For over 50 years the War on Drugs has created the illusion of hope for positive change in the communities of minorities, drug abusers, and citizens, yet the negative consequences on society have been drastic. In 1971, President Nixon established the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevent and Control Act which is also famously known as the War on Drugs. The objective of passing this act was to decrease the crime rate and terminate the distribution of drugs, and the consumption of illegal substances. President Nixon said that drugs were “Public enemy number one” (Richard Nixon Foundation, 4292016, President Nixon Declares Drug Abuse 'Public Enemy Number One'), which catalyzed the start of the War on Drugs. These advances have been devastatingly unsuccessful and critically damaging.
The prejudice aimed at the minorities of America is subsequently larger than the mass population, the Caucasian race. “An estimated one-third of black male Americans will spend time in state or federal prison at some point in their lifetime – more than double the rate from the 1970s and over five times higher than the rate for white males” (Rothwell, 2014). Although it might seem that way because the African American minority allegedly is selling and using more drugs than the Caucasian majority, it is proven that it is the other way around. “Whites were about 45 percent more likely than blacks to sell drugs in 1980, according to an analysis of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth by economist Robert Fairlie” (Rothwell, 2014). The reason for mass arrests by law enforcement because of the War on Drugs could be that their focus is on low-income cities, for example, the Projects, where people sell and use drugs. They are assuming that wealthy cities do not have people who use and or sell drugs, which is misinformation. Since Caucasians are more numerous in wealthy cities, they are not targeted by law enforcement.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The Crack Epidemic was one of the most devastating periods of the 1980’s. “Between 1982 and 1985, the number of cocaine users increased by 1.6 million people” (Turner, 2017). Many low-income communities could not afford pure cocaine, so they settled for crack cocaine which was less potent, much cheaper, and still had the same euphoric effects of the drug. Cocaine was a major hit in South American countries like Columbia and few knew about the addictive powdery substance till the 1960’s. “Colombian trafficking organizations such as the Medellín Cartel instituted a distribution system that imported cocaine from South America into the U.S.” The migration of cocaine grew a new business in America’s which started in Miami. Communities were astonished by the drug, which drew great attention. “Caribbean immigrants taught adolescents the technique of converting powdered cocaine into crack” (Turner, 2017). This enlightened the impoverished to create their businesses where they sold crack cocaine fast and cheap, in which they made a good profit, so they were able to care for themselves and their families.
To start a crack business there are few prerequisites of skill and professional educational experiences, therefore, many short-term drug dealers take advantage of this. Although this job seems majorly beneficial there are extreme downsides, like the crime rate of individuals under the influence of crack cocaine. “The emergence of crack cocaine in the inner cities led to a drastic increase in crime between 1981 and 1986. Federal prison admission for drug offenses soared, and murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rates increased significantly” (Turner, 2017). This affected the drug user and seller, as well as the companies that were stolen from, and the people around the environment of criminal activities, etc.
In the many years harm reduction has been practiced, it has been proven that it helps people disassociate with lethal drugs. Instead of punishing suffering individuals who have made mistakes because they are human, why not help them with their sickness of addiction? “In 2015, more than 33% of heroin addicts entering treatment initiated their non-medical opioid use with heroin, up from 8.7% in 2005” (Singer, 2018). Heroin has been popularized over twenty percent in the past decade. Creating a sustainable area for safe needles and dosage to help addicted people has been proven to help put people’s lives back on track. Rather than teaching people positive coping mechanisms, law enforcement punishes the sick and addicted people. When their punishment is over, they do not have a way to cope with their problems, so they fall back into old habits rather than get back on their feet. “Ultimately, the prison population doubled due to the arrest of drug dealers and their customers.” (Turner, 2017). Instead of mass incarceration, we can provide sustainable jobs and housing for addicts and help their families. Congress recognized that the War on Drugs has failed us. “in 1989, drug czar William Bennett announced a $7,900,000,000 plan to combat the drug epidemic, but 70 percent of that amount went to hiring more law enforcement personnel and building prisons” (Coleman, 2019). This shows how expensive and wasteful incarceration is to society when it comes to drug paraphernalia.
An example of drug prohibition in the past is the Alcohol Prohibition in 1919 when the 18th Amendment was passed. When this amendment was passed people started to drink more potent and heavy liquors instead of beer when they could get their hands on it. Getting less potent drugs that are illegal can be risky because you need more of them to get people the euphoric feeling they require. Therefore, these increase the use of harder liquor and crime rate while intoxicated since what people take is more potent. The prohibition of certain drugs can also be a gateway to exploration into more dangerous substances, “It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition” (Thornton, 1991). This shows that prohibition in the market of drugs is an unlikely successful move. If the government is for the people, why fight against them? It is proven statistically that harm reduction works especially since society has seen how drastically harmful prohibition can be. As a community, we should fund safe ways to receive most things that are out there while making sure we are responsible. A large amount of water can be deadly but if people can be responsible consumers and more educated on things like drugs the death rate would extremely decrease.
The harm reduction law in Switzerland has helped over ninety-five percent of people who received treatment. “He said that 75 percent of active users in Switzerland are in treatment on a given day, and about 95 percent have been in treatment at some point” (Knopf, 2019). This proves that people need help and can get better, drug addicts are not hopeless, they need someone to support them. Addiction is hard and can be genetic, most people are influenced by others and see no solution to their lives which can feel hopeless. By reducing drug addicts on the streets and supporting the black market of drugs that might carry other dangerous chemicals than the drugs requested, the facilities can provide safe doses and reduce crime cases. “In 1993, the country had about 20,000 cases a year. Today, the Swiss average about 5,000 opioid-related cases annually” (Knopf, 2019).
In the previous century, Portugal was ruled by a military dictatorship that had no drug education whatsoever. However, this all changed when there was a revolution in 1974 in which many freedoms were granted to its people. Similar to Americans returning home from Vietnam, Portuguese colonial troops stationed in Africa were often exposed to new drugs while in the field and returned home as addicts. “By the 1990s, 1 percent of Portugal's population was hooked on heroin. It was one of the worst drug epidemics in the world, and it prompted Portugal's government to take a novel approach: It decriminalized all drugs” (Frayer, 2017). This became such a prevalent issue to the point it was said that every family had their addiction. In 2001, Portugal began taking a different approach to drug use as public opinion had turned in favor of decriminalizing drugs rather than prosecuting users. In this way, it became a matter of health and not a matter of crime.
Fentanyl is one of the highest killers in the drug world, “More than 36,000 people died from overdoses involving synthetic opioids in 2019” (CDC, 2021). The balloon effect has not been remarkably effective, for example, trying to crack down on one part of the entire drug trade to stop the spread of paraphernalia will not be efficient since the drug market is very lucrative, “The US spent $7.6 billion between 2002 and 2014 to crack down on opium in Afghanistan, where the bulk of the world's supply for heroin comes from” (Lopez, 2016). If you reduce the supply of something, in this case drugs, and the demand is unwavering then the price of the drug will increase. Drugs are not commoditized which means they will be bought at any price this is normally not usual for most products. So, to fight the War on Drugs you will certainly not win, with supply unlimited by drug cartels, demand unbroken, and some drugs more potent than before, this pandemic cannot be restricted with war.
In conclusion, the United States has spent billions of dollars to fight a war that has repeatedly been undefeated. The War on Drugs has wasted all the funds on fighting addicted people in our society instead of helping them and causing solutions at the root. Taking a substance that is in high demand will not perish the intake of the substance it will only make it severely more unsafe to retrieve it. Humans have rights to their own bodies especially in the United States, regulating drugs while keeping people safe who choose to intake something that might not particularly be good for them can save many lives. The United States Drug Enforcement Agency has a success rate of less than one percent in blocking the leak of drugs into the United States and in the United States. This shows how ineffectively the funds we have had have been wasted while the answer was much cheaper, less intrusive, and life-threatening.
Stuck on your essay?
