Daily Archives: March 11, 2023

The War on Drugs is an effort in theUnited Statessince the 1970s to combat illegaldrug useby greatly increasing penalties, enforcement, and incarceration for drug offenders.

The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres.Richard Nixondeclareddrug abuseto be public enemy number one and increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and drug-treatment efforts. In 1973 theDrug Enforcement Administrationwas 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 ofRonald 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 ofand resulting public nervousness overthecrack epidemicthat arose in the early 1980s. This heightened concern over illicit drug use helped drive political support for Reagans hard-line stance on drugs. TheU.S. Congresspassed theAnti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, whichallocated$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 powdercocaine 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 wereAfrican 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

Continue reading here:

The War on Drugs: History, Policy, and Therapeutics - Dominican University

The War on Drugs refers to the recent trend in United States political and military systems of sweeping prohibition efforts to end illegal drug trafficking. The first use of the term war to describe these policies occurred when President Richard Nixon gave a speech on June 18, 1971 in a press conference for the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control, in which he referred to drug abuse as public enemy number one. However, Nixon was not the first U.S. President to support stringent drug control policies; his actions were a continuation of existing policies.

One of the most significant aspects of the U.S. Drug War can be traced back to 1952, when Congress passed the Boggs Act. This act established the U.S. policy of mandatory minimum sentencing. With mandatory minimums, courts are required to sentence first-time offenders with a minimum sentence depending on the drug. The Boggs Act referred specifically to Cannabis possession, and many of its elements were later repealed. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 strengthened the system of mandatory minimum sentencing, and added provisions for other types of drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences have been criticized for being inflexible and unfair, and have contributed to the overall trend of prison overcrowding in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 49.8% of inmates, about 100,000 people, are currently incarcerated due to a drug offense. Less than 30% of inmates are violent offenders.

Though there have been drug prohibition laws in the United States since 1860, the Drug War is strongly associated with President Ronald Reagan. In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which, in addition to strengthening the mandatory minimum sentencing policies, appropriated $1.7 billion to fund the war on drugs, and also shifted the federal supervised release program from a rehabilitative focus to a punitive one. The supervised release program refers to the measures that inmates must do when they are released on probation. These programs usually consist of regular drug tests and meetings with probation counselors. Historically, these systems were in place to help recovering drug addicts stay on track once they were out of prison. However, the shift to a punitive focus reflected a desire to punish those involved in illegal drugs, rather than help them recover and get their lives back on track. During Reagans presidency, the First Lady, Nancy Reagan began a campaign called Just Say No, which was focused on educating youth about the dangers of drug abuse and on different ways they can say no to drugs.

One of the most notable aspects of the war on drugs is its apparent targeting of lower income and minority communities. With the passing of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, possession of 28 grams of crack cocaine warrants a five year mandatory minimum sentence for a first-time offender. In order to get the same sentence for possession of powder form cocaine, someone would have to have 500 grams. While some argue that crack cocaine is more addictive and therefore deserves a higher sentence, some medical experts dispute this by stating that there is no pharmacological difference between the two forms of cocaine. Many people assert that, because crack cocaine is statistically linked to impoverished Black communities while powder cocaine use is most common among affluent White communities, the legal disparity between powder and crack cocaine is potentially rooted in racist beliefs. While both forms of the drug are harmful and addictive, the drastic differences between the mandatory minimum sentences reflects a devotion to punish drug offenders at all costs, rather than on working to find a solution that would land less people in prison. In 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine.

View original post here:

The War on Drugs - Crime Museum

The War on Drugs is a term used by the United States government that describes their domestic and foreign policies regarding the spread and manufacturing of illegal drugs.

The term reached the mainstream consciousness of America in 1971 after United States President Richard Nixon mentioned the term in a speech and the media picked up on it. Two years prior to this speech, Nixon had formally declared a war on drugs with a focus on incarceration and eradication. This earlier declaration was due to Nixon's concerns about drug use during the Vietnam War and the prevalence of illegal drugs on the streets of the United States.

Richard Nixon designated a US $100 million budget in order to fight the trafficking and manufacture of drugs worldwide. This budget has inflated to $27.8 billion in 2018 and diverts many resources that could be used more effectively.

Throughout its legacy, the War on Drugs has gathered its fair share of commentary from critics, who complain that declaring war on something as ambiguous as illegal drugs is just as ineffective as declaring war on terrorism. This article will explore the early history of drugs in the United States, major operations during the War on Drugs, and the criticisms that this policy has faced.

Marijuana had been used medicinally in the United States since the 1600s but was made illegal in 1937. Many critics of this policy point to the fact that hemp is a cheaper alternative to paper pulp and businesses owned by the elite would lose money if hemp was legal. Opiates, such as heroin, were introduced to the United States by Chinese immigrants as a wellness tonic as well as being widely used during the Civil War to treat pain. In the 1800s, cocaine became a popular stimulant and was even used in the Coca-Cola beverage until 1903.

The military of the Allied nations, as well as the Nazis, used amphetamines during World War One and Two in order to stave off exhaustion and trauma. In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act required doctors and pharmacists to label medicine accurately and the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act restricted the sale of cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and morphine for any purpose. 1914 is seen as the beginning of prohibition for many countries, not just the United States.

Under the guise of the War on Drugs, the United States has funneled money, troops, and other resources (either covertly or openly) to countries in order to stop the spread of illegal drugs. Here are just a few of the major (and known) operations that have taken place during the War on Drugs.

Operation Intercept (1969): This operation aimed to counter the amount of marijuana that was coming across the Mexican border into the United States. Border traffic slowed immensely during this time and due to the interruptions and impeding cross-border travel and work, this operation lasted just 20 days.

Plan Colombia (Ongoing): Under this policy, the United States sends millions of dollars in aid per year to the Colombian government who are fighting against militia groups who fund themselves through the sales of illegal drugs, namely cocaine. The aid that Colombia receives from the United States puts the country at third-most behind Israel and Egypt for US military aid. This operation has divided critics, some claiming it is a success, while others believe that human rights have been tossed to the wayside in order to fight these groups while still allowing drugs to leave the country freely.

Operation Just Cause (1989): Critics claim that this operation shows the hypocrisy of the United States foreign policy as Manuel Noriega (the dictator of Panama) was funding US-backed Contra groups in Nicaragua, the United States pledged to turn a blind eye to his own drug trafficking activities and money laundering. Operation Just Cause saw a full-scale invasion of the country by US troops and Noriega surrendered in 1990.

Many observers and international organizations have been critical of the War on Drugs for various reasons. Critics state the ineffective political drug policies of the United States, including propping up corrupt governments, have failed. There is no question that drug-use, trafficking, and related criminal activity has increased monumentally since the 1970s. This is due to the policies surrounding the War on Drugs focusing on non-violent offenders (users) rather than violent drug-dealers.

The War on Drugs has also been criticized for the over-criminalization of individuals. An example of this is the number of arrests for personal drug possession. 82% of all drug-related arrests in the United States are for possession, mainly marijuana possession. The War on Drugs has directly contributed to the United States' incredibly high incarceration rate.

Lastly, many critics are concerned that the United States War on Drugs is fuelling current drug wars and ruthless violence in Mexico, Afghanistan, and the Philippines. These countries have experienced some of the most ruthless drug-related violence ever seen on this planet.

Many states in the United States, as well as Canada, have begun the process (or already have) of legalizing marijuana. This will lead to fewer arrests of non-violent criminals as well as the police force focusing on drugs that are harmful rather than medicinal. Hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin still remain major problems in many North American cities today. After a 40-plus year campaign, the War on Drugs is seen as a colossal failure by anyone who has researched incarceration rates for non-violent criminals, the spread of illicit drugs throughout North America, as well as the poor techniques used by police to enforce many outdated drug laws.

Read more here:

What Is the War on Drugs? - WorldAtlas

Drug trafficking is a global problem, an illicit trade that involves the manufacture, cultivation, distribution and sale of prohibited substances. While every nation in the world works hard to fight against drugs, drug trade is still a booming business. The dynamics of drug trafficking is simply incredible in the sense that consumption and distribution continues to rise even with continuous efforts to curb drug-related crimes and offenses.

In a bid to reduce the illegal drug trade, a campaign of drug prohibition, military intervention, and military aid was established. It includes effective drug policies that are designed to discourage distribution, consumption, and production of psychoactive drugs that were made illegal by the UN and participating governments.

While declaring war on drugs seems to be logical, opponents think it might be a waste of time and resources. Some claim that criminal acts are a consequence of drugs being declared illegal. Because people cant acquire these substances through official channels, they will resort to illegal production, distribution and consumption.

1. Deter or lessen drug-related crimes.When drug addicts will not have easy access to illegal substances, they will not experience the highs or hallucinations that will drive them to commit crimes. They wouldnt need to steal either so they can buy drugs. Put simply, without the pushers there will be little to no users.

2. Culprits will be penalizedIncluded in the policies of war on drugs is the penalty that will be afforded to manufacturers, distributors and users of illegal drugs. The level of punishment that will be imposed depends on the gravity of the crime. Knowing that there are consequences to be paid will make people think twice before embroiling in any stage of the illegal drug trade.

3. Helps create a place that is drug freeA drug-free area or community may seem impossible given the present situation, but it is achievable as long as everyone does their share in the fight against drugs. War on drugs should not only involve the government and local authorities, but also friends and family of drug users or sellers.

1. Widespread corruptionWatch any drug-related movies and youll see that the people who introduced and imposed the war on drugs are the same people who could be peddling the illegal substances. Political analyst also see a projected increase in corruption within the government because of the funds that will be allocated to control drug abuse. What are the odds that these funds will be used for personal gain?

2. Provides a smokescreen to hide the real problem behind drug abuseA majority of the population that are easily lured into drug dealing are those within and below the poverty line. People who have no hope of achieving very much because of their circumstances would resort to drug dealing where knowledge and skills are not required in their resume. They also see it as a way to make something of themselves, and to have the resources to fund their own drug habits. Would it not be better when the billions allocated for anti-drug campaigns are used to help improve the lives of these individual? For the last 40 years, an estimated $1 trillion was funneled to the war on drugs. Taxpayers are paying big for a war that is showing no signs of being victorious any time soon. In fact, the flow of drugs into the United States are increasing year after year.

Perhaps everyone would turn out to be good citizens if they are provided with all the basic necessities to help them achieve their dreams. Viewed this way, the war on drugs is nothing more than a nasty and vindictive smoke screen.

3. Increases risk on the lives of policeman and militaryMissions against drug lords is no joke, considering that they too have their own army that has no care about the lives that will be lost during a shootout or drug bust operation. What do policemen have against assassins and mercenaries? Not to belittle the skills and capacity of law enforcement, but a mission against drug pushers and manufacturers are increasingly worse. The safety risks on the lives of many policemen are also very high. Friends and family of these brave men and women would be very unhappy if something happened to them.

4. Increase racial tensionThe soaring arrest because of the war on drugs disproportionately targeted African Americans, according to the Human Rights Watch. From 1995 through 2000, the US Department of Justice reported thats arrest for drug offenses rose by 126%, which also accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates. In 2008, the Washington Post also reported that one in five black Americans are behind bars because of drug-related laws.

5. Disparity on sentencingOpponents complain that sentencing in drug-related crimes have major flaws. There is a huge problem in the sentencing between possessions or trafficking of powder cocaine and crack. For example, those convicted for possession of 5 grams of crack and those in possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine basically have the same punishment minimum mandatory sentence of being incarcerated in a federal prison for 5 years. Judging from the differences of the drugs in question, sentencing is definitely unfair.

Moreover, the ruling is perceived as discriminatory against minorities, because blacks, Hispanics and other races are likely to use crack than cocaine. Does this mean that white people go free for as long as they are not in possession of 500 grams of coke?

6. Never-ending chain reactionOne man incarcerated for drug abuse or drug-related crimes is likely to have children who are growing up without a father. Statistics show how this can have a bad effect on the little ones. If they are in the same situation as their father before them, they could end up drug users or sellers as well, whichever comes first. So the cycle just goes on and on. It will be a never-ending ride of history repeating itself.

Link:

9 Important Pros and Cons of the War on Drugs ConnectUS

The War on Drugs and Mass Incarceration

No discussion of civil rights for blacks can be complete without addressing the issue of mass incarceration. While this complicated issue has roots as far back as the end of the Civil War, it was exacerbated by the policies put in place by President Reagan and Congress when they declared a war on drugs. Those policies were maintained by Bush and intensified by the crime bill passed in 1994 by President Clinton. It was only in George W. Bush's second term that the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine was finally addressed by the Supreme Court. Even still, a disparity in sentencing between the two drugs remains, despite the fact that they have been determined to be almost the same substance.

Misguided drug laws and draconian sentencing requirements, especially pertaining to crack cocaine, have produced profoundly unequal outcomes for communities of color. The results have decimated minority families - black men in particular have been victims of these policies. Although rates of drug use and selling are comparable across racial and ethnic lines, blacks and Latinos are far more likely to be criminalized for drug law violations than whites. Although minorities use and sell drugs at a similar rate as whites, the proportion of those incarcerated in state prisons for drug offenses who are black or Latino is 57 percent.

Read more:

The War on Drugs and Mass Incarceration - A Brief History of Civil ...