Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Law & Justice > Drug Laws & Prevention
The continued epidemic of drug use means we've lost the war on drugs
Results so far:
| Disagree | 42% | 250 votes | Total: 599 votes | |
| Agree | 58% | 349 votes |
Disagree
by Kevin Pack
Created on: June 17, 2007
Stating that we have won or lost the war on drugs is suggesting that this issue can be easily defined in black and white terms. This is not the case for a variety of reasons. First, we can not win or lose a war on drugs because there is no defined enemy. The term "drugs" is a very general term. Pharmaceutical companies legally distribute some of the most dangerous, addictive, and abused substances in society. However, they are not deemed the enemy and are often close friends with politicians. Doctors, who are sought for medical advice and help, are wined and dined by these companies and write prescriptions based on these relationships. This is not to infer that these parties actually are the enemy, many prescription drugs are of great benefit and are essential in certain medical situations. But the fact is that they are not discussed during the war on drugs, and therefore inhibit accurate measurements of winning and losing.
Next, one of the most overlooked factors in the war on drugs is the number of jobs it creates in the US. It is sad to say, but rather then attempting to educate and prevent the pain that others will endure through drug use, individuals who use drugs are exploited for the benefit of others. DEA, DEU, specified police narcotic units, entire task forces, and a variety of other organizations are given enormous budgets at the expense of taxpayers. Then, rather than stopping drug use, the make arrests. By doing this they take individuals away from their jobs and families with no regard to the emotional damage incurred by the families. This could lead to the individual losing his job, the family losing their means of support, and inevitably creating a "viscous circle" which often leads to criminal acts that stem from desperate situations, not dangerous people. As this occurs, more arrests are made, and prisons are built. Prisons are on of the largest sources of employment in the US. Entire towns are employed by state prisons. Politicians lobby to have prisons built so that they can create more jobs. As a result, the financing for the drug war goes towards placing non violent individuals in prisons, again at the expense of taxpayers. Moreover, this has no impact on drug use in society because there is not enough funding for education and prevention programs. This means that once the non-violent individual is incarcerated, he will be immediately replaced in the drug market by another user.
It may sound like I'm suggesting that we are losing, but I'm not. I'm suggesting that we are going about it the wrong way. we can not win or lose because we are not fighting anything. We are profiting from the drug trade more so then drug dealers and we are doing so at the expense of people that the war on drugs should be helping.
It's easy to look at certain statistics or see stories on the news and declare that we are losing the drug war, but in fact, the drug use can not be defined by quantitative measurements. Many people may disagree with this, but attempting to measure drug use on such scales is counter productive. They simply do not take into considerations the reasons for drug use in the first place; which is exactly what must be looked at. Drugs have always been around, and in many cases, are distributed legally (i.e. pharmaceutical companies , alcohol companies, ect.). Some drugs even have practical uses and are essential in certain medical situations. Given that drugs, in one form or another, will always be present, the best strategy for minimizing drug use is addressing the issues that first cause it. Also, alternatives and help for current users can facilitate recovery. Once the market is weaker, then and only then will the presence of drugs diminish.
Learn more about this author, Kevin Pack.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Agree
by Marcus Brooks
Created on: June 19, 2007
We officially lost the "war on drugs" in 2001. You can't blame September 11, even though many Americans would love to. The true culprit was meth. I said it! I have made a bold statement. I plan on supporting my stance with facts.
America's drug craze became popular culture in the 1950s. Only a tiny segment of the population were known users. But, with each passing decade that tiny segment grew. Out of 1960s, the counterculture embraced illegal drug use. Psychedelics, pharmecuticals and imported drugs popped up all over this country. They were the badge meant for social change or anti-establishment. After the Civil Rights and Vietnam period ended, drug use erupted into mainstream America. Countries began to see the millions to billions exporting their product here. U.S. Customs was lax in their enforcement of keeping cocaine, heroin, marijuana and opium from our shores. South American countries such as Colombia and Peru shipped tons of processed cocaine to big-city markets like New York, Los Angeles and Miami. Along with the trafficking came the street-level distribution.
Enter the CIA and FBI.
The Federal government was terrified of a repeat of the mid-late sixties "long, hot summers" and campus protests. A combined, intelligence operation COINTERPLO was created to allow drug markets to flourish within inner-city (black) neighborhoods. If a young, black male was doped up, he couldn't throw molotov cocktails in the street. This example of willful blindness led to the crack wars exploding in 1982. For the first time, America was exposed to the indiscriminate violence associated with rampant, drug trafficking.
From the mid-1980s and 1990s, drug use creeped its way to the America's elite class. Designer drugs like estascy or X were made glamorous by the movie "Studio 54". The film reflected the star-like lifestyle of partygoers in a popular, New York nightclub. Later on, Hollywood celebrated drugs' glamour and glitz with "Blow". Selma Hayek and Johnny Depp flashed all over the big screen spending millions on hot cars, lavish mansions and fancy dinners; all bought and paid with Colombian blood money. Then, everything changed after 9/11.
The war on drugs lost to the war on terror. Homeland Security took its liberties and greased their pockets with funding meant for rehabilitation, education and law enforcment. Drug addiction is at an all-time high; with a new powerful player reshaping the game.
In the Midwest, meth, ice, speed, or crystal has blazed a trail of violence and ruin. Spreading like a disease outbreak, every corner of America has suffered from the brutality of this evil beast. Meth is the only drug that can be created through over the counter products and a fifth grade, chemistry book. A man with no job and little cash can be a kingpin in weeks, if not days. While people want to believe blacks and Latinos create crack and heroin(which they don't); few can deny white people created, packaged and distributed meth all over the nation. Most of its users are white. Most of the pushers are white. Law enforcement is stonewalled because there too many addicts and dealers to arrest.
The war on drugs was originally designed to keep blacks in line. That scheme backfired thanks to America's need to be excessive. It has been twenty-five years since crack first arrived. It's showing no signs of leaving soon. Meth has tore a bigger hole in American society in a shorter amount of time. Safe to say, its future will be more violent and destructive than its vile predecessor.
Learn more about this author, Marcus Brooks.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley