A government's approach to drug policy is very important to drug users, suppliers, and drug addiction rehabilitation’s professionals. In the United States, the ethnic majority-minority shift is going to affect what the government's approach will be in the future. Views on drug policy vary dramatically among Americans, especially along ethnicity and race lines. Data indicates that the United States' “War on Drugs” has disproportionately targeted minority populations, especially Black and Hispanic communities.
Research shows that those members of the minorities tend to oppose the United States' current drug policy as they view the policy as punitive and unjust. Many states have already started to reform their individual drug policies, notably many states that have already undergone a majority-minority demographic shift. On the federal level, however, progress has been very slow so far. In the near future, however, the ethnic majority-minority shift will contribute to the softening of the United States’ drug policy (Sharp 112). This will contribute to economic growth and an increase in well-being as funding currently spent on the “War on Drugs” since the drug addiction cases will be minimized.
The United States currently has a drug policy based on complete prohibition. The complete prohibition is one of the most restrictive and punitive drug policy regimes. The national strategy is oriented towards drug eradication and aims to achieve complete abstinence among the American population. There is a zero-tolerance approach, which is characterized by the full prosecution of first-time drug offenses. American drug laws are implemented strictly by the authorities and drug use is strongly stigmatized in American society. In the United States, there is quite a complicated relationship between drug policy at the states level and the federal level.For instance, the policy differs depending on the authority of the states and the authority of the federal government which sometimes conflict each other. As a result of this, many things that are currently considered legal by various state governments are actually still illegal under federal law; it is just that these states are actively deciding to ignore certain parts of federal law. This can mean, for example, that state authorities will not prosecute certain federal offenses within the state. There has been a lot of discussion about change in drug policy in the United States government, but still, such changes have not been fully implemented (Bennett et al 212).
The United States government has repeatedly admitted that the War on Drugs has been a failure and promised to alter its approach to drug control. The Obama administration even published a new policy in 2012 in which the policy was to completely reform the way the states regard the drug-related crimes (Sharp 13). However, progress has been slow and not much has been achieved as the country and different state agency are in the ethical dilemma on how to end the vice of drug addiction. The United States is even a signatory to multiple international declarations encouraging a soft approach to drug policy focused on rehabilitation, which is completely contrary to its actual current legislature.
The Trump administration is currently calling for a change in the world's approach to drug policy at the 73rd United Nations General Assembly with its “Global Call to Action on the for the United Nations to undertake (Sharp 124). Furthermore, it is calling for measures that most developed countries have already implemented, whereas the United States themselves have failed to do so. In some of the states with a larger proportion of minority populations, however, some such changes have already started.
While any significant change in the federal government's approach to drug policy is yet to come, the approaches of many state governments have already undergone dramatic modifications. It is not a coincidence that many of the states that have already gone through the most progress regarding the improving their approach to drug policy are in fact the states that have already undergone a demographic majority-minority shift in ethnicity. For example, out of the 10 states that have undergone the ethnic shift, all of them have legalized some form of drugs such as marijuana for medical purposes, and two states have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes. Other than marijuana, there is also another policy on the drug that has been implemented in different states which have enhanced the rehabilitation of the drug users and these policies are applied differently from one state to another. It is worth noting that one state has completely decriminalized marijuana and in four states it has either been partially decriminalized there is a similar policy in effect. The drug policy on marijuana demonstrates how different states have a different policy on drugs as some states have zero tolerance to the drug while some have some accommodative policies on drug use. The decriminalization or legalization of certain drugs is certainly not the only aspect of drug policy that has started changing in some parts of the United States but is a global concern on the fight against the drug and drug use. The severity of many drug offenses has changed in many states. For example, offenses that used to be considered felonies are now misdemeanors. Many states have also implemented softer penalties for certain drug offenses. In certain states, individuals with addiction problems can now receive rehabilitation instead of a prison sentence. A lot of these measures are already reaching popular support nation-wide, however, it is not that easy for such changes to be processed very quickly.
Why despite there is a majority of voters in the United States that oppose the current War on Drugs federal policy has very little changed on the federal level so far, while so much is changing on the state level; what is the reason behind the success of so many of the drug policy reforms in states such as California, for example? In California, there has been a strict policy and heavy penalties on the use of certain drugs. For example, the states criminalized the use of Cocaine, Heroin and Cannabis and any drug offenses in relation to these drugs attract heavy penalties and this has successfully discouraged users over the years. It has been observed that drug policy at the states level is more effective than the drug policy in the entire country. This is because the legislative change that happens is much closer to the voters themselves on the smaller scale of states; it is much easier to represent the interests of its constituents than on a federal level, where there are more differing opinions on everything coming from all over the United States. Furthermore, many of the changes that have occurred in state drug policy have been passed through the legislature in the form of referenda, such as the one in California, rather than indirectly through the traditional representative legislative process (Frey). For instance, the legalization of recreational marijuana use was approved directly by California residents in the 2016 elections in the form of Proposition 64. Such changes will be able to continue to spread across the United States with the majority-minority shift and the war on the drug will finally come to an end with the introduction of effective drug policy.
Nonetheless, with the progression of the ethnic majority-minority demographic shift in the United States, minority communities will continue to gradually gain more and more voting power.
While minority turnout at elections in the United States actually fell slightly during the 2016 Presidential election (Frey), the overall trend is still the opposite. Census data shows that the non-Hispanic white share of the electorate is consistently declining over the years (Sharp 204). The United States’ political decision is steadily increasing and this was witnessed in US election where the Hilary Clinton won the popular votes and lost in the electoral colleges. The win of the popular votes demonstrates that there is a shift in the voting pattern of the minority group in the United States. This will manifest itself in the future progress of the country's drug policy as the ethnic majority-minority demographic shift in the United States continues to move forward, drug policy will continue to soften across the United States so that the drug addiction and drug use can completely be eradicated in most states. Furthermore, there can also be a shift in the drug policy of the federal government (Frey). Drug use will likely become less stigmatized due to majority shift especially at the federal level as more resources would be allocated to programs that actually help drug users, such as programs dedicated to drug safety or rehabilitation. The funds necessary to run these programs can be reallocated from current programs focused on prohibition, which are very costly. All these changes will have a significant economic impact.
The impact of drug policy on the economy is much greater than most people imagine. The current drug prohibition in the United States has pushed all trade related to drugs into illegality and therefore into the black market and the shadow economy. This means that in some industries where the drug policy has criminalized certain drugs, the black marketing has emerged which are not getting taxed. As the drug policy changes, the government will receive a large amount of additional revenue from taxing the drug industry in states that have decriminalized the drugs and this money could be used cover way more effective rehabilitation programs and to finance other government projects (Sebelius et al). Data shows that the United States has the highest number of prisons and most of the convicts are charged with drug-related offenses. This demonstrates that the war on drug in the United States is very costly both the federal and different state governments. The imprisonment of the drug offenders is extremely costly to the states and there is a need to formulate the drug policy that can reduce the drug use among the American people. Furthermore, these people's employment potential is going to waste either not doing anything or working prison jobs with single digit wages (Sebelius et al). As the drug policy changes and these people potential are actually put to use, this will bring an enormous boost to the United States' economy.
However, have been challenges with regard to drug policy implementation in around the globe. For instance, most recently (Sebelius et al). Germany legalized Cannabis and this is a threat in the war against drugs in the United due to immigration issues and therefore, the United States have to revise her immigration policies to ensure that immigrants conform to the US drug policy.
Conclusion
Minority populations in the United States generally tend to be opposed to the government's current stance on drug policy as they are often unfairly targeted by it. As the ethnic majority-minority demographic shift gradually gives more voting power to these minority populations, there will be a stronger push for drug policy reform. Updates to the United States' drug policy have the potential to improve the economic situation not only of the minority populations themselves but also of the United States as a whole.
Recommendations
Based on the analysis above, it has been recommended that both the federal government and the state's government to have uniform drug policies that can help reduce the drug prevalence in the country. The fight against drug use and addition should be institutionalized so that drug policies can be monitored effective and efficient policy implemented. The partial legalization and criminalization should be abolished so as to strengthen the rehabilitation centers and correctional institutions should be empowered to have the capacity to deal with drug-related issues in a more effective and efficient manner
Works Cited
Bennett, Wayne W, Kären M. Hess, and Christine M. H. Orthmann. Management and Supervision in Law Enforcement. , 2017. Print.
Frey, William. “Census Shows Pervasive Decline in 2016 Minority Voter Turnout”, Brookings, 18 May 2017, www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout.Internet source.
Sebelius, Kathleen, Eric Holder, and Gil Kerlikowske. “A Drug Policy for the 21st Century.” Obama White House Archives, 17 Apr. 2012.Internet source.
Sharp, Elaine B. The Dilemma of Drug Policy in the United States. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers, 2014. Print.
