The government-led campaign known as "the war on drugs" was started many years ago with the goal of outlawing the use and sale of illicit substances. (Bergen-Cico 25). Since the start of this "war," various leadership regimes have employed various tactics to make sure this strategy is successful. Taking the long perspective, one can see that the majority of the efforts have focused on either of the two main strategies for addressing the drug problem in the nation: regulation or prohibition. Basing on the fact that drugs have serious implications to not only the users but also to the society, each government regime has been coming up with its own strategy of doing away with the use and possession of illegal drugs (Bogazianos 49). However, irrespective of various strategies having been employed by different regimes of government, less has been attained.
The war on drugs was declared by President Richard Nixon in 1971. During his regime, Nixon declared drugs as enemy number one in the country (Bergen-Cico 85). He used various strategies like providing drug control and treatment agencies with enough funds, and increasing penalties, enforcement and imprisonment to ensure all illegal drugs were eliminated from the United States.
Declaring drugs as the enemy number one in the country and using various strategies including campaigns and education made people to realize the implications of using prohibited drugs (Weina 125). Under the leadership of Nixon and also for the only time in American history since the declaration of this war, the government and other concerned agencies used most resources on treatment than on law enforcement. After establishing a special action office for drug abuse and prevention in 1971, the military announced that it wanted to undertake urinalysis test on every serviceman. The program went into effect in September and the results were encouraging: only 45 percent of the soldiers tested positive for heroin.
After declaring the war on drugs, Nixon increased the presence of federal agencies that mainly focused on drug control and established mandatory sentencing and harsh warrants for drug-related suspects (Bogazianos 64). An idea was also imposed to allow marijuana be termed as a legal substance across the country.
In 1973, the government under Nixon’s leadership established drug enforcement agency (DEA) by merging three institutions: the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE), Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI), and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) (Weina 134). The aim of merging these departments was to combine federal efforts to completely eradicate drug abuse in the country.
During this time, the war on drugs was relatively considered as a minor component in federal law enforcement efforts until President Ronald Reagan came into power in 1981. During his regime, Regan massively expanded the reach of war on drugs (Bogazianos 99). His focus on fighting against drug abuse made incarceration for nonviolent drug offences to raise from 50,000 to almost 400,000. In 1984, Regan’s first lady organized another strategy of fighting against drug abuse by using her “Say No” campaign which emphasized on educating students concerning the dangers of abusing drugs.
During the leadership of President Bush, mass campaigning was undertaken from time to time to make the society view drug abuse as socially unacceptable (Manoj 60). This campaign significantly assisted in making the society understand the dangers of using the prohibited drugs and the possible legal measures that were likely to be taken upon offenders. President Bush indicated much efforts in fighting against drugs by working closely with all agencies concerned with war on drugs.
In 1993, Clinton signed a free trade agreement which resulted in a significant increased trade in the US-Mexican border. During this time, the volume of trade made it more challenging for custom officials from the United States to find narcotics hidden within legal goods. These aspects made it difficult to fight against drugs because illegal substances were freely moved from Mexico to the United States.
During the past, the media had a positive and negative impact on fighting against illegal drugs. For example in 1977, Newsweek released a story on cocaine and was later accused of exaggeration of the benefits of drugs and underestimation of the harms (Bogazianos 89). The story said that people who use this drug experience a feeling of potency, confidence, and energy. This story was a major blow to this policy because it would make most people, especially the youth, see the prohibited drugs as ones which would make them realize more advantages than disadvantages. Apart from negative impact, some media platforms played a major role in echoing positive information which would assist people to understand real implications of using these substances.
Since the establishment of this program in 1971, several changes have been occurring in terms of sentencing, penalties, and other measures of banning illegal drugs in the country. Recently, Obama’s government indicated great efforts to fight against illegal drugs in the country (Bergen-Cico 55). Trump has also shown great commitment in trying to combat possession and use of illegal drugs through coming up with innovative strategies and working closely with the concerned departments.
In the past, the strategies used to fight against drug abuse were campaigns to create awareness, setting strict regulations and disciplinary actions, and educating the public on effects of using illegal drugs (Weina 132). During this time, the government focuses on allocating enough money to facilitate various programs like community empowerment, education, prevention, and treatment.
During those times, the government and other concerned agencies dealt with not only those who consumed illegal drugs, but also those who were selling them to the citizens (Bogazianos 39). Through the leadership of presidents who well understood the importance of this policy like Reagan, for example, this strategy worked perfectly because it managed to indicate a significant decrease on drug consumption and supply.
In the past, most of the presidents and other people in authority kept emphasizing on telling the people about the impacts of illegal drugs (Bergen-Cico 59). For example, Reagan always informed his people that drugs were number one enemy, Bush told his people that drugs were among the biggest domestic threats which faced America during those times, and Clinton conducted massive campaigns to create awareness concerning the implications of drug abuse.
Although some of the leaders like Clinton were not very successful in putting war on drugs into effect, they managed to assist many people to understand the implications of using these drugs. During his governance, Clinton focused on rehabilitation and prevention programs by ensuring enough money was allocated for the success of this policy (Bogazianos 19). Clinton also knew that one of the best ways of eradicating illegal drugs use was to do away with supply side and therefore decided to come up with innovative tactics to challenge the suppliers.
In the recent years, various changes have occurred on the manner in which war on drugs has been used. Recently, there are more effective ways of campaigning, new and innovative strategies of preventing possession and use of these drugs have come up, and the manner in which offenders are incarcerated has changed (Bergen-Cico 125). Unlike in the past, budgets have been increasing dramatically and drug-related imprisonments have consistently reached new records, meaning the war is becoming tough as time progresses.
Some of the recent governments like that of president Obama have shown great efforts in attempting to crack down prohibited drugs in the United States through establishing innovative strategies. Irrespective of trying much to crack down the use of illegal drugs in the United States, president Obama began pardoning and shortening sentences (Marshall 37). In November 2016, he stated that he had plans to classify marijuana as a public-health issue like cigarettes and alcohol. This view raised endless debates, especially among those who were supporting the war on drugs.
Unlike in the past, most of the recent regimes have been focusing on treating drug abuse as a public health issue rather than punitive criminal activity (Bogazianos 149). This has shown a great contribution to the combating of drug abuse among the youths because they can now understand various health issues which can arise from using these drugs.
During the recent time, people are beginning to avoid the term “war on drugs” because they believe it makes the recent generation to have the old way of dealing and thinking about the use of drugs (Marshall 135). Authorities are now emphasizing on suggesting that a public health approach can make more sense on attempts to address drug usage and supply in the United States.
If compared with the past when the government would spend more on treatment and prevention than on law enforcement and interdiction programs, there has been a significant increase in public health spending for anti-drug efforts. This shift has assisted in trying to reduce federal prison population and also the number of people addicted to these drugs.
By understanding that a person can now become an addict to a particular drug even after using it once, the government has been trying its best to crack down the supply of these drugs using intelligence organizations and law enforcement officials to identify the origin and people who supply them (Marshall 35). Tough laws which include longer jail sentences, huge fines, and other disciplinary measures have been enacted to prevent the use and possession of drugs.
To make the process of combating more effective, the drug enforcement administration (DEA) collaborates with other agencies to ensure every person abides to the law that regulates the use and possession of illegal drugs (Bergen-Cico 65). Unlike in the past where the war on drugs seemed to have been made for the blacks, formation of this department played a key role in making the laws which control the use and possession of drugs to be applicable to all people.
To completely crack down the use and possession of illegal drugs, the government has established excessively prolonged prison sentences and putting into custody of individuals who engage in small drug offenses (Bogazianos 59). However, this has greatly contributed to large number of prison population.
Trump’s administration has come up with new strategy of dealing with those who transport illegal drugs into the country. Recently, he announced that his proposed wall along the Mexico board will greatly contribute in stopping much of the drugs from pouring into the United States. The reason why he has taken this decision is in his belief that although the future cannot be predicted, the fact remains that most of the illegal drugs enter into the country through the legal ports of entry without being detected.
Trump believes that the Mexican cartels utilizes passenger vehicles to transport bulk of their drugs over the southwest boarder through the ports of entry (Tobbell 146). In order to remain unnoticed, they put them into hidden compartments or comingle them with legitimate goods during transportation. Although Trump’s plans have not been implemented, most people believe they may greatly contribute to minimizing the amount of drugs that enter the United States from Mexico.
The US government has also been stating that it shall work to address the mental health crises through cracking down drugs and other substances that have significantly increased this problem (Weina 130). To address this issue, the government does not consider to use prison as a substitute for treatment. Instead, it is planning to implement programs that shall increase access to life-saving treatments and other services which can assist in minimizing the impacts of these drugs.
Trump has also been urging law enforcement officers to commit their efforts in identifying illegal immigrants who engage in illegal activities like drug trafficking and forward their names to the department of homeland security (Tobbell 96). Trump said that the strict legal measures would be taken upon the offenders to ensure other people who may have similar plans learn a lesson. Although Trump has proposed some strategies to crack down illegal drugs in the country, some people believe that he wants to take them to a bygone era of mass imprisonment and full blown war on drugs that greatly contributed to the current prison population of more than 2 million inmates.
Irrespective of stating and attempting much to make the war on drugs a reality, nothing much has been happening. The recent government regimes have to no avail utilized billions of money in their efforts to surpass the use and possession of these drugs (Weina 129). Irrespective of spending these huge sums of money, their efforts of interdiction, and law enforcement have remained unsuccessful.
Although several regimes have been fighting to eradicate drugs since the war on drugs was declared by President Nixon in 1971, top narcotics dealers have simultaneously enjoyed protection at the highest levels of power in the country (Marshall 33). In spite of using various strategies to ensure all illegal drugs are eliminated from the country, drug abusers continue to fill hospitals, courts, and prisons. Drug trade also continues to cause violent crimes that affect the neighborhoods. Technically, the war on drugs is being fought but not with high intensity and publicity as compared to the early years.
Unlike in the past, most people in America no longer see drug-related offences as criminal ones. They mostly want reforms to be established in order to come up with treatment-based approaches (Tobbell 66). Even with great efforts to do away with illegal drugs, problems in America as a result of drug possession and use still remain. With almost half a million people under custody for violation of laws that regulate possession and use of illegal drugs. Even with the slow progression, there is a momentum behind reforms on drug policies. As time goes on, hopes for a future where drug policies shall be determined by science rather than hysteria in politics continues to increase.
Although much has not been attained through the war on drugs, I believe it was a good policy to take because to some extend it has aided in minimizing the use and possession of harmful drugs that would led to serious implications to not only individuals but also to the society. If this policy was not implemented, the society would witness the rise of crimes such as murder, rape, theft among others. The society would also realize increase on children being tortured, discriminated, and abandoned.
The policy has played a role in making drug users and peddlers to understand that there are serious legal measures that can be taken if they are caught, thus assisting in reducing the number of people who violate the laws that control the use and possession of prohibited drugs (Bogazianos 50). The war on drugs has also played a role in making the youth participate in other activities that are fundamental in advancing the economic condition of the country rather than spending most of their time on drugs.
The other reason why I should argue that the war on drugs was a good policy decision is that it has played a role in minimizing congestion in hospitals, jails, and rehabilitation centers. Irrespective of not working as many people expected, it has greatly assisted in decreasing the rate of drug addicts and sellers (Tobbell 46). The reason why this has happened is because people understand that the policy comprises different legal measures that can be taken upon the offenders. Therefore, as no one wants to find himself on the wrong side of the law, some people have decided to quit the practices and assist in reducing congestions in the above mentioned institutions.
Shifting from law enforcement and penalization to treatment, education, and prevention has also reduced the number of people who would have been addicted to harmful drugs if this war was not declared. Being addicted to these drugs can trigger various issues such as mental illnesses, laziness, hallucinations, unwanted pregnancies, HIV/AIDS among others. If this war was not declared, the country would have lost many people who would have played a useful role in the society.
Trump’s attempt to prevent drug possession by building a wall on the US-Mexican border could be one of the different things done recently to wage a war on drugs that could be more effective than the policy war on drugs. To end something that brings negative impact when consumed, it is important to do away with the source of that substance. Basing, on the fact that most of the illegal drugs enter the United States through this boarder, building the wall will significantly aid in screening all goods entering the US from Mexico to ensure they are legal.
Campaigning through the social media concerning the implications of these drugs is also another different thing done today that seems to wage a war on drugs that could be more effective (Tobbell 48). Employing various social media platforms like Twitter, WhatsApp, Snapchat, YouTube, Google, LinkedIn among others may greatly assist in educating the youth and other people on drug abuse and prevention. Basing on the fact that most people who use drugs are the youth and majority of them has accounts in one or more social media platforms, using this strategy will significantly aid in making them realize the implications of using drugs.
Spotting other countries which seem to lag behind on addressing these issues might also assist in having a war on drugs which is effective than the one which has existed before (Bogazianos 68). Recently, Trump administration noticed Colombia was not fighting against drugs in the right manner and told its government that unless it improves efforts to minimize coca and cocaine production, it stands the risk of having failed demonstrably to adhere to its obligations under international counternarcotic agreement. Spotting such countries will also play a great role in abolishing drugs in the United States because some of them originate from these countries.
Emphasizing on educating people on the harms of drugs abuse could also aid in eliminating prohibited drugs in the country (Tobbell 78). If people understand the impacts of using these substances, they are likely to realize the importance of quitting them than when they are arrested and punished. Arresting and sentencing one without enabling them realize the implications of using a particular substance will make that person go back to it even after serving a jail term.
Works Cited
Bergen-Cico, Dessa. War and Drugs: The Roles of Military Conflict in the Development of Substance Abuse. Routledge, 2016.
Bogazianos, Dimitri. 5 Grams: Crack Cocaine, Rap Music, and the War on Drugs. New York University Press, 2012.
Manoj, Sharma. “Enhancing Effectiveness of School-Based Drug Abuse Prevention Interventions.” Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, vol. 57, no. 1, 2013, pp. 59-68.
Marshall, Jonathan. The Lebanese Connection: Corruption, Civil War, and the International Drug Traffic. Stanford University Press, 2012.
Tobbell, Dominique A. Pills, Power, and Policy: The Struggle for Drug Reform in Cold War America and Its Consequences. University of California Press, 2012.
Weina, Yamamoto M. “Drug Abuse Violations in Communities: Community Newspapers as a Macro-Level Source of Social Control.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 90, no. 4, 2013, pp. 125-136.
