WordPress.com



The War on DrugsRichard WorrellLiberty UniversityAbstractThis paper gives five problems that are created by the American war on drugs. The author argues that the war on drugs criminalized minor offenders, contributes to prison overcrowding, contributes to unreasonable security measures in public schools, creates black market crime, and drains American tax dollars. The author gives a brief overview of the history of substance prohibition in America and the historical effects that resulted from alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. The author uses these five problems to make a cumulative case against the war on drugs and advocate the reformation of substance prohibition legislation.OutlineIntroductionA brief history of prohibition in America and the federal “War on Drugs”What does history tell us about the effectiveness of substance prohibition?Justice for All?How the War on Drugs criminalizes minor offendersHow the War on Drugs creates prison overcrowdingAnother Brick in The WallHow the war on drugs has transformed American high schools into dystopian police-state facilitiesGangster’s Paradise A. How the War on Drugs has transformed American streets into black a market playground1. The influences/effects of illegal immigration2. Mexican drug cartels3. Foreign policy and border patrol V. Money For Nothing A. How the War on Drugs strains American tax dollars VI. ConclusionThe War on DrugsOn January 29, 1919, the United States of America passed the Eighteenth Amendment and forever changed – for better or for worse – the attitude toward substance abuse in this country. The Eighteenth Amendment didn’t just prohibit the consumption, sale, and distribution of alcohol - it was a statement. It was the manifestation of the idea that ultimately, government could solve the social problems of society, whether by legislation or force - or by both. What began as a noble sentiment to rid the West of alcoholism soon became a Frankenstein monster. Ron Paul, a former Republican congressman from Texas writes, “Alcohol prohibition was destined to wreak havoc on the American people. It bred lawlessness and underworld criminal syndicates, which made huge profits. Prohibiting any desired substance inevitably leads to a black market, as history has shown countless times, and never achieves its goal of eliminating the use. Since ingredients were no longer available, the quality of the alcohol produced by bootleggers led to blindness and death. That was in addition to the many who lost their lives in the violence that occurred in its delivery, just as is happening today in the war on drugs. The appetite for alcohol remained strong despite the effort of the government to enforce its prohibition.” (p. 226-227) After over a decade of violence, crime, and continued abuse of alcohol, the Prohibition years came to an end in 1933. In one sense, it appears an obvious lesson of American history that substance prohibition simply doesn’t work. However, the issue continues to be debated and the question still seems to linger – does prohibition work? In the 1920’s, only alcohol was prohibited. Today, there are dozens of substances that are prohibited on local, state, and federal levels from consumption, sale, or distribution. Even though the 1920’s seemed to teach an obvious lesson, it seems that we as a nation have slept through history class. The same problems that arose in the twenties from prohibition are alive and well today, and are in many ways worse. It is time to wake up from our classroom nap, and begin taking notes. Substance prohibition has failed.Justice For All?The war on drugs throws a wrench into the justice system. One of the most immediately obvious consequences of substance prohibition is the imprisonment and punishment of offenders for using, selling, or distributing any substance that has been deemed illegal. It is common to hear proponents of prohibition argue from the moral premise of “the good of society” in order to justify the war on drugs. Like alcohol prohibition in the twenties, legislation of narcotics use began with the goal of protecting the people from a perceived threat. However, the practice of imprisoning those who use and sell certain substances seems to beg several questions. A study on prison recidivism showed that over 67% of drug offenders released back into society were re-arrested for drug-related crimes as well as other crimes within 3 years of their release (Langan & Levin, p. 63). It has become obvious through the years that once offenders are arrested for drug-related crimes, they often become a perpetual bi-product of the criminal justice system. James Nolan, a criminal justice philosopher writes, “We have little difficulty explaining why the state punishes murderers, rapists and thieves. But why do we punish people simply for using drugs? The very existence of the criminal offense of drug use cries out for a justifying rationale. What can it be?” (p. 504). If substance prohibition laws exist to protect Americans from the dangers of drugs, then why do lawmakers subject drug offenders to the grueling prison system, which all too often acts as a criminal manufacturing machine? Why is rehabilitation not a more focused goal?However dangerous narcotics and other substances may be, the demand for them remains high. This is not a problem that can be solved through legislation. This is a social problem, and no piece of legislation will ever change the hearts of the people. America is all about the freedom to choose and be responsible for our actions, and it is the responsibility of the people, not the government, to care for our own health and decide what will go into our bodies. And it is for that reason that it doesn’t seem necessary or productive to lock up drug users behind the same bars as murderers and rapists.On top of the problem of unfair punishment for drug offenders, the criminal justice system has become increasingly burdened by the full capacity of prisons all across America. Giertz and Nardulli write, “Prisons are overcrowded. In almost every state, the prison population exceeds the capacity for which the prison system was designed.” (p. 71). Although these researchers attribute the problem of prison overcrowding to longer sentences and the “misalignment of responsibilities between local and state governments”, it is no doubt that the war on drugs has contributed profoundly to this problem. When prisons are overcrowded, they do not function as they should, and justice is not fully served. Because of the high recidivism rates of drug offenders, drug prohibition only feeds the problem of overcrowded prisons. This goes without mentioning the economic costs of enforcing and imprisoning drug-related crimes and offenders, which will be discussed later in this paper. Another Brick in The WallMany American adults couldn’t fathom a day when George Orwell’s 1984 would come to describe American life. But for many teenagers, Orwell’s dystopia has become an every-day reality in the high school halls of America. Over the last 20 years, the combination of school shootings and “zero-tolerance” policies have transformed high schools from learning facilities into high-security fortresses, clad with surveillance cameras and metal detectors. The need for parents to feel as though their children are safe is an understandable desire. But at what point does security invade the rights of students?On the morning of November 5, 2003, students at Stratford High School in South Carolina were faced with a common bi-product of the relationship between school security and the war on drugs – a police search raid. This particular police raid was, however, particularly fierce. Operating under the suspicion of illegal drug activity in the school, the school’s principal enlisted the help of local police. Shortly before the bell rang for class, a police SWAT team armed with assault rifles and K-9 search dogs closed off the main hallway, trapping over 100 students. Each student in the hall was searched, at gunpoint, and screamed at by law enforcement officers. After over a half an hour, no drugs were found, and no arrests were made (Anonymous, p. 12).Likewise, many schools across America employ the use of mandatory drug testing on random students (Fuentes, p.105). However, Fuentes writes, “Like all components of the Lockdown High model of school safety and discipline, student drug testing is predicated on hype and distortion. In this case, it’s the view that illegal drug use is epidemic among young people. The reality is different and more nuanced. Drug and alcohol use and abuse are harmful and have harmful consequences for thousands of people – young and adult – but among young people they are affected by myriad factors, including societal attitudes. Their substance use has been on a downward trend for years. ” (p.111). It is surprising what lengths parents and teachers will go to in order to feel that their children are secure. But it’s even more surprising when the research shows that our methods are failing. Fuentes points out that despite the 1.2 billion dollars spent by the government from 1999 to 2004 on anti-drug advertising campaigns that were targeted at teens, a study of the ad campaign in 2006 showed that the advertisements produced no significant favorable effects, and in fact made teens more likely to believe that drug use was normative. (p. 113, 114).What began with the good intention of keeping our youth off of drugs has snowballed into a disaster. Our schools now more closely resemble totalitarian nations than products of a democratic society. It is as if for 13 years of our children’s lives, we ship them off to a dictatorial nation, and then when they graduate we expect them to be functional members of a free society. The war on drugs has turned our schools into unlikely battlefields, and in the end, nothing is gained and the liberties of students are violated. Gangster’s ParadiseOne of the most obvious lessons from the prohibition years was that the prohibition of alcohol combined with its high demand was a disastrous combination. In the long run, the criminals’ wallets became thicker and those who wanted alcohol still got it. This is true today of the war on drugs. Because of the high demand for narcotics and other illegal drugs, their prohibition has created a multi-billion dollar black market. Ron Paul comments, “Ironically, the two strongest groups that want to maintain the status quo of prohibition are the drug dealers and many Christian conservatives – two groups with opposite motivations but who share a common interest in keeping the drug war going.” (p. 228). Supply and demand is a basic economic concept, and it is not an easily interrupted process. As the twenties proved, government intervention only threw gasoline on the fire of unquenchable demand. Those who want will get, regardless of the law, and the dealers and distributors know this better than anyone. The black market that is created by prohibition also results in much violence. In inner cities, gang-violence is often fueled by competing dealers and market territories. On the Mexican-American border, lives are lost attempting to smuggle narcotics across the border. There is much motivation for illegal immigrants to come to America besides the opportunities afforded to them by the American government. Mexican drug cartels, who often are already dangerous criminals prior to crossing the border, find American streets to be a more-than-suitable place to set up shop. Researches who have explored the relationship between illegal drugs and Hispanic gang violence have written, “The use and selling of drugs has been persistently documented to be associated with the violent lifestyle of Mexican-American gang members as it has with that of other ethnic groups.” (Cepeda, Kaplan, & Valdez , 2006).Additionally, the relationship between the domestic war on drugs and American foreign policy is striking. It is interesting that despite our military being the strongest in the world and having bases in over 130 countries worldwide, domestic border patrol continues to be problematic. The steady flow of smuggled drugs from Mexico and Cuba continue to pollute American streets, and yet our military dollars are spent policing the world and installing governments abroad. One needn’t be a military strategist to conclude that our southern border requires military attention, that is, if our government is serious about controlling the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into our country. American military attempts to control the trafficking of drugs abroad have likewise resulted in failure, or at best, counter-productivity. One researcher has commented, “..US efforts to reduce the illicit supply of cocaine and heroin through interdiction and eradication are ineffective and sometimes counterproductive. Moreover, US drug policy has a harmful effect on human rights, human health, democratic accountability, and the environment, to mention just a few negative repercussions of Washington’s coercive stance. Given the ineffectiveness and “collateral damage” of US foreign drug policies, it is essential to consider alternative policies.” (Friesendorf, 2007, p. 179).Money For NothingWith a mounting 16 trillion dollar debt, one of the worst ways that drug prohibition affects America is economically. It is estimated that since 1988, the United States has spent roughly 30 billion dollars per year on drug war expenses at the local state and federal levels, and in 2011, President Obama’s requested budget for federal drug control was 15.5 billion dollars (McNamara, p. 71). But it seems that after all the money that’s been invested into controlling our drug problem, drugs have become even easier to get than ever before. Production of heroin and cocaine are at an all-time high, and 80-90 percent of drugs are smuggled across our borders go undetected (McNamara, p. 71). McNamara, a proponent of drug policy reform writes, “The vast markets resulting from prohibition – a markup as great as 17,000 percent – have led to worldwide corruption of public officials and widespread violence among drug traffickers and dealers that endanger whole communities, cities, and nations.” (p. 71). It seems that the war on drugs is a war we can no longer afford to fight, especially when it yields so few positive results. As mentioned earlier, substance prohibition creates black markets, and black markets create crime. We cannot continue to pump taxpayer dollars into the vicious circle of supply and demand. ConclusionWhile drug use and abuse continues to be a costly societal problem, it is not a problem that has been slowed down by prohibition. This should have been an obvious lesson from the 1920s. Prohibition did not stop the demand for alcohol in the twenties, just like prohibition has not stopped the demand for illicit drugs today. This paper has examined 5 different ways in which the American war on drugs has failed. The first failure of the war on drugs is the way in which it criminalizes offenders. Too often, non-violent drug offenders are arrested, charged, and convicted, only to be thrown into a perpetual lifestyle pattern of crime and incarceration. The second way in which prohibition fails is an extension of the first – because of the high recidivism rates of drug offenders, already over-crowded prisons do not have the space or the resources to house drug-related criminals. Thirdly, the war on drugs has negatively affected our school systems, and subsequently, our youth. Because of unreasonable security measures in high schools, the constitutional rights of our youth are often violated by drug searches and mandatory drug testing. Additionally, the efforts of the government to educate and encourage our children not to use drugs have had an opposite effect. The fourth failure of the war on drugs is its creation of a black market and its contribution to gang violence and illegal immigration. Because of the increased demand for illicit drugs, prohibition has transformed American streets into playgrounds for black markets and dangerous criminals. The final effect of the war on drugs is its economic cost. Year after year, billions of dollars are spent enforcing drug laws that have proven faulty. The war on drugs is a war that America can no longer afford to fight.Even though the intentions behind prohibition may be good, in the end, prohibition creates more problems than it solves. It simply is not the role of the government, whether local, state, or federal, to solve a problem that is largely social in nature. No legislation can change the desires of men. Benjamin Franklin once wrote “Anyone who is willing to give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither and loses both”. The government has the responsibility to protect its people, but ultimately, each person must be responsible for his or her own body. And it is for that reason that the war on drugs should be reformed or altogether ended.ReferencesAnonymous (2004). Jesse Jackson Protests Police Drug Raid in South Carolina. Jet, 105, 2, 12-13.Cepeda, A. , Kaplan, C., & Valdez, A. (2006). The Drugs-Violence Nexus Among Mexican-American Gang Members. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 38, 2, 109-121.Friesendorf, Cornelius. (2007). US Foreign Policy and the War on Drugs. New York: Routledge.Fuentes, A. (2011). Lockdown High: When the Schoolhouse Becomes a Jailhouse. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books.Giertz, F. , & Nardulli, P. (1985) Prison Overcrowding. Public Choice, 46, 1, 71.Langan, P. & Levin, D. (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 15, 1, 58-65McNamara, J. (2011). The Hidden Costs of America’s War on Drugs. Journal of Private Enterprise, 26, 2, 97-115. Paul, R. (2011). Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. New York: Grand Central Publishing. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download