essay about the war on drugs

• 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

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

• 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

• 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

Title of message

Here is the body of the message. You can remove the title if you don't want it. You can also style the content and add links. Comment out the code not in use.

The War on Drugs: History, Policy, and Therapeutics

• Welcome to The War on Drugs: History, Policy, and Therapeutics

History of the War on Drugs

The war on drugs defined, trends in u.s. corrections related to drug offenses, **content warning: sexual assault**classic propaganda used to scare the u.s. public about cannabis: "reefer madness" (1936), america's longest war: the war on drugs.

• Racist Roots of the War on Drugs
• The Last Prisoner Project
• Introductory Library Resources
• Drug Schedule Classifications
• State Level Legality of Psychedelics and Cannabis
• Illinois Cannabis Law and Policies
• Psychedelic Revolution and Library Resources
• What is Cannabis?
• What is Hemp?
• Cannabinoids
• Research Based, Potential Medicinal Uses of THC
• Side Effects of THC Usage
• Research-Based, Potential Medicinal Uses of Other Cannabinoids
• Warnings About Health and Dominican Campus Policies
• Federally Legal Cannabinoids Allowed on Campus (Hemp Derived)(NO SMOKING OR VAPING)
• What are Psychedelics?
• Overview of Psychedelic Therapies and Library Resources
• Infographic Overview of Psychedelics for Therapeutic Uses
• Side Effects of Psychedelics
• Ketamine Therapies and Research
• Psilocybin Therapies and Research
• LSD Therapies and Research
• MDMA Therapies and Research
• News and Research Feeds for Cannabis and Psychedelics
• Dominican University Drug Policy

The War on Drugs is an 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.

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2020).  War on Drugs .  Encyclopedia Britannica . https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs

Data Compiled By The Sentencing Project:

Trends in U.S. Corrections . The Sentencing Project. (2021, August 18). Retrieved from https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/trends-in-u-s-corrections/.

• << Previous: The War on Drugs
• Next: Racist Roots of the War on Drugs >>
• Last Updated: Feb 23, 2024 10:20 AM
• URL: https://research.dom.edu/warondrugs

REBECCA CROWN LIBRARY 7900 West Division Street River Forest, IL 60305

• Website Feedback

The war on drugs, explained

Share this story.

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: The war on drugs, explained

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.

Hulton Archive via Getty Images

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.

Universal Images Group via Getty Images

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.

David McNew/Getty Images

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.

Bloomberg via Getty Images

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 .)

Sentencing Project

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.

Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

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.

Pedro Ugarte/AFP via Getty Images

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.

AFP via Getty Images

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.

New York Daily News via Getty Images

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 :

Project Know

"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.

National Library of Medicine

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."

The LIFE Picture Collection via Getty Images

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.

Anand Katakam/Vox

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.

Guillermo Legaria/AFP via Getty Images

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."

Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images

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.

Allison Joyce/Getty Images

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."

Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

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.

Seth McConnell/Denver Post via Getty Images

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.

John Moore/Getty Images

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."

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Biden’s surprise proposal to debate Trump early, explained

Is j.k. rowling transphobic let’s let her speak for herself., the gamestop stock frenzy, explained, sign up for the newsletter today, explained, thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

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."

Jarhead Accuracy Analysis

Safe area gorazde analysis, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Pyrrhic Defeat Theory: Reevaluating Victory in Warfare

Discussion on the issue of the war on drugs, my views on the war on drugs in the philippines, why the war on drugs was really a war on race, 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

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, a brief history of the war on drugs, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

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, 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 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

• Domestic Violence
• Serial Killer
• Drunk Driving
• School Shooting
• 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

• Search Menu
• 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 (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (European)
• 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 Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Science
• 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 History
• Economic Systems
• 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.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

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.

Sign in through your institution

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.

War on Drugs Essay

War On Drugs : Pros, And Consequences Of The War On Drugs

War on Drugs Christina Echeverry October 2017 ALC Class 18-002 War on Drugs Introduction In 1971, President Nixon created the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 commonly known as the War on Drugs. The war on drugs was implemented to combat production, distribution, and consumption of illegal drugs (Olaya & Angel, 2017). In 2007, law enforcement officers made approximately two million drug arrests in the United States (Potter, 2014). Supporters state that the war on

The War On Drugs And Drugs Essay

The war on drugs have been a critical issue that has repeatedly held a great debate topic. It was in the 1906 when the first act against drug was put into effect with the Pure Food and Drug Act which required all over-the-counter medication to have label of its ingredients. Under President Nixon the first executive branch office to coordinate drug policy was formed and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was put into place. Two years following that the Drug Enforcement Agency

The American War On Drugs

The American “War on Drugs” war created to keep an exorbitant amount of people behind bars, and in a subservient status. First, America has a storied history when it comes to marijuana use. However, within the last 50 years legislation pertaining to drug use and punishment has increased significantly. In the modern era, especially hard times have hit minority communities thanks to these drug laws. While being unfairly targeted by drug laws and law enforcement, minorities in America are having

The War On Drug War

president nixon, Declared Drug abuse public enemy number one, starting an unprecedented global Campaign, the war on drug. Today the number are in the war on drug is a huge failure with devastated unintended consequences, it lead to mass incarceration in the us, to corruption, to political destabilization, and violence in latin america, asia, and africa. To systemic human right abuse across the world.”-Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell The drug war is an all out war between drug cartels, and the governments

president nixon, Declared Drug abuse public enemy number one, starting an unprecedented global Campaign, the war on drug. Today the number are in the war on drug is a huge failure with devastated unintended consequences, it lead to mass incarceration in the us, to corruption, to political destabilization, and violence in latin america, asia, and africa. To systemic human right abuse across the world.”-Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell The drug war is an all out war between drug cartels the usa and mexico

Period 8 Drug Policy: A Look at America’s Ineffective Approach to Drugs Introduction In January 2004, senatorial candidate Barack Obama firmly opposed the twenty two-year war on drugs, saying that the United States’ approach in the drug war has been ineffective (Debussman).  Although the term, “war on drugs,” was originally coined by President Richard Nixon in 1971, it wasn’t until Ronald Reagan announced that “drugs were menacing society”

War on Drugs is War on Democracy Essay

practices in the so-called "drug war." Now, about 15 years since its beginning, the "war on drugs" has become a

The War On Drugs And The United States

When, in 1971, Richard Nixon infamously declared a “war on drugs” it would have been nearly impossible for him to predict the collective sense of disapprobation which would come to accompany the now ubiquitous term. It would have been difficult for him to predict that the drug war would become a hot topic, a highly contentious and polarizing point of debate and, it would have difficult for him to predict that the United States would eventually become the prison capital of the world, incarcerating

Arguments Against The Drug War

The drug war is a great example of us loosening our grips on the constitution because of the precise fact that it takes away individual liberty. Using drugs is most certainly not anything I would advise, but if it was my choice to make for you then you wouldn’t truly

Argumentative Essay On The War On Drugs

are positive, such as the War on Drugs, but we must not forget our preceding in order to progress our nation's future. While the War on Drugs has emerged, it has damaged American far beyond what it has attempted to assist, to this day we continue to feel its harmful effects. We must not overlook the imperative history that lead to the War on Drugs, the underlying consequences of the War on Drugs, how it has affected American law and society, and the reform of the War on Drugs. As we continue to attempt

Popular Topics

• War on Poverty Essay
• War on Terror Essay
• War Veterans Essay
• Washington Irving Essays
• Waste Essay
• Waste Land Essay
• Water Crisis Essay
• Water Fluoridation Essay
• Water Pollution Essay
• Water Shortage Essay

102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best war on drugs topic ideas & essay examples, 🎓 good research topics about war on drugs, ⭐ simple & easy war on drugs essay titles, ❓ war on drugs research questions.

• War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay This has led to the formation of laws to govern drug trafficking and drug use in most countries that are determined to eradicate this problem.
• Drug Issue in “America’s Unjust Drug War” by Michael Huemer In a report on the unjust drug war in America, the author proposes that legislation on the use of recreational drugs is improper.
• The House I Live In: War on Drugs and Mass Incarceration Yet the way in which the comparison between the Holocaust and the War on Drugs makes the most sense is the fact that mass incarceration for drug-related offenses disproportionally targets one group of population.
• Drug War in “Baltimore: Anatomy of an American City” The “strengths of this theory make it effective towards describing the behaviors of many individuals in the society”. Many individuals engage in criminal activities due to lack of the required resources.
• The Failure of the Drug War The threat of imprisonment is not sufficient to keep citizens from partaking in the drug, nor is it effective in ensuring the drug is not available on the street.
• Prohibition: War on Drugs American Labor Leader Andrew Furuseth spoke before Congress in 1926 and noted that just after prohibition began, there was a large change in the working population, but he also added: “Two years afterwards I came […]
• War on Drugs in the Sicario Film First, the use of factual information in work increases confidence in the film’s authors and convinces the viewer of the truthfulness and accuracy of the narrative.
• War on Drugs in “Sicario” (2015) Film On the positive side of things, the depiction of the War on Drugs in the movie is built around violence associated with it and the corruption of federal agents involved in the operations.
• The War on Drugs Is Lost: In Search of a New Method After forty years and a trillion dollars, the volume of drugs in the United States has remained relatively the same. In 2000, Portugal decriminalized all hard and soft drugs at the recommendation of a panel […]
• Prohibition & War on Drugs and Negative Effects The intention behind the Prohibition was to ban the consumption of alcohol to reduce the occurrence of crimes, spousal abuse, and increase the overall purity of US society.
• Literature Review: The War on Drugs However, the misguided notion that anything with the potential to cause harm is immoral has led to the limited effectiveness of punitive policies with regard to the reduction of the negative impacts of drug use.
• The America’s Unjust Drug War In addition, the thought experiment shows the ethical inadmissibility of such a prohibition from the point of view of moral philosophy.
• War on Drugs and Prison Overcrowding Analysis In this way, it is possible to reduce the number of inmates in state prisons because studies have shown that low-level offenders make more than 55% of the total number of inmates in American prisons.
• Techniques in “The Drug War and Class War” by Harrop The essay provides many instances of the use of emotive language and it helps the reader to understand the social and cultural relevance of the issue that the contemporary discrimination by produce student’s use of […]
• War on Drugs in the United States Satisfaction of rehabilitation costs, salaries, and payment of the government officials and employees involved in the operations and activities related to the war on drugs have been included in the estimation of the cost of […]
• War on Drugs and Terror and American Promise As a result, the people of the US have a reason to doubt that the war on terror is concerned with the safety of the world or even the safety of the American people.
• American Drug War from the Economic Perspective On the basis of this information, it can be presupposed that the reduction of demand is the best way to overcome the drug issue.
• Drug War Policies and Freiberg & Carson’s Models War on Drugs was a set of policies adopted by the Nixon administration in 1971, following a tremendous growth of the local illegal drug market in the 1960s, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
• American Drug War, Its Achievements and Failures The critics of this policy argue that the government is using more resources to control drugs, while only using few resources in drug victims’ treatment and rehabilitation.
• Ineffectiveness of the “War on Drugs” Campaign The American government has been using powerful measures and laws to deal with the problem. The main area of concern therefore focuses on the effectiveness of this fight against illicit drugs in the United States.
• Health Law: The Never-Ending War on Drugs The failure of the efforts to curb the trafficking and use of illicit drugs may be a new experience for many countries across the world, but not for the US.
• War on Drugs in Mexico The war on drugs is the most significant occurrence in Mexico in the last decade. These factors have led to the president to declare war on the drug use in order to improve the country’s […]
• The War on Drugs and the Incarceration of Black Women Considering the plight of black women in the war on drugs, this paper discusses the concept of war on drugs as the war against black women.
• The War on Drugs in the US In the US, the negative impacts of drug use became evident in the society at the end of the 19th century, when it was observed that psychotropic drugs such as cocaine and morphine led to […]
• Mexican Drug Cartels and the War on Drugs The examination of the current research on Mexican drug cartels and the War on Drugs helps to understand the causes of the outburst of violence, define the major tendencies of the Mexican War on Drugs […]
• Mexican Drug War: Political, Social, and Economy Damages The cartels use the law enforcement agents against rival cartels through bribes and leaking information on their activities to the police Origin of the Escalating Violence The violence in the county is as a result […]
• American Government’s War on Drugs Analyzing the success of the war on drugs in the society, it is important to understand the drug control rhetoric, which is aimed at realizing a drug-free society.
• Successes and the Failures of the “Drug War” In the past century, the use of illicit drugs reduced drastically owing to the drug war. The growing of the illicit drugs like Cannabis in the US has drastically reduced due to the drug war.
• Drug War in Afghanistan Over the last three decades, the NATO has been making various strategies to end the war and the drug business in Afghanistan because of the negative activities that the Taliban carries out not only in […]
• Mexican Politics, Culture and Drug Wars The 10-year civil war of Mexico that lasted from 1910 to 1920 is believed to be the key that opened up the doors to the new constitution of 1917.
• America’s War on Drugs At the time, Nixon was concerned by the sudden surge of drug related arrests among young people and the relation that the trend had on the high rate of street crime at the time.
• American Foreign Policy and the War on Drugs
• The Right Way of Handling the War on Drugs
• America Will Never Win the War on Drugs
• Underdeveloped Countries and the War on Drugs
• African Americans, Poverty, and the War on Drugs
• The Political and Economic Factors of the War on Drugs
• Crime and the War on Drugs
• Economics Theory and Crime: Why Is Law Enforcement Failing in the War on Drugs
• Choosing the Right Battlefield for the War on Drugs
• Legalize Marijuana: End the War on Drugs
• Criminology: Drug Policies and the War on Drugs
• Addiction and the War on Drugs
• Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington’s Futile War on Drugs in Latin America
• Drug Policies and the War on Drugs
• Joint Interagency Task Force and the War on Drugs
• Propaganda, Stereotypes, and the War on Drugs
• Overcrowded Prisons and the War on Drugs
• America Should End Its War on Drugs
• Drug Legalization and the War on Drugs
• Organized Crime and War on Drugs
• Favela Lives Matter: Youth From Urban Peripheries, Political Engagement and Alternatives to the War on Drugs
• Legalization and the War on Drugs
• Racial Bias and the Civil War on Drugs
• Criminal Justice Enforcement and the United War on Drugs
• America and the War on Drugs
• Budgetary Politics and the War on Drugs
• Ethics and the War on Drugs
• Heroin Crisis, White Families Seek Gentler War on Drugs
• End the Bogus War on Drugs
• Parents: First Line Defense in War on Drugs
• Functionalist and Interactionist Views on the War on Drugs
• High Crime Rates and War on Drugs
• Cannabis and the War on Drugs
• Mexican Drug Cartels and the War on Drugs
• Drug Use and Abuse During the War on Drugs
• Criminal Law and the War on Drugs
• The Market for Illegal Drugs and the War on Drugs
• Cocaine, Race, and the War on Drugs
• Ethnocentrism, Class Discrimination, and the Historical Shortcomings of America’s War on Drugs
• Colombia and the War on Drugs: How Short Is the Short Run
• Has the War on Drugs Been a Failure?
• Are You in Favor of War on Drug?
• What Can We Do to Stop the War on Drugs?
• What Is the Point of the War on Drugs?
• Is the War on Drugs Immoral?
• Has the War on Drugs Had Any Positive Effects?
• Is the War on Drugs Working?
• What Are Your Thoughts About the War on Drugs?
• Who Has Benefited From the Us Government’s “War on Drugs”?
• What Are the Negative Effects of War on Drugs?
• Why Did Ronald Reagan Declare War on Drugs?
• Is the “War on Drugs” Futile and a Waste of Resources?
• What Are the Strongest Arguments for and Against the War on Drugs?
• Why Did War on Drugs Fail?
• What Are Some Facts About the War on Drugs?
• Has the United States Lost the “War on Drugs?”
• Do You Think the War on Drugs Is a Joke?
• What Can You Say About War on Drugs?
• Why Do You Agree With the War on Drugs?
• Who Is Winning the War on Drugs?
• What Are the Good Effects of War on Drugs in the Philippines?
• Why Did Richard Nixon Begin the War on Drugs?
• What Is the Relationship Between the War on Drugs and Race?
• What War Will Replace the War on Drugs?
• What Are the Advantages of War on Drugs?
• What Is Hillary Clinton’s Stance on the “War on Drugs”?
• Is War on Drugs Justifiable?
• How Are We Doing on the War on Drugs?
• What Is the Disadvantage and Advantage on War on Drugs?
• What Is the Purpose of the Endless War on Drugs?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 27). 102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/

"102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/.

• Prison Paper Topics
• Organized Crime Titles
• Prostitution Topics
• Racial Profiling Essay Topics
• Youth Violence Research Topics
• Alcohol Abuse Paper Topics
• Alcohol Essay Titles
• Police Questions

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

War on Drugs Policing and Police Brutality

War on Drugs policing has failed in its stated goal of reducing domestic street-level drug activity: the cost of drugs on the street remains low and drugs remain widely available.( Baum, 1996 ; Bertram, Blachman, Sharpe, & Andreas, 1996 ; Gray, 2010 ; Tonry, 1994a ) Evaluations of specific tactics, such as raids on crack houses and crackdowns, suggest that their effects on drug availability are minimal, decay rapidly, and may displace drug activity to other areas and increase drug-related violence.( Benson, Rasmussen, & Sollars, 1995 ; Sherman, 1990 ; Sherman et al., 1995 ; Werb et al., 2011 ) A large body of research, however, has identified significant unintended, negative consequences of the War on Drugs’ policing strategies for the public’s health, including increased risk of HIV transmission.( Cooper, Moore, Gruskin, & Krieger, 2005 ; Kerr, Small, & Wood, 2005 ; Maher & Dixon, 1999 ) 1 This paper seeks to expand this body of work by exploring the interconnections between specific War on Drugs policing strategies and police-related violence against Black adolescents and adults in the US, a topic that has received little attention thus far.

The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies police brutality as a form of violence, and defines violence itself as:

“the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.” ( Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002 , p. 5)

According to WHO, there are four types of violence: physical, sexual, psychological, and neglectful.( Krug et al., 2002 ) While police officers are empowered to use force, they should use the minimal amount of force needed to “control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.”( The National Institute of Justice, 2012 )

This paper provides historical context for considering the connections between race/ethnicity and policing in the US; reviews erosions to the 4 th Amendment to the US Constitution (which protects against unreasonable search and seizure) and the Posse Comitatus Act (which prohibits the Armed Forces from performing law enforcement functions) that helped set the groundwork for two vital War on Drugs policing strategies: stop and frisk and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams; and describes how stop and frisk and SWAT teams create conditions conducive to police brutality, particularly brutality that targets Black communities. While many laws and policies have created the foundations for police brutality, I have chosen to focus exclusively on the 4 th Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act in order to delve into detail on both, rather than present brief summaries of several policies. Additionally, the rich literature on the intertwined nature of racism, social control, and decisions about which substances should be classified as “illegal” is beyond the purview of this paper. Readers interested in these topics could review David Musto’s “The American Disease: The Origins of Narcotic Control” and David Courtwright’s “Dark Paradise: The History of Opiate Addiction in America” to learn more about this important topic.( Courtwright, 2001 ; Musto, 2001 )

Historical Context for Considering Race/Ethnicity and Policing

There are many different ways to narrate policing’s history. One narrative highlights the mutually constitutive nature of policing and race in the US: this narrative recognizes that policing has been integral to the construction and maintenance of racial hierarchies, and that police forces themselves were originally established to enforce these hierarchies.( Bass, 2001 ; Bell, 2000 ; Brown, 2005 ; Eitle & Monohan, 2009 ; Kelley, 2000 ; Nunn, 2002 ; Ritchie & Mogul, 2008 ) The roots of formal policing in the US lie in slave owners’ efforts to control slaves.( Bass, 2001 ; Bell, 2000 ; Kelley, 2000 ; Ritchie & Mogul, 2008 ; Russell, 2000 ) Slave patrols were the first state-sponsored police forces.( Ritchie & Mogul, 2008 ) These patrols consisted of White property-owning men who were charged with preventing slave uprisings and escapes.( Bass, 2001 ; Russell, 2000 ) Slave patrols were particularly vital to maintaining White control in areas where there were more slaves than Whites, and South Carolina, a state where Whites were outnumbered, became the first state to establish them in 1704.( Bass, 2001 ) Slave patrols had broad authority, and were permitted to enter slaves’ homes at will and punish fugitives.( Bass, 2001 )

After the Civil War, states replaced slave patrols with police officers who enforced “Black codes;” in 1865, Mississippi and South Carolina became the first states to establish these codes.( Bass, 2001 ; Brown, 2005 ) Black codes were designed to control Freedmen and Freedwomen by making many activities that had previously been classified as petty offenses (and that remained petty offenses when committed by Whites) into serious crimes when committed by Black adults and children (e.g., loitering, breaking curfew).( Bass, 2001 ; Brown, 2005 ) Police generated enough arrests for violating Black Codes that the number of Black inmates in southern prisons skyrocketed;( Adamson, 1983 ; Johnson, 1995 ) in Mississippi, for example, the number of Black inmates tripled between 1874 and 1877.( Adamson, 1983 )

The federal government dismantled Black Codes during Reconstruction, but after decades of slave patrols and police enforcement of Black Codes, the mutually constitutive nature of policing and race had been established in the US.( Bass, 2001 ; Brown, 2005 ; Ritchie & Mogul, 2008 ) Efforts to maintain racial hierarchies were woven into the fabric of policing strategies, and one dimension of “Blackness” was living with the persistent and pernicious threat of police intervention, while freedom from this threat helped to define “Whiteness,” particularly for affluent Whites.( Bass, 2001 ; Brown, 2005 ; Ritchie & Mogul, 2008 ) The persistence of the relationship between policing and race through the 1900s is evident, for example, in police officers’ failure to stop lynchings of suspects in their custody, in their active participation in lynchings, and in their enforcement of Jim Crow laws 2 .( Bass, 2001 ; Brown, 2005 ; Ritchie & Mogul, 2008 )

The War on Drugs and Expanding Police Powers

Initially declared by President Nixon in 1973,( Lynch, 2012 ) President Reagan re-dedicated the United States to the War on Drugs in 1982 and escalated it using multiple strategies, including increasing anti-drug enforcement spending, creating a federal drug task force, and helping to foster a culture that demonized drug use and drug users.( Benson et al., 1995 ; Nunn, 2002 ) Between 1982 and 2007, the number of arrests for drug possession tripled, from approximately 500,000 to 1.5 million,( The Bureau of Justice Statistics of The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008 ) and drug arrests now constitute the largest category of arrests in the US.( Lynch, 2012 ) Racial/ethnic disparities in drug-related arrests have also intensified: while in 1976 Blacks constituted 22% of drug-related arrests and Whites constituted 77% of these arrests, by 1992 Blacks accounted for 40% of all drug-related arrests and Whites accounted for 59% of them; throughout these years Blacks comprised about 12% of the total population while Whites were about 82%.( Tonry, 1994b ) Notably, arrests for all other offenses (excluding assaults, which increased slightly) declined during these years, and racial/ethnic disparities in arrests for these other offenses remained static or declined.( Lynch, 2012 )

Police forces and funding increased dramatically to support the War on Drugs. For example, between 1992 and 2008, state and local expenditures on police doubled, from $131/per capita to $260/per capita;( Lynch, 2012 ) federal expenditures increased as well.( Meeks, 2006 ) Increased federal, state, and local funding for law enforcement translated into many more officers patrolling the streets. The number of sworn officers in the US increased by 26% between 1992 and 2008.( Bureau of Justice Statistics at the US Department of Justice, 2011 ) The number of officers patrolling the streets of New York City increased by 47% between 1990 and 1997.( Wynn, 2001 ) The War on Drugs was also facilitated by increases in the scope of police power and resources. We focus on two of these changes here: erosions of the 4 th Amendment and of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Erosion of the 4 th Amendment

Part of the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV asserts that

“[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This Amendment was proposed by the US Congress in 1789 in response to the virtually unlimited power of British customs officers to conduct warrantless searches and seize property without specific authorization in the American colonies.( Saleem, 1997 )

In the past few decades, however, the judicial and legislative branches have eroded “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” by creating what Thurgood Marshall has called “the drug exception to the Constitution.”( powell & Hershenov, 1990 ) In the 1968 Terry v Ohio case, the Supreme Court endorsed a new category of police intervention in civilian life.( Saleem, 1997 ) Previously, police intervention in civilian life had largely been limited to arrests; to arrest a civilian and deprive him or her of liberty, police first had to meet the relatively high standard of probable cause.( Saleem, 1997 ) 3 In Terry v Ohio , the Supreme Court decided that officers could stop a civilian if they reasonably suspected, based on articulable facts, that the civilian was currently engaging in criminal activity or had engaged in criminal activity.( Saleem, 1997 ) “Reasonable suspicion” is a lower standard for intervention than “probable cause.”( Saleem, 1997 ) The Supreme Court permitted frisks (i.e., searches of the stopped civilian) if the officer reasonably suspected that the person was armed and dangerous; the frisk was designed to allow the officer to pursue the investigation without fear of violence.( Saleem, 1997 ) The lower standard for intervention into civilian life (reasonable suspicion vs probable cause) was permitted in part because a stop and search was believed to place a far lower burden on the civilian than an arrest.( Saleem, 1997 )

In Whren v US (1996) and Illinois v Wardlow (2000), the Supreme Court further lowered the threshold for a police stop.( Barlow & Hickman Barlow, 2002 ; Nunn, 2002 ) Whren allowed officers to make “pretext stops,” that is, to stop someone for one violation when the officer’s true suspicion lay elsewhere (e.g., stop an individual for a minor traffic infraction when the officer’s true intent was to search the car for drugs).( Barlow & Hickman Barlow, 2002 ; Nunn, 2002 ) In Wardlow, the court expanded the legitimate grounds for a stop by ruling that simply running from a police car was suspicious behavior that justified a police stop and search.( Nunn, 2002 )

As the thresholds governing when officers could stop and frisk civilians dropped, the cost of these encounters for civilians escalated. Initially stop and frisks were designed to be minimally invasive and brief.( Saleem, 1997 ) They differed from arrests (and thus has a lower precipitating standard) because a reasonable person would know that he or she could walk away from a stop and frisk without harm.( Saleem, 1997 ) A key component of this stipulation was that stop and frisks did not involve police force, such as handcuffs or guns.( Saleem, 1997 ) In Terry v US , for example, Terry was grabbed and his outer garments patted down but the officer did not draw his weapon and did not handcuff Terry until he arrested him.( Saleem, 1997 ) Over time, however, a series of court cases have allowed stop and frisks to involve handcuffs, police weapons, and long detentions, thus blurring the lines between a stop and frisk and an arrest.( Saleem, 1997 ) Contraband (including drugs) found during a stop and frisk can be seized.

The Posse Comitatus Act

Passed in 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act made it a felony for the Armed Forces to perform the law enforcement duties of the civilian police.( powell & Hershenov, 1990 ) The law was passed in the aftermath of the US Civil War to maintain a clear division between the Armed Forces and domestic law enforcement, and recognized that the Armed Forces and the civilian police had distinct functions: while the Armed Forces are designed to destroy the enemy, civilian police are charged with protecting civilians and keeping the peace using as little force as possible.( Balko, 2006 ; Nunn, 2002 )

The Posse Comitatus Act has been dismantled over the past 30 years to advance the War on Drugs. The first challenge to the Act came in 1981, over a century after it was passed, when the military was permitted to give civilian police departments access to military bases, research, and equipment to strengthen these departments’ capacity to wage the War on Drugs.( Balko, 2006 ; powell & Hershenov, 1990 ) The military also became empowered to train civilian police departments in using military equipment. Five years later, Reagan declared drugs a national security threat; this declaration sanctioned greater collaboration between the military and police.( Balko, 2006 ) In 1993, the ban on the US Army’s ability to train police departments in urban warfare and close-quarters combat was lifted.( Balko, 2006 ; powell & Hershenov, 1990 ) In 1994, the Department of Defense released a memorandum authorizing the large scale transfer of military equipment and technology to police departments.( Balko, 2006 ; powell & Hershenov, 1990 )

The 4 th Amendment, Posse Comitatus, and Police Brutality

This section traces pathways linking War on Drugs policing strategies – and in particular those strategies arising from the erosions of the 4 th Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act – to police brutality by synthesizing findings from several studies. One main source of data for this section is a qualitative paper that I wrote with several colleagues (Drs. Nancy Krieger, Sofia Gruskin, and Lisa Moore) that described drug injectors’ (N=40) and non-drug-users’ (N=25) experiences with police-related violence during a police drug crackdown targeting the 46 th precinct of NYC in 2000; at the time of data collection the 46 th precinct was a deeply impoverished community in which more than 95% of residents were Black or Latino.( Cooper, Moore, Gruskin, & Krieger, 2004 ) This paper is referred to as “the qualitative paper” below. This discussion is organized around the different types of violence identified by WHO: psychological, physical, sexual, and neglectful violence.( Krug et al., 2002 )

Psychological Violence

Stop and frisks proliferated in the US during the War on Drugs, particularly in impoverished predominately Black and Latino communities. Between 2002 and the third quarter of 2014, 5 million New Yorkers were stopped and frisked; in any given year during this period between 82% and 90% of people stopped had committed no offense and just 9–12% of people stopped were Non-Hispanic White, though approximately 33% of New Yorkers were non-Hispanic White in 2010.(New York Civil Liberites Union, ND) Stop and frisks can be highly geographically concentrated: in a single 8-block area of a predominately Black and Latino neighborhood (home to just 14,000 people), the police conducted 52,000 stop and frisks over a four-year period; 94% of people stopped had committed no offense.( Fabricant, 2011 )

Participants in the qualitative study experienced these stop and frisks as a form of psychological violence. Relentless stop and frisks “for nothing” or for “no reason” (i.e., that did not result in arrest) were a primary source of concern for participants. According to participants, officers identified hotspots (i.e., spaces where drug activity occurred) and viewed anyone walking through that space as a possible criminal, often stopping and frisking them; these hotspots might be a corner, the path of sidewalk outside a bodega, or a stretch of sidewalk in front of an apartment house. Simple presence in these hotspots thus seemed to have precipitated “reasonable suspicion” for officers. The participants believed that the officers had usually correctly identified hotspots of drug activity; trouble arose, however, because these hotspots played many other roles in the lives of community residents. A resident might walk through a hotspot to reach the subway or pick up a child from school; a hotspot might be directly in front of the entrance to a local corner store, a laundromat, or the participant’s apartment building. Officers’ tendency to suspect all individuals who passed through hotspots thus led to many stop and frisks of people who were simply going about their daily (legal) lives. For many participants, the relentless stop and frisks for “no reason” became a routine and pernicious form of harassment.

Psychological violence also assumed other forms during these stops. During these stops officers might gratuitously insult participants, telling them to move their “black asses” or calling women “bitches.” When officers engaged in a sweep (i.e., stopping and searching all individuals who were in a hotspot at a given time) participants described being handcuffed and left on the sidewalk for a long time while they awaited their turn to be frisked. As a result of these stop and frisks “for nothing,” many participants – particularly non-using men and injectors – felt insecure whenever they were in the streets and public spaces of their neighborhood.

Physical and Sexual Violence

Challenges to The Posse Comitatus Act have led to the rapid growth of SWAT teams in civilian police departments. Only a handful of police departments had SWAT teams in the 1960s and 1970s.( Balko, 2006 ) By 1997, however, 89% of cities with populations >50,000 had at least one SWAT team, as did 70% of smaller cities.( Kraska & Cabellis, 1997 ; Kraska & Kappeler, 1997 ) SWAT teams are heavily armed with military-grade weapons.( Balko, 2006 ; Kraska & Kappeler, 1997 ) Between 1995 and 1997 alone, for example, the military transferred 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 tanks to local police departments and trained police officers in how to use this equipment.( Balko, 2006 )

The purpose of SWAT teams has evolved over time.( Nunn, 2002 ) Where they were once reserved to deal with hostage situations and terrorist attacks, their primary purpose now is to serve warrants for narcotics offenses, often low-level drug possession.( Balko, 2006 ; Nunn, 2002 ) SWAT teams are deployed approximately 40,000 times a year in the US.( Balko, 2006 ) These teams typically serve warrants late at night, when the target and the rest of his/her family/household are sleeping, and enter the home without warning (i.e., “no-knock warrants”).( Balko, 2006 ) During these nighttime raids, SWAT teams may be heavily armed and use battering rams to enter the home, diversionary grenades, and other urban warfare tactics.( Balko, 2006 ; Nunn, 2002 ) While police departments resist releasing data on SWAT team activities, an analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of the approximately 500 drug-related SWAT team events occurring between 2011–2012 for which they had data identified 7 deaths and 46 injuries.( American Civil Liberties Union, 2014 ) Notably, drugs were found in just 35% of SWAT drug raids analyzed by the ACLU, indicating that SWAT teams violently invade the homes of many innocent families.( American Civil Liberties Union, 2014 ) People living in households targeted by SWAT teams are disproportionately likely to be Black or Latino.( American Civil Liberties Union, 2014 ; Nunn, 2002 )

Returning to the findings from the qualitative study, stops and searches could also involve extensive gratuitous physical and sexual violence. By increasing the frequency of aggressive police/civilian interactions, stop and frisks increase the chances that violence will occur. This chance may be exacerbated if, consonant with the militarization of police departments, police officers have come to see civilians less as civilians they are charged to protect and more as the enemy.( Lynch, 2012 ; Meeks, 2006 ; Nunn, 2002 ) Moreover, when officers regularly treat civilians as enemies, civilians are less likely to comply with their orders, which may in turn further amplify violence.( Hinkle & Weisburd, 2008 ) Physical violence reported by participants in the qualitative study ranged from gratuitous kicks to beatings that broke ribs and teeth. Men who injected drugs reported the most extensive and frequent physical violence. Testifying to the questionable use of police force in these cases, none of the participants who described being beaten was arrested.

Participants in the qualitative study also experienced police-instigated sexual violence. Sexual violence arose in part out of an adaptive dynamic between officers and drug users. In response to the constant threat of a stop and frisk, drug users began storing drugs inside their underwear and inside their bodies, including in their rectums; officers in turn began to search civilians’ undergarments and rectums during stop and frisks in their effort to locate drugs. These extensive searches were humiliating for participants, particularly when they happened in public spaces where passersby could witness them.

Neglectful Violence

There are opportunity costs when officers dedicate extensive resources to stop and frisk activity to identify drugs: resources are shifted from other offenses to support these efforts. For example, analyses indicate that rates of property crimes and Index I violent crimes increase when officer attention and resources are diverted to War on Drugs efforts.( Benson, Leburn, & Rasmussen, 2001 ; Sollars, Benson, & Rasmussen, 1994 )

Data from the qualitative study also suggest that civilian-instigated violent crime may receive less attention when officers are concentrating on drug-related offenses. Participants lived in a precinct with a high rate of violent crimes relative to the city as a whole. Participants – both injectors and non-users – reported that officers often did not respond to civilian calls for help when civilians shot each other in public spaces, or that they responded too late to be of assistance. Women who called the police for help with intimate partner violence believed that the officers ignored their pleas for help. Another study has found that officers appear to believe that some level of violence is normative in impoverished predominately Black or Latino communities, and thus merits less aggressive intervention.( Brunson & Miller, 2006 )

Many participants in the qualitative study experienced these different kinds of violence – psychological, physical, sexual, and neglectful – as forms of racial/ethnic discrimination. Several noted that the officers treated them brutally and ignored their calls for help because they lived in a “ghetto” community where their lives simply mattered less.

Conclusions

War on Drugs policing tactics appear to increase police brutality, even as they make little progress in reducing street-level drug activity.( Baum, 1996 ; Bertram et al., 1996 ; Cooper et al., 2004 ; Gray, 2010 ; Tonry, 1994a ; Werb et al., 2011 ) In the wake of several recent police killings of Black men and boys, social movements are forming again to challenge aggressive police tactics, particularly those targeting Black communities.( Santora & Baker, 2014 ) Several states are also retreating from War on Drugs strategies, including reducing drug crime penalties.( Marcon, 2014 ) These are promising changes. One impactful way to reduce the damage caused by SWAT teams and stop and frisks is to restore the protections that were originally guaranteed by the 4 th Amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act. Legal and judicial actions to restore these rights, however, will take time. In the meantime, police departments can dismantle most of their SWAT teams, and return their remaining SWAT teams to their original purpose: intervening in hostage situations and terrorist attacks rather than in low-level nonviolent drug offenses. There is precedent for this: in 1996, for example, a sheriff in Wisconsin disbanded his SWAT teams to protect civilians.( Balko, 2006 ) Police chiefs can also direct officers to cease using stop and frisks; they discover few real criminals; fray relations between civilians and the police, particularly in poor, predominately Black and Latino communities; and generate considerable police violence.

Acknowledgments

Support for this work was provided by the grant “Place Characteristics & Disparities in HIV in IDUs: A multilevel analysis of NHBS” (DA035101; Principal Investigator: Cooper). Warmest thanks to Leo Beletsky for his important insights into an earlier draft of the paper.

Hannah LF Cooper, ScD . USA. Cooper is an Associate Professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education and in the Department of Epidemiology at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health. Much of her work is on the structural determinants of health, including drug use and HIV.

1 The reader is referred to a useful review about “cause and effect” underpinnings. Hills’s criteria for causation were developed in order to help assist researchers and clinicians determine if risk factors were causes of a particular disease or outcomes or merely associated. (Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: associations or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 295–300.). Editor’s note.

2 Jim Crow laws in southern states established de jure segregation of Blacks from Whites in public facilities and were instrumental in maintaining White supremacy after the fall of slavery.

3 To meet the probable cause standard, “…the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, [must be] sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed.” ( Brinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160, 1949).

• Adamson CR. Punishment after Slavery: Southern State Penal Systems, 1865–1890. Social Problems. 1983; 30 (5):555–569. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Civil Liberties Union. War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing. New York, New York: ACLU; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Balko R. Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary police raids in America. Washington DC: Cata Institute; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barlow DE, Hickman Barlow M. Racial profiling: A survey of African-American police officers. Police Quarterly. 2002; 5 (3):334–358. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass S. Policing space, policing race: Social control imperatives and police discretionary decisions. Social Justice. 2001; 28 (1):156–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum D. Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and The Politics of Failure. Waltham, MA: Little, Brown and Co; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bell D. Police Brutality Portation of Disaster and Discomforting Divergence. In: Nelson J, editor. Police Brutality: An Anthology. New York: WW Norton; 2000. pp. 88–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benson BL, Leburn IS, Rasmussen DW. The impact of drug enforcement on crime: An investigation of the opportunity cost of police resources. Journal of Drug Issues. 2001; 31 (4):989–1006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benson BL, Rasmussen DW, Sollars DL. Police bureaucracies, their incentives, and the war on drugs. Public Choice. 1995; 83 (1/2):21–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertram E, Blachman M, Sharpe K, Andreas P. Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial. California: University of California Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown LK. Officer or overseer?: Why police desegregation fails as an adequate solution to racist, oppressive, and violent policing in Black communities. NYU Review of Law and Social Change. 2005; 29 :757–795. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunson RK, Miller J. Gender, race, and urban policing: The experience of African-American Youths. Gender and Society. 2006; 20 (4):531–552. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bureau of Justice Statistics at the US Department of Justice. Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2011. Vol. July 2011, NCJ 23398. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper HL, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N. Characterizing police violence: Implications for public health. American Journal of Public Health. 2004; 94 :1109–1118. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper HL, Moore L, Gruskin S, Krieger N. The impact of a police drug crackdown on drug injectors’ ability to practice harm reduction: a qualitative study. Social Science & Medicine. 2005; 61 (3):673–684. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Courtwright D. Dark Paradise: A History of Opiate Addiction in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eitle D, Monohan S. Revisiting the racial threat thesis: The role of police organizational characteristics in predicting race-specific drug arrest rates. Justice Quarterly. 2009; 26 (3):528–561. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fabricant MC. War crimes and misdemeanors: Understanding “zero-tolerance” policing as a form of collective punishment and human rights violation. Drexel Law Review. 2011; 3 :373–414. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray J. Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed: A Judicial Indictment Of War On Drug. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinkle JU, Weisburd D. The irony of broken windows policing: A micro-place study of the relationship between disorder, focused police crackdowns and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2008; 36 :503–512. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson EL. “A menace to society:” The use of criminal profiles and its effects on Black males. Howard Law Journal. 1995; 38 :629–664. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelley RD. Slangin’ Rocks…Palestinian Style. In: Nelson J, editor. Police Brutality: An Anthology. New York: WW Norton; 2000. pp. 21–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerr T, Small W, Wood E. The public health and social impacts of drug market enforcement: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2005; 16 :210–220. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraska PB, Cabellis LJ. Militarizing Mayberry and beyond: Making sense of American paramilitary policing. Justice Quarterly. 1997; 14 (4):605–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraska PB, Kappeler VE. Militarizing American police: The rise and normalization of paramilitary units. Social Problems. 1997; 44 (1):1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krug E, Dahlberg L, Mercy J, Zwi A, Lozano R, editors. World Report on Violence and Health. World Health Organization; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynch M. Theorizing the role of the “war on drugs” in US punishment. Theoretical Criminology. 2012; 16 :175–199. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maher L, Dixon D. Policing and public health: Law enforcement and harm minimization in a street-level drug market. British Journal of Criminology. 1999; 39 (4):488–512. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marcon J. U.S. drug war slowly shifts fire away from low-level users. The Washington Post 2014 Mar 30; [ Google Scholar ]
• Meeks D. Police militarization in urban areas: The obscure war against the underclass. The Black Scholar. 2006; 35 (4):33–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Musto D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. 3. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• New York Civil Liberites Union. Stop and Frisk Data. ND Retrieved January 9 2015, 2015, from http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data .
• Nunn KB. UF Law Scholarship Repositoty. 1-1-2002. Florida: University of Florida Levin College of Law; 2002. Race, crime, and the pool of surplus criminality: Or why the “War on Drugs” was a “War on Blacks” [ Google Scholar ]
• powell ja, Hershenov EB. Hostage to the Drug War: The National Purse, the Constitution, and the Black Community. UC Davis Law Review. 1990; 24 :557–616. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie AJ, Mogul JL. In the shadows of the war on terror: Persistent police brutality and abuse of people of color in the United States. DePaul Journal for Social Justice. 2008; 1 (2):175–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Russell KK. “What did I do to be so Black and blue?” Police violence and the Black community. In: Nelson J, editor. Police Brutality: An Anthology. New York: WW Norton; 2000. pp. 135–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saleem O. The age of unreason: The impact of reasonableness, increased police force, and colorblindness on Terry “Stop and Frisk” Oklahoma Law Review. 1997; 50 (4):451–493. [ Google Scholar ]
• Santora M, Baker A. The New York Times. Dec 6, 2014. Unpredictable New York Protests, Organized Criticism of Police; p. 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman LW. Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. Crime and Justice. 1990; 12 :1–48. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman LW, Rogan DP, Edwards T, Whipple R, Shreve D, Witcher D, … Bridgeforth CA. Deterrent effects of police raids on crack houses: A randomized, controlled experiment. Justice Quarterly. 1995; 12 (4):755–781. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sollars DL, Benson BL, Rasmussen DW. Drug enforcement and deterrence of property crime among local jurisdictions. Public Finance Review. 1994; 22 :22–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• The Bureau of Justice Statistics of The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Drug and Crime Facts: Drug Law Violations: Enforcement. 2008 Retrieved January 8, 2015. 2015. from http://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/enforce.cfm .
• The National Institute of Justice. Police Use of Force. 2012 Jan 20; Retrieved January 8 2015, 2015, from http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/welcome.aspx .
• Tonry M. Race and the war on drugs. The University of Chicago Legal Forum. 1994a; 25 :25–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tonry M. Racial politics, racial disparities, and the war on crime. Crime & Delinquency. 1994b; 40 (4):475–494. [ Google Scholar ]
• Werb D, Rowell G, Guyatt G, Kerr T, Montaner J, Wood E. Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systematic review. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2011; 22 (2):87–94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wynn JR. Can Zero Tolerance last? Voices from inside the precinct. In: McArdle A, Erzen T, editors. Zero Tolerance: Quality of Life and the New Police Brutality in New York City. New York: New York University; 2001. pp. 107–126. [ Google Scholar ]

Is the war on drugs succeeding?

Drug use is down over the last 25 years, but a half million americans are in prison for drug offenses. how should success be measured.

America is either winning the war on drugs or losing it badly, depending on whom you ask.

The fact that the answers vary so widely raises the question, How should success or failure be measured? As part of its focus on crime and punishment, the Bulletin put that query to several HLS alumni who figure prominently in the national debate over drug policy, across the political spectrum.

Credit: John Goodman Ethan Nadelmann ’84 of the Drug Policy Alliance

For Ethan Nadelmann ’84, head of the Drug Policy Alliance, a New York City-based policy and lobbying group dedicated to a less punitive approach to drug policy, the answer lies in the social and economic costs of a strategy that he believes has put too many in jail or prison and done little to reduce the availability of drugs. Of the approximately 2 million people behind bars in the U.S., he notes, about 500,000 are there for drug-law violations–more than the total number of people jailed for all criminal offenses in Western Europe, although the U.S. has 100 million fewer people.

“If we’re lucky, our grandchildren will recall the global war on drugs of the late 20th and early 21st centuries as some bizarre mania,” says Nadelmann. “The true challenge is learning to live with drugs so that they cause the least harm. An effective strategy needs to establish realistic objectives and criteria for evaluating success or failure, and must focus on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug use and drug policies.”

Nadelmann and the DPA favor legalizing marijuana and treating it like alcohol–a commodity, he says, that’s taxed and regulated with prescribed minimum legal ages for use. Working primarily at the state level, Nadelmann and his group have been successful in a variety of ballot initiatives dealing with medical use of marijuana and treatment instead of incarceration (for nonviolent offenders charged with possession). The DPA’s single biggest victory, he says, has been the passage of California’s Proposition 36, in 2000, which requires treatment in place of incarceration for many drug possession offenders and has already kept close to 100,000 people from going to jail or prison. “We doubled money for drug treatment while simultaneously saving taxpayers money by reducing prison populations,” he notes. “We’re now taking that model around the rest of the country.”

Nadelmann has also been successful in pushing for needle-exchange programs, which now exist in nearly half the states. Neither Congress nor any presidential administration has taken federal action promoting such programs even though the public health world is nearly unanimous in its assessment that they significantly reduce the spread of HIV.

“At the state level, people have to deal with the fact that HIV and hepatitis are spreading; it’s going to add to hospital costs,” Nadelmann says. “They have to deal with the fact that building new prisons and new jails is a major cost. When you get to the national level in Washington, that’s where you see a lot more of the rhetoric, a lot more of the disregard for both the human cost and the fiscal cost of the policy.”

Credit: Kim Kulish/Corbis William Bennett ’71, drug czar under President George H.W. Bush

William Bennett ’71, drug czar under President George H.W. Bush, and secretary of education under President Reagan, takes a very different approach to measuring the success of national drug policy. “You measure [success] by overall, current drug use,” he argues. “Other good measures include city-by-city emergency room admission rates and [looking] to the culture–how is drug use depicted in the movies and in television?” By all of these yardsticks, he believes, the war on drugs declared by President Nixon more than 30 years ago is succeeding.

He points to a study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which shows that in 1999, 14.8 million Americans were drug users, down from the 1979 peak of 25 million users.

As drug czar, Bennett was a vehement advocate of the punitive approach, and he continues to support it today. He is untroubled by the number of people in prison for drug offenses. “Most people are in prison for multiple offenses, including illegal drug use,” he contends. “Some people plead down to a drug use conviction when a lot of other charges brought them to the prosecution in the first place. Very few people are in prison for drug use alone.”

Nevertheless, even Bennett believes that, for some offenders, penalties besides prison should be explored: “[We should] consider revoking privileges and licenses–drivers’ licenses, realty licenses–bar memberships and so on.”

Asked about proposals for decriminalizing marijuana use, Bennett answers emphatically: “No. Marijuana is the most abused drug because it is the most used drug. More children are in treatment for marijuana than for all other drugs.”

Rx for a public health problem

A public-private partnership at hls looks to limit illegal internet drug sales.

Recent studies show an alarming spike in illegal Internet sales of Vicodin, OxyContin and other highly addictive or dangerous drugs to teenagers who don’t have prescriptions.

Read more .

Somewhere between Nadelmann and Bennett is Joseph A. Califano Jr. ’55, President Carter’s secretary of health, education and welfare and currently the chairman and president of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Like Bennett, Califano believes that decriminalization of drugs is a dangerous idea and that the criminal justice system must continue to handle drug users with a firm hand. But he has opposed some of the tough mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses and says we can do much better in prevention through education.

Legalization or decriminalization, he believes, would make drugs more available to children, and overall use would increase.

“Marijuana is particularly harmful to children and young teens,” Califano said in a written statement to the Bulletin. “It can impair short-term memory and ability to maintain attention span; it inhibits intellectual, social and emotional development, just when young people are learning in school. [There is] a powerful statistical correlation between using marijuana and use of other drugs such as heroin and cocaine.” Twelve- to 17-year-0lds who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not, he says.

“Legalizing drugs not only is playing Russian roulette with children,” Califano said. “It is slipping a couple of extra bullets into the chamber.”

Drug policy, he believes, should focus on initiatives such as neighborhood- and school-based programs aimed at high-risk 8- to 13-year-olds. He also favors outreach programs specifically tailored to particular categories of people who may abuse substances for very different reasons and in very different patterns, such as mothers on welfare, families torn by domestic abuse, families living in public housing, college students and people with HIV.

He sees the medical marijuana initiatives, the push for reduced sentences and the needle-exchange programs as vehicles to pave the way for the reformers’ true goal: broad drug legalization.

But Nadelmann rejects the claim that decriminalization of marijuana is a Trojan horse for a broader legalization agenda. With regard to decriminalizing other drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines, he says, “A majority of my organization and my board and the drug-policy reform movement as a whole are basically very cautious. We basically don’t support that.” But, he adds, he and his group support an elimination of prison time or severe punishment for possession of small quantities for personal use.

He also believes that opinion polls are “trending our way.” Majorities of Americans now favor decriminalization of marijuana, treatment instead of incarceration for many drug offenses, elimination of police asset-forfeiture powers and needle-exchange programs, he says.

Maybe so, but few national politicians have jumped on the bandwagon. One who has is Kurt Schmoke ’76, who, as mayor of Baltimore from 1987 to 1999, argued for decriminalization of marijuana and for a radical rethinking of national drug policy. The war on drugs, Schmoke has said, is America’s “domestic Vietnam.”

“The problem of substance abuse is more a public health problem than a criminal justice problem,” he says. “The drug traffickers can be beaten and the public health of the United States can be improved if we are willing to substitute common sense for rhetoric, myth and blind persistence,” he wrote. Schmoke worked with Nadelmann in developing a needle-exchange program in Baltimore when he was mayor. Are such programs making a difference?

“I think they are,” Schmoke says. “But it’s simply a long and difficult process because there are some people who believe that it’s just morally wrong. Forget whether the war on drugs is actually effective or not; they would say that it’s morally wrong to legalize drugs that are currently illegal.”

Perhaps the best-known spokesman for that view is Bennett, who is buoyed by a recent study showing a slight dip in drug use among high school students. “People should associate drug use with a penalty,” he maintains. “We need an unambiguous message.”

Dick Dahl contributed to this story.

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Op-Ed Contributors

The Failed War on Drugs

By George P. Shultz and Pedro Aspe

• Dec. 31, 2017

The war on drugs in the United States has been a failure that has ruined lives, filled prisons and cost a fortune. It started during the Nixon administration with the idea that, because drugs are bad for people, they should be difficult to obtain. As a result, it became a war on supply.

As first lady during the crack epidemic, Nancy Reagan tried to change this approach in the 1980s. But her “Just Say No” campaign to reduce demand received limited support.

Over the objections of the supply-focused bureaucracy, she told a United Nations audience on Oct. 25, 1988: “If we cannot stem the American demand for drugs, then there will be little hope of preventing foreign drug producers from fulfilling that demand. We will not get anywhere if we place a heavier burden of action on foreign governments than on America’s own mayors, judges and legislators. You see, the cocaine cartel does not begin in Medellín, Colombia. It begins in the streets of New York, Miami, Los Angeles and every American city where crack is bought and sold.”

Her warning was prescient, but not heeded. Studies show that the United States has among the highest rates of drug use in the world. But even as restricting supply has failed to curb abuse, aggressive policing has led to thousands of young drug users filling American prisons, where they learn how to become real criminals.

The prohibitions on drugs have also created perverse economic incentives that make combating drug producers and distributors extremely difficult. The high black-market price for illegal drugs has generated huge profits for the groups that produce and sell them, income that is invested in buying state-of-the-art weapons, hiring gangs to defend their trade, paying off public officials and making drugs easily available to children, to get them addicted.

Drug gangs, armed with money and guns from the United States, are causing bloody mayhem in Mexico, El Salvador and other Central American countries. In Mexico alone, drug-related violence has resulted in over 100,000 deaths since 2006. This violence is one of the reasons people leave these countries to come to the United States.

Add it all up and one can see that focusing on supply has done little to curtail drug abuse while causing a host of terrible side effects. What, then, can we do?

First the United States and Mexican governments must acknowledge the failure of this strategy. Only then can we engage in rigorous and countrywide education campaigns to persuade people not to use drugs.

The current opioid crisis underlines the importance of curbing demand. This approach, with sufficient resources and the right message, could have a major impact similar to the campaign to reduce tobacco use.

We should also decriminalize the small-scale possession of drugs for personal use, to end the flow of nonviolent drug addicts into the criminal justice system. Several states have taken a step in this direction by decriminalizing possession of certain amounts of marijuana. Mexico’s Supreme Court has also declared that individuals should have the right to grow and distribute marijuana for their personal use. At the same time, we should continue to make it illegal to possess large quantities of drugs so that pushers can be prosecuted and some control over supply maintained.

Finally, we must create well-staffed and first-class treatment centers where people are willing to go without fear of being prosecuted and with the confidence that they will receive effective care. The experience of Portugal suggests that younger people who use drugs but are not yet addicted can very often be turned around. Even though it is difficult to get older addicted people off drugs, treatment programs can still offer them helpful services.

With such a complicated problem, we should be willing to experiment with solutions. Which advertising messages are most effective? How can treatment be made effective for different kinds of drugs and different degrees of addiction? We should have the patience to evaluate what works and what doesn’t. But we must get started now.

As these efforts progress, profits from the drug trade will diminish greatly even as the dangers of engaging in it will remain high. The result will be a gradual lessening of violence in Mexico and Central American countries.

We have a crisis on our hands — and for the past half-century, we have been failing to solve it. But there are alternatives. Both the United States and Mexico need to look beyond the idea that drug abuse is simply a law-enforcement problem, solvable through arrests, prosecution and restrictions on supply. We must together attack it with public health policies and education.

We still have time to persuade our young people not to ruin their lives.

George P. Shultz, a former secretary of the Treasury and secretary of state, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Pedro Aspe is a former secretary of finance in Mexico.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter .

The Legacy of Nixon’s War on Drugs: Impacts and Controversies

This essay about Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs critically examines the initiative launched during his presidency in 1971, which aimed to combat drug use through increased law enforcement, prevention, and treatment. The essay discusses the policy’s substantial impacts on U.S. society, particularly its role in significantly increasing incarcerations with a disproportionate effect on African American and Latino communities, thereby exacerbating social inequalities. It also explores the international consequences of the policy, including the pressure it placed on other countries to adopt similar measures, leading to violence and destabilization. Furthermore, the essay critiques the shift in focus from rehabilitation to punitive measures and the resulting stigma against drug users. It concludes by arguing for a reassessment of past approaches and the adoption of more compassionate and effective strategies that address the underlying causes of drug use and addiction.

How it works

Richard Nixon’s presidency is often remembered for a variety of reasons, but one of the most significant initiatives he launched was the so-called “War on Drugs.” This policy, which was formally declared in 1971, marked a substantial shift in the approach of the United States government towards the regulation and control of drug use. It not only shaped the legal landscape of America but also left a lasting impact on the nation’s social fabric and its communities.

Nixon’s War on Drugs was prompted by a growing concern over the rise in drug use in the 1960s, particularly among the youth and soldiers in Vietnam.

The policy aimed to reduce the illegal drug trade by introducing harsher penalties for drug offenders. It focused on three major components: treatment, prevention, and law enforcement. However, despite its intentions, the policy has been widely criticized for its execution and the consequences it engendered.

One of the most significant effects of the War on Drugs has been the massive increase in incarcerations in the United States, particularly of African American and Latino communities. The policy led to a zero-tolerance approach, where small offenses related to drug possession could result in long prison sentences. Critics argue that this approach has not effectively deterred drug use but has instead contributed to an overburdened prison system and exacerbated social inequalities. It has disproportionately impacted minority communities, leading to accusations of racial bias and discrimination.

Moreover, the War on Drugs has had international ramifications. The United States exerted considerable pressure on other countries to adopt similar drug policies, which has often led to militarized approaches in nations such as Colombia and Mexico. The focus on eradication and interdiction in these countries has spurred violence and destabilization without significantly reducing the availability of drugs in the U.S. market. This international aspect of the War on Drugs has prompted widespread debate about the efficacy and morality of exporting the U.S. anti-drug agenda.

On the treatment front, while Nixon initially promoted increased resources for helping addicts recover, the emphasis gradually shifted more towards punitive measures rather than rehabilitation. The funding imbalance between prevention and enforcement has been a point of criticism by public health experts who argue that addiction is better addressed as a public health issue rather than a criminal one. There is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness of punitive measures versus more supportive and treatment-oriented approaches.

The War on Drugs also played a role in shaping public perceptions of drug use and users. It often stigmatized users as moral failures or dangerous criminals, rather than individuals who might need medical assistance or social support. This stigma has persisted, making it difficult for many to seek help and contributing to the continuation of drug-related problems in many communities.

In conclusion, while the War on Drugs was intended to curb the drug problem in the United States, it has had far-reaching and often deleterious effects on both domestic and international levels. The policy has been marked by an increase in incarcerations, racial disparities, international conflicts, and a stigmatization of drug users. As we move forward, it is crucial to reassess the approaches taken in the past and consider more holistic and compassionate strategies that address the root causes of drug use and addiction. The lessons learned from Nixon’s initiative can guide future policies to be more effective and just, aiming for a balanced approach that combines law enforcement with robust treatment and prevention strategies.

Cite this page

The Legacy of Nixon's War on Drugs: Impacts and Controversies. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-legacy-of-nixons-war-on-drugs-impacts-and-controversies/

"The Legacy of Nixon's War on Drugs: Impacts and Controversies." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-legacy-of-nixons-war-on-drugs-impacts-and-controversies/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Legacy of Nixon's War on Drugs: Impacts and Controversies . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-legacy-of-nixons-war-on-drugs-impacts-and-controversies/ [Accessed: 15 May. 2024]

"The Legacy of Nixon's War on Drugs: Impacts and Controversies." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 15, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-legacy-of-nixons-war-on-drugs-impacts-and-controversies/

"The Legacy of Nixon's War on Drugs: Impacts and Controversies," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-legacy-of-nixons-war-on-drugs-impacts-and-controversies/. [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Legacy of Nixon's War on Drugs: Impacts and Controversies . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-legacy-of-nixons-war-on-drugs-impacts-and-controversies/ [Accessed: 15-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Civil Rights and Liberties

Reading: vox cards: the war on drugs.

How should we think about individual liberty and the ongoing war on drugs? Investigate this question by reading through the Vox “cards” here . 

• Text. Provided by : Lumen Learning and SBCTC. License : CC BY: Attribution

Privacy Policy

Is the war on drugs back on? | The Excerpt podcast

On Sunday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: It's been just over 50 years since President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs. Since then, drug policy at the state level has mostly been progressing toward legalization, embracing liberal attitudes that aim to destigmatize drug use. But that experiment may soon be drawing to a close. In the wake of surging overdose deaths, Oregon has recently moved to recriminalize drug use and possession. Are we back to square one? Kassandra Frederique, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, joins The Excerpt to argue that policy makers simply didn't put the right safeguards in place.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it.  This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts:  True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

President George H. W. Bush:

All of us agree that the gravest domestic threat facing our nation today is drugs. Drugs have strained our faith in our system of justice. Our courts, our prisons, our legal system are stretched to the breaking point. The social costs of drugs are mounting. In short, drugs are sapping our strength as a nation.

Dana Taylor:

That was then President George HW Bush speaking in his first televised address from the Oval Office back on September 5th, 1989. Fast-forward 35 years, and a lot has changed with regards to how we view drug use, but have we really evolved our policy since then? Hello and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. In 2020, voters in Oregon approved Measure 110, making it the first state in the US to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs.

Today, the Oregon legislature has just passed a bill to reinstate criminal penalties for drug possession. Does the demise of Measure 110 signal a return to America's war on drugs? Here to discuss Oregon's Measure 110 and drug decriminalization is Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the leading organization in the US, working to end the drug war. Thanks for joining me, Kassandra.

 Kassandra Frederique:

Thank you so much for having me, Dana.

Measure 110, also known as the DATRA, the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, was a significant win for drug decriminalization advocates. How did the drug policy shift in Oregon following its passage?

When Measure 110 passed, the point of it was to end the horrors of criminalization. So stopping the arresting of people with drug possession, because people recognized that arresting people for drug possession was not actually going to get people connected to the resources that they had or the resources that they needed. So when the measure passed, I think it had a rocky start in implementation, but the data and the research has shown that Measure 110 prevented tens of thousands of Oregonians from being shuttled into a horrific criminal legal system.

What we found, despite the rocky start of implementation that was created by the Oregonian bureaucracy, is that people did get connected to care. So in the first six months of implementation, Measure 110 increased services by 44%. It also improved the quality of care with 100% increase of people actually gaining access to everything from peer support to harm reduction services. And this includes 143% increase in people accessing substance use disorder treatment, as well as 296% increase in people accessing housing services, which was one of the biggest issues that people struggled with while Measure 110 was being implemented.

Your organization, the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance, has said that Measure 110 has been scapegoated by drug war advocates. How so?

So, so much of what Oregonians express frustration around were the conditions on the street. There was chronic homelessness that was exploding. There was a density population of unsheltered individuals. There was a lot of public drug use. And people made the connection to Measure 110, despite the fact that a lot of the issues and conditions that people were witnessing on the street and experiencing were a result of decades of inaction around housing.

It was about the fact that in the larger country, fentanyl, which is a more fast-acting opioid, has just made it to the West Coast, including Oregon, and that, in general, people's ability to get access to support has long been hindered by the lack of infrastructure in Oregon. And when I say the lack of infrastructure of support, Measure 110's purpose was to supplement the Oregon infrastructure.

However, what we learned was that decades of divestment in that infrastructure, as well as the Oregon Health Authority not listening to advocates about ways to improve the citation process, the ways that they needed to increase training for law enforcement about what Measure 110 did and what it didn't do, made it really difficult and confusing for Oregonians to actually see what was in front of them.

According to the CDC, in the 12 months ending January of 2020, there were 621 overdose deaths reported in Oregon. Then in the 12 months ending January of 2023, there were 1,431 overdose deaths reported, a significant increase. Is it fair to tie that increase to the passage of Measure 110?

Absolutely not. And in fact, it's not just advocates that are saying that. RTI actually came out with a study, and they're not the only ones, that they looked at the same period. What they found was that there was not a shred of evidence that showed that Measure 110 actually increased crime, increased homelessness, or increase the overdose rate.

What people are attributing that astronomical increase to is the introduction of fentanyl into the West Coast drug supply. And we know this to be true because the pattern of growth that Oregon is experiencing is similar to the pattern of growth that we saw on the East Coast, in places like New York and Massachusetts, when fentanyl entered its drug supply. And so part of the thing that it's important to disentangle is that Measure 110 was coming into implementation at the same time that the Oregon drug supply was changing.

You mentioned RTI. Who is RTI?

RTI is a research institution that held a conference a few months ago that looked at all the issues around implementation. They're also one of the academic institutions that is running an evaluation on Measure 110, about what worked and what didn't work.

Measure 110 was also enacted, as you've said, to address concerns related to incarceration rates for people of color. What kind of movement have you seen there?

So here, one of the things that the Oregon officials that focus on criminal justice statistics have said is that the recriminalization of drug possession will increase the amount of Oregonians of color that are incarcerated, or arrested, or engaged by the criminal legal system. And so this is something that continues to be an area of concern for us because part of the impetus for pushing the end of criminalization or ending the arrest was because of the historic disproportionate law enforcement engagement in communities of color, specifically that of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx Oregonians.

I know that funding from marijuana tax revenue was allocated to expand access to addiction treatment services. Have any of those programs been successful?

You're seeing a 296% increase in people getting access to housing services. That would not have occurred outside of Measure 110. The money that people are able to put into these services have been really important. And I think you know that because when the conversation of recriminalization came up, everyone, all the elected officials said that that funding has to remain in place.

Kassandra, is there any argument that substance abuse became more visible in Oregon, particularly in the Portland area, after Measure 110 passed?

I think this is a great conversation. Public drug use happens because people usually don't have access to shelter or a home. Most people who use drugs have homes and don't use drugs in the street, and most people who are unhoused don't use drugs. There is a growing population of people who are unhoused, who are using drugs in the street, and the preeminent factor in that public drug use is that they don't have a home. And so I think if you're looking at the history of how homelessness rose in this time because of the eviction laws that were passed, because of the COVID eviction moratorium protections that were lifted during this time, you'll see that the unsheltered population rose, and those that are struggling and using drugs to cope with being unsheltered became more public and more visible. And those issues can't be attributed to Measure 110. They're attributed to the longstanding issues in Oregon around homelessness.

I want to turn now to the legalization of drugs versus the decriminalization was passed with Measure 110. You've advocated for legalization. What do you see as the upside of that?

I think in the moment that we're in right now, where our drug supply is continuously changing with more fast acting drugs, more powerful drugs, drugs that we have less scientific research around, it makes it more difficult for us to actually support people when the drug supply is shifting and shifting faster than we had in past years. And so, the conversation around the regulation of drugs is really about stabilizing the drug supply so that we can create the supports for people who use drugs.

In 1970, President Nixon signed the CSA, the Controlled Substances Act, into law. Was the signing of that act the beginning of the war on drugs.

The signing of the CSA was not the beginning of the war on drugs. Unfortunately, the war on drugs globally has been going on for a very long time. And in the United States, the first evidence of it here is in the late 1800s in California, where we passed the first drug laws, in part as a political tool to control Chinese migrants who had been working on the railroad. And so, we have had a long-standing strategy around drug criminalization and drug prohibition that has honestly set up the situation that we're in today.

What do you see as the specific failures of the war on drugs?

The war on drugs, as we see it, has really focused on criminalization. And that criminalization is not just something that we see in our criminal legal system. That strategy of criminalization, of surveillance, of stigma has infiltrated all our systems, and it's made it more difficult for us to give access to support for people who need it. It's also heavily relied on the legal system, which has incurred incredible amounts of incarceration, criminalization, deportation.

It's also really ripped apart families. People often don't speak to the ways that children are taken away from their parents, forcing other loved ones to be caretakers, and the disruption that is happening in the psychic impacts of what that looks like. And I think most urgently what we're seeing now is that our strategy of prohibition has made the drug supply more toxic and made it more difficult to manage, which has made it even more difficult for us to create the healthcare infrastructure to support people who are struggling with their use.

The Drug Policy Alliance has spent the last two decades in the pursuit of alternatives to criminalization. How do we stem the tide on the abuse of drugs like fentanyl?

Part of the things that we really need to focus on is what are the supports that are necessary for people? How are we giving people access to public education about fentanyl? How are we giving public education about all drugs? How we're giving public education around testing materials, giving people the opportunity to have testing materials so that they can know what is in their drug supply before they use them. How are we increasing access to different kinds of addiction services? So not just inpatient and outpatient treatment, as people traditionally have known. But what are the additional supports that can lead to someone stabilizing their use? And I think we have to look at our healthcare system, which has also really been impacted.

Kassandra, as you know, there are people who are opposed to Measure 110 and have been since the beginning. What do you see as the path forward that will benefit all of the communities that are grappling with drug addiction and the people living there?

I think we have to remind people that criminalization is not an appropriate way to deal with drug use. We know that because overdose has gone up in the hundredfold inside jails and prisons. We know that because when people come out of a jail in prison, they are 27 times more likely than the general public to have an overdose. People are frustrated, and I can appreciate that. I'm frustrated as well. My family members are frustrated with that as well. I'm living in the same wall that everyone else is, I'm experiencing the same wall that everyone else is, and I just truly believe that criminalization is not a pathway forward for us to get the things that we say that we want.

Kassandra, thank you for being on The Excerpt.

Thank you for having me.

Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Bradley Glanzrock, for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to [email protected]. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Is the war on drugs back on? | The Excerpt podcast