug’s prevalence was cut nearly in half (“Has the War on Drugs Been Lost?” par. 25). A more relevant question is thus not whether the policy brings about positive results but rather how to successfully sustain these results over a longer term, which is the main challenge that the government is facing (“US Claims Success” par. 4, 15).

Finally, a less material and thus a more difficult to quantify result of the War on Drugs was the change in public opinion and attitudes, including the changing perception about the US drug trade by the drug dealers themselves. According to David Murray, drug cartels favor “ungoverned safe havens where they would like to be to carry out their business with maximum efficiency” (“Has the War on Drugs Been Lost?” par. 26). Obviously, this is a highly reasonable strategy, and the key to fighting it is letting the offenders know that the US soil is not one of those safe havens. This is precisely what the zero-tolerance policy aimed to achieve.

As Peter Reuter, professor of public policy at the University of Maryland, put it: “the war on drugs was partly defined by its rhetoric” where the government sent a clear “signal to the population that [being tough on drugs] was a priority” (“US Claims Success” par. 34-35).

Thus, the prohibitionist strategy yields the most effective results in limiting “prevalence and harmfulness” of illicit drugs (Kindle 69). Like any other policy, it has its drawbacks and shortfalls, which merely means that the policy needs to be revisited and reevaluated occasionally, so it can be expanded and supplemented with new or improved strategies. The next section will now provide an overview of the arguments that are frequently cited against the War on Drugs and its consequences.

Works Cited

Bagley, Bruce. Drug Trafficking and Organized Crimes in the Americas: Major Trends in the Twenty-First Century. 2012. Web.

“Has the War on Drugs Been Lost?” BBC News . 2015: n. pag. Web.

Kerlikowske, Gil. “Successfully Fighting the War on Drugs.” The Washington Post . 2012: n. pag. Web.

Kindle, Peter A. “Is the War on Drugs Effective? Yes.” Controversial Issues in Social Policy. Ed. Howard Jacob Karger. Boston: Pearson, 2007. 64-69. Print.

“US Claims Success in War on Drugs.” BBC News . 2007: n. pag. Web.

• Alcoholic Anonymous Organization Fighting Addiction
• Drug Abuse Demographics and America's Changing Landscape
• Significant Career of Bill Murray
• The Rehabilitation of West Haven
• Pre-Colombia Era of Drug Trafficking in the Americas: Andean Cocaine, 1947-1973
• The Effect of Cocaine
• A Workaholic and an Alcoholic
• Drugs, Crime, and Violence: Effects of Drug Use on Behavior
• Drug Users as Role Models After Recovery
• Personality Issues Among Male People With Alcoholism
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 29). Positive Results of the War on Drugs. https://ivypanda.com/essays/positive-results-of-the-war-on-drugs/

"Positive Results of the War on Drugs." IvyPanda , 29 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/positive-results-of-the-war-on-drugs/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Positive Results of the War on Drugs'. 29 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Positive Results of the War on Drugs." January 29, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/positive-results-of-the-war-on-drugs/.

1. IvyPanda . "Positive Results of the War on Drugs." January 29, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/positive-results-of-the-war-on-drugs/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Positive Results of the War on Drugs." January 29, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/positive-results-of-the-war-on-drugs/.