Paula Dixon

Professor Engvall
April 15, 2012
Applied Concepts Justice Studies

The War on Drugs

My research on the War on Drugs will extend current knowledge on the police, government, and
the criminal justice system itself. Anyone who reads this paper should understand that this not only
affects drug users and sellers, but it also affects them. The War on Drugs is a campaign that has cost
American citizens thousands in tax dollars, which go towards different things such as building new
prisons, In the years since [Reagans policy], the U.S. has seen unprecedented increases in incarceration
rates and 'exponential growth' in prison populations. The costs of the war, both social and fiscal, have
been great, and the harms done to families and communities affected by increasing incarceration rates
are well-documented (Bush-Baskette, 2000, p. 919). The reason why the government uses American
tax dollars towards building new prisons, is because all the old prisons are overflowing with criminals
who have drug related charges (Gray, 2001, p. 1-2). Unfortunately, this method has been ineffective in
decreasing the use and distribution of illegal drugs. The actual police force spends much of their time
searching for drugs dealers and drug consumers. While they are not to blame for whether the War on
Drugs has been successful or not, the police force does focus more of their time on drug related crimes
than more serious crimes. The next target in this campaign is the actual criminal justice system, a judge
named Gray (2001), believes that, our current Drug Prohibition policy is centered around the criminal
justice system, in which we judges are required to play a significant role (p. 2). Judges play a crucial
role in what happens to people that use and sell drugs; most of the time judges send these people to
prison, even if these criminals have been in prison more than once for the same charges.
This topic has been a very important one for many decades; the opposing side believes that the

government is not making any progress in reducing or stopping citizens from selling and consuming
drugs. The argument against this campaign believes that the government needs to use citizens tax
money in order to create more rehabilitation programs. If the government funded more rehabilitation
programs then current drug addicts could get the proper help and treatment that they need:
Additional options are different types of drug treatment... both voluntary and involuntary,
public and private; and medicalization, which fundamentally puts drug-addicted people
under the control of a medical doctor and her staff, using programs of drug treatment, needle
exchange (which exchanges a dirty needle for a clean one without charge), drug maintenance
(which allows prescriptions for the subject's drug of choice to be filled at a local pharmacy or
medical clinic so that the subject neither gets a 'high' nor goes through withdrawal but is
maintained at an equilibrium level), and drug substitution (which substitutes one drug, such
as methadone, for the subject's drug of choice). (Gray, 2001, p. 7).
The supporting side believes that the government, law enforcement, and criminal justice system
collaboratively has been doing a great job in reducing the number of people that sell and consume drugs,
and that the War on Drugs campaign has been doing an outstanding job. American citizens and the
government have yet to find a resolution to this debate, so this topic is still very relevant in today's
society.
The War on Drugs has been a heated debate against citizens of the United States and the
government for a few decades now. This war was first introduced in the early 1970's by President
Richard N. Nixon; the War on Drugs is a campaign that is used to prohibit drug use and trade. Before
Nixon was in office, the topic and use of drugs was not a priority to the government or former
presidents, When President Nixon took office in 1969, American's consumption of illegal drugs was
shifting from a hidden, marginal activity to a symbol of youth revolt and the basis of a new, underground
economy (qtd. in Katel, 2006, p. 490). He refused to ignore the drug problem that many American's
faced, Nixon was the first president to attempt to create a policy aimed at curbing drug-taking. When
he began his second term, the drug-control spending package for 1973 that he pushed through Congress
amounted to $420 million --- more than eight times the amount appropriated before his presidency
(Katel, 2006, p. 492). Nixon's drug policy was seen by many as a more sensible and better-managed
that those of his successors. His policy included providing heroin addicts with methadone, which

satisfies the drug craving without producing a high; establishing treatment programs for hard-core drug
users rather than locking them up; and focusing efforts on drug addicts in poor neighborhoods rather
than on middle-class youthful experimenters (Katel, 2006, p. 492-493). But many people did not agree
with some of Nixon's policies, Nixon administration funded programs that treated heroin addicts with
methadone, a policy that some hardliners opposed because it replaced one drug with another (Katel,
2010, p. 534). Although, he did not finish his entire term as president; his start to the drug war was
noble. The fight for and against drug prohibition has been a reoccurring problem for centuries, the first
American law that was designed to regulate drug use was the Harrison Act of 1912, which taxed and
regulated opium and coca markets that were increasingly going underground (Merolla, 2008, p. 259).
Yet, with the drug regulation that President Nixon introduced, the number of people that were using and
selling drugs did not decrease.
There are three options when dealing with the War on Drugs, these are:
Drug decriminalization, which basically means that although the drugs remain illegal, as
long as people stay within very clear guidelines the police will leave them alone; regulated
distribution, which is the strictly controlled and regulated sale to adults of designated drugs,
similar to the way alcohol is sold in some states; and legalization of drugs, which basically
leaves the distribution of these drugs to the marketplace with all of its protections under the
civil justice system, and uses the criminal justice system to govern people's behavior. (Gray,
2001, p. 7).
Over the years, there have been many laws put in place to regulate and even stop the use of drugs. The
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was a law created in 1970 to help regulate the
distribution of certain drugs, The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Treatment Act of 1970 --- the Nixon
administration's milestone in drug-law history --- represented a compromise between the treatment and
law-enforcement approaches to drug policy. For example, the penalty for a first offense for possessing a
small amount of marijuana would be probation. But police also were authorized to mount surprise, 'no
knock' searches (Katel, 2010, p. 536). But the War on Drugs was the first campaign created to
completely eliminate the use of drugs in America. After creating this campaign, President Nixon
continued with his fight with drugs, In 1972, Richard Nixon declared an all out war on drugs and six
months later, he created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) (qtd in Merolla, 2008, p. 260). The

DEA is an enforcement agency that was created to do exactly what it stands for, to enforce the
different drug laws. Since the availability and usage of drugs increased in the 60's and 70's, President
Nixon and Congress believed that there needed to be an agency that governed drug activities. There
have been many president's after Nixon that have reinforced the War on Drugs campaign, President
Ronald Reagan is also credited for galvanizing a zero tolerance policy toward drug use by passing two
major anti-drug bills: the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act and the 1988 Omnibus Anti-Drug Act (Merolla,
2008, p. 260).
The Commander-in-Chief versus the War on Drugs
Since the first time President Richard N. Nixon coined the term War on Drugs, other former
presidents have successfully and unsuccessfully reinforced this term and the different drug laws behind it.
Many presidents increased the drug-enforcement budget, for example, former President Ronald Reagan
doubled the drug-enforcement budget from $800 million to $1.7 billion in 1987, with 90 percent of the
money going to law enforcement rather than treatment. The following year, the anti-drug budget more
than doubled again, to $3.9 billion (Katel, 2006, p. 493). The budget increase did give President
Reagan the opportunity to cut off drug supplies, and his wife, the former first lady Nancy Reagan
created the anti-drug campaign called Just Say No (Katel, 2006, p. 493). In comparison former
President George W. Bush and his administration proposed an increase in drug-enforcement from about
$10 million to $69 million --- in federal funds for 'drug courts,' which cropped up across the country in
the 1990s (Katel, 2006, p. 485). During President Bush's term he also launched a campaign against
large-scale growing operation in California's Sequoia National Forest thought to be run by Mexican drug
cartels; 420,000 plants were destroyed (qtd. in Katel, 2010, p. 529). This campaign was funded with
citizens tax dollars and did not much of an effect on the amount of drugs that are produced and sold in
American. In recent years, the Obama administration has taken action in the drug war. Gil Kerlikowshe,
the drug czar in Obama's administration said that, 'the Obama administration has placed a limit on its
drug-policy objectives. Legalization isnt in the presidents vocabulary, and it certainly isnt in mine, he

told a gathering of law-enforcement officials' (qtd in. Katel, 2010, p. 528). While the drug-enforcement
budget fluctuates by the new Commander-in-Chief's, the actual operations that are put in place have not
completely eliminated the drug problems.
Who uses these drugs?
In order for the War on Drugs to be effective, the government needs to target the people who use
drugs such as heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy. Without a surprise, teenagers are the largest group
of people to use different assortment of drugs, half of the nation's 2005 high-school graduates reported
having used an illegal drug at some point; the number of new heroin users has increased to more than
100,000 a year; and local officials across the country say methamphetamine production and use are
devastating their communities and over-burdening their communities (qtd. in Katel, 2006, p. 483). In
2008, Massachusetts agreed on a pot decriminalization law that calls for no jail time for the first-time
possession of a small amount of pot (Katel, 2010, p. 527). Legislatures also agreed that, possession of
one ounce or less of pot is a civil violation, not a crime (Katel, 2011, p. 483). Michelle Lipinski of
Beverly, Massachusetts runs a school that tries to help teenagers stop using marijuana; she is finding her
job extremely difficult now that Massachusetts has this law (Katel, 2011, p. 483). In the annual
Monitoring the Future, or MTF, survey marijuana use had been rising in all three grades [8 th, 10th, and
12th] over the past three years. Among seniors, 21.4 percent had smoked marijuana in the previous
month, up from 18.3 percent in 2006. And one in 16 seniors smoked it daily during the previous 30
days (Katel, 2011, p. 483). These statistics shocked critics, and the Obama administration tried to come
up with a reason for why the rate of marijuana usage amongst teens are so high, may be the result of
the intensifying debate on drug policy, plus legalization of marijuana for medical use in nearly a third of
the states. 'Mixed messages about drug legalization, particularly marijuana, may be to blame,' Gil
Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National drug control Policy, said when the MTF results were
announced (Katel, 2011, p. 483-484). While this suggestion has not been proven true or false, the
statistics show that many teenagers are using drugs at an alarming rate.

Advertisers have been trying to appeal to teenagers and young adults with their different
billboards, magazine ads, and commercials. The government uses the Internet as another source of
awareness for teenagers since they use social networks the most, the White House drug-policy office
launched a campaign called 'Above the Influence,' built on a website that includes videos, invites
audience participation through Facebook and presents brief written descriptions of the properties and
effects of the most-used illegal drugs (Katel, 2011, p. 487). The advertisements are seen to be very
effective, A team of academic researchers headed by Michael D. Slater, a professor of social and
behavioral science at Ohio State University in Columbus, concluded recently that the campaign 'is
trending towards positive impacts on attitudes and behavior' because of the underlying message that
drug use interferes with individual development (Katel, 2011, p. 487). Whether or not this is true, using
the media to persuade teenagers to stop using drugs can be very effective; simply because television has
a heavy influence on what teenagers say and do.
Most people would presume that men are the ones that use these drugs, when in reality it is
women. For different reasons, women have turned to drugs for many decades now. Many housewives in
the early 1900's were addicted to over the counter medicine, such as opiate (Bush-Baskette, 2000, p.
920). The statistics for women using drugs only worsened throughout the twentieth century, drugs such
as sedatives and tranquilizers have been prescribed for women at a much greater rate than for their male
counterparts. Women also outnumber men in emergency room treatment for overdoses of prescription
drugs" (qtd. in Bush-Baskette, 2000, p. 920). A vast majority of women who use drugs are shown to be
clinically depressed, and some women use drugs as a means of self-medication to cope with their own
devaluation and low self-esteem. Personal traumas, such as rape, incest, and other sexual abuse, as well
as economic pressures, may also contribute to drug abuse by women" (Bush-Baskette, 2000, p. 921).
But they are not only using drugs to cope with their problems, they are also selling drugs to deal with
their problems. In certain situations, women sell drugs in order to support themselves, and their families.
Selling drugs is often viewed as a predominantly male occupation, but women have been arrested for

distributing drugs. Studies show that the number of women incarcerated in state prisons for drug
offenses increased by 433% between 1986 and 1991, compared to an increase of 283% for men during
the same period. In 1991, 1 of every 3 women confined to prison facilities in the U.S. in 1991 had been
incarcerated for a drug offense; this figure was only 1 in 10 in 1979 (qtd. in Bush-Baskette, 2000, p.
922). This has grown to be a serious economic problem, because most of the women being incarcerated
are mothers, More than 70% of incarcerated women have children under the age of 18, and the
majority of these mothers were the primary caretakers of their minor children prior to their
imprisonment (qtd. in Bush-Baskette, 2000, p. 923). This means that while the mother is in prison, the
child is sent to child protective services and forced to live in a new home, taxpayers are forced to bear
the added cost of foster care (qtd. in Bush-Baskette, 2000, p. 923). This can also be strenuous on the
child, forcing them to lash out or even resort to the same thing that put their mothers in jail, using drugs.
The never ended cycle will only increase the number of adolescents and adults using drugs in America.
Legalizing marijuana
Marijuana comes from a hemp plant, or Cannabis sativa, but when it leaves, stems, flowers, and
seeds are dried and crushed, the mixture is called marijuana, one of the most widely used illegal drugs.
Marijuana's active ingredient is the chemical tetrahydrocannabinol, abbreviated THC. When marijuana is
smoked, THC reaches the brain in less than 30 seconds (D. Hockenbury & S. Hockenbury, 2011, p.
175). When smoking marijuana at a high dosage, it can sometime produce sensory distortions that
resemble a mild psychedelic experience. Low to moderate doses of THC typically produce a sense of
well-being, mild euphoria, and a dreamy state of relaxation. Senses become more focused and sensations
more vivid. Taste, touch, and smell may be enhanced; time perception may be altered (D. Hockenbury
& S. Hockenbury, 2011, p. 175). There are studies that show that smoking marijuana may affect ones
driving skills when mixed with alcohol consumption. Another negative about smoking marijuana is that it
interferes with cognitive, learning, and memory functioning (qtd. in D. Hockenbury & S. Hockenbury,
2011, p. 175). On the positive side, smoking marijuana has shown no signs of affecting ones health and

it actually has been shown to be helpful in the treatment of pain, epilepsy, hypertension, nausea,
glaucoma, and asthma. In cancer patients, THC can prevent the nausea and vomiting caused by
chemotherapy (qtd. D. Hockenbury & S. Hockenbury, 2011, p. 175).
The discussion of whether or not to legalize marijuana has been a controversy for many decades
now. Of all drugs out there in the world, marijuana is the one that receives the most controversy,
because it is seen as a 'gateway' to harder drugs, even as some drug experts call the gateway theory a
myth. As a result of a shift in federal drug policy, drug arrests have nearly tripled since 1980. About 1.7
million people were arrested on drug charges in 2004, about 700,000 of them for marijuana (qtd. in
Katel, 2006, p. 483). Almost all states in America have debated about whether or not to decriminalize or
legalize the use, distribution, and growth of marijuana. The government and even U.S citizens have
become more willing to talk about what should happen with the current marijuana prohibition (Katel,
2010, p. 527). Political analyst Nate Silver believes that, 'as members of the Silent Generation are
replaced in the electorate by younger voters, who are most likely to have either smoked marijuana
themselves or been around those that have, support for legalization is likely to continue to gain
momentum' (qtd in Katel, 2010, p. 529). The use of marijuana for health related reason has been
legalized in certain states, such as California, but whether or not to completely decriminalize the use of
marijuana has yet to be resolved. Although ordinary U.S. Citizens' are being targeted for their use of
marijuana, Conservative Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia is proposing a national commission to
study the law-enforcement system, including marijuana policies. I saw more drug use at Georgetown
Law School than anywhere else I've been, the much-decorated Vietnam War veteran told columnist
Neal Peirce. A lot of those people went on to be judges (qtd. in Katel, 2010, p. 528).
The opposing side believes that legalizing marijuana will only increase the number of people
who smoke it. They believe that marijuana is simply a gateway drug and that it will lead to people
consuming other more dangerous drugs. While cannabis has not been proven to be life threatening:
Subcommittee member Dan Lungren, R-Calif., posed the only counterargument, noting that
today's marijuana is more dangerous because of its higher content of THC

(tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active compound in cannabis). And marijuana crops are
devastating wilderness areas, national parks . . . controlled by foreign nationals armed with
assault weapons in some cases, a far more serious situation today than it was 10 years ago,
20 years ago. (qtd. in Katel, 2010, p. 529)
The argument that the opposing side makes is that marijuana prohibition is already working. Scott Burns
of the district attorneys association believed that fewer young people are smoking marijuana today...
but if you say it's legal, you reduce the perception of risk --- and clearly it would become much more
available --- that use is going to go up (Katel, 2010, p. 531). He also disagrees with legalizing
marijuana by comparing it to alcohol, Burns also opposes legalization in principle, citing the frequent
comparisons of marijuana to alcohol --- with its obvious links to drunken driving and alcoholism.
Should we legalize marijuana for the sake of the argument that alcohol is as bad or worse, that it's
become the social norm? (Katel, 2010, p. 530).
In contrast, the supporting side argues that there can be many benefits to legalizing marijuana.
El Paso's city Council member O'Rourke believes that, Our drug policy is directly responsible for the
murder and violence that people are experiencing in our sister community, he says, arguing that
legalization would create economic benefits as well. Decriminalization would relieve a lot of the costs
related to interdiction and imprisonment and enforcement and tap new revenues we're missing out on
(Katel, 2010, p. 530). Which is completely true, the United States government roughly spends 7.7 billion
dollars yearly to enforce marijuana prohibition (The Union: The Business Behind Getting High). There
are an estimated 45,000 prisoners in State and Federal prisons for marijuana violations in the United
States (this does not include the number of people in local and county jails for marijuana related
expenses) (The Union: The Business Behind Getting High). The citizens of the United States are the
ones who suffer because of this, their tax dollars go towards building new prisons to keep marijuana
buyers, sellers, and growers behind bars. But, if marijuana were to be legalized then there would not be
an overflow of inmates serving time. That is not all that citizen's tax dollars go towards, since the use of
marijuana is illegal many companies and schools require a drug test to be conducted. Drug tests for
work positions, professional sports, college sports, or any other extracurricular in schools are commonly

required.
In addition, the supporting side considers the many health benefits that marijuana has. Marijuana
is said to provide many health benefits such as, helping with chemotherapy, arthritis, depression, anxiety,
glaucoma, epilepsy, and hepatitis C. The discussion about marijuana being used for medicinal purposes
had begun in the 1970s among sufferers from chronic diseases such as glaucoma and multiple sclerosis,
as well as cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Speaking to state legislatures, journalists and anyone
else who would listen, they said that smoking marijuana relieved their symptoms. A sizable number of
doctors agreed (qtd in Katel, 2010, p. 539). Studies have proven that marijuana usage is not as harmful
compared to depressants and other drugs, There are very few THC receptors in the brainstem, the part
of the brain that controls such life-support functions as breathing and heartbeat. Thus, high doses of
THC do not interfere with respiratory and cardiac functions as depressants and opiates do (qtd. in D.
Hockenbury & S. Hockenbury, 2011, p. 175). Only fourteen states allow the usage of marijuana as a
medical treatment for cancer patients, several other states are considering medical-pot bills as well,
though some proposals have died. National polls register a trend in favor of decriminalization --- though
falling short of a majority (Katel, 2010, p. 527). Another point that the support side makes is that if you
compare marijuana to alcohol, kids can get their hands on marijuana quicker than they can with alcohol.
A child cannot go into a liquor store to buy alcohol without a valid ID that shows they are of the legal
age to drink. O'Rouke believes that marijuana should be decriminalized because when it's criminalized
and underground, the criminals decide what the market is... they're selling to 10-year-olds and 12-yearolds (Katel, 2010, p. 532).
While both sides continue to debate this topic, it seems as though the oppositions arguments are
diminishing. With the new information doctors, and marijuana users distribute would suggest that maybe
marijuana is not as harmful as it was originally sought of to be. But no one on either side of the
argument can disagree that the number of citizens arrested every day is a substantial amount, and
something needs to be done to stop the overflow of marijuana users and sellers in the judicial system:

Marijuana arrests figure prominently in the nations overall crime statistics. Roughly 14
million people a year are arrested nationwide on all charges. In a 2007 study of 10 U.S.
Counties, 40 percent of the arrestees tested positive for marijuana. At that rate, when
extrapolated for the nation as a whole, about 5.6 million of the 14 million would recently
have smoked pot. Overall, the federal government's annual survey of drug, alcohol and
tobacco use estimates that about 14.4 million people a year smoke marijuana monthly in the
United States and about 25 million at least once a year. (qtd. in Katel, 2010, p. 528)
Decriminalizing, regulating, and legalizing are the three main terms being thrown around in this debate.
While completely legalizing marijuana seems to be far-fetched, regulating and decriminalizing the
growth, distribution, and use of marijuana have shown to be very beneficial for United States citizens,
police force, economy, and the entire judicial system.
Crack Cocaine
Cocaine is obtained by the coca plant, the use and distribution of cocaine is illegal. Unlike
marijuana which shows to have little to no harm on the human body, repeated cocaine intake can affect
the human body. Addiction is very common when talking about cocaine, and some of the long term
effects of cocaine use include hallucinations and other health problems such as heart disease, seizures,
and stokes. Cocaine is a powerful and expensive drug, in the early 80's many musicians and models were
using cocaine because they could afford it. But in the middle of President Reagan's term, crack cocaine,
as it was called, came to national attention in 1985 and seemingly overnight became the dominant drug
in U.S. Cities, including New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Detroit and in the shadow of the U.C.
Congress in the slums of Washington, D.C (qtd. in Katel, 2006, p. 493). This form of cocaine was very
common and popular in poor inner city neighborhoods, mostly black and Latino citizens. Crack cocaine
became a cheaper alternative to cocaine:
Crack was cooked up in apartment ovens by drug traffickers who combined powder cocaine
with baking soda. The resultant 'rocks' made a popping sound as they were smoked, hence
the name 'crack.' They also offered and immediate and powerful but short-lasting high. As
crack addiction spread and more and more people sought to keep their high going, they
created a booming consumer market. (Katel, 2006, p. 493)
Since the demand for crack cocaine was high, smugglers from Columbia decided to set up shops in
places like Miami (Katel, 2006, p. 493). And with the high demand came the drug-related crimes.
President Reagan needed to take action against the drug since it was destroying many inner city

neighborhoods, his administration set up a South Florida Task Force under the National Narcotic
Border Interdiction System, an inter-agency group made up of members of the DEA and the U.S.
Customs Service and headed by then-Vice President George H. W. Bush (Katel, 2006, p. 494). After
Reagan's term was over, President George H. W. Bush took office and continued to work on stopping
the mass distribution of crack cocaine. He was successful towards the end of his term when Colombian
police, aided by U.S. Army 'Delta Force' operatives, tracked down and killed Escobar, the most
notorious of the Colombian cocaine tycoons (qtd. in Katel, 2006, p. 494). In today's society, crack
cocaine use is still an issue in many homes, but it is not as prevalent as it was in the 80's.
Are we winning/losing the war?
When looking at the debate about whether or not to legalize marijuana, the question really
becomes how has the government fought the war on drugs for the past thirty or more years? Is the
government successful or unsuccessful in this fight? Many critics would argue that maybe the
government could do more in enforcing the current drug laws. One of the government's tactics in trying
to win this war is using morals to try to make American citizens fearful to touch illegal drugs:
Over the past several decades, our government has attempted to combat the critical problem
of drug use and abuse with a program of massive prisons, demonization of drug users, and
prohibition of debate about our options. This policy approaches drug use and abuse as a
moral issue: 'Drugs are evil, and if you take them, you are evil, and we will punish you.' But
decades of failed attempts to make this policy work have shown that we cannot effectively
take a medical problem and treat it as a character issue. (Gray, 2001, p. 6)
Some critics would argue that this tactic does not work on American citizens because they will still
choose to use drugs if want, Thirty-six years and hundreds of billions of dollars after President Richard
M. Nixon launched the war on drugs, consumers worldwide are taking more narcotics and criminals are
making fatter profits than ever before (Glenny, 2007, p. B01). They say that the government has
already lost this war, and instead of admitting this, they are spending millions of tax dollars in trying to
stop a war that they can never win.
In comparison to the legalizing marijuana debate, there are more citizens growing, selling, and
using marijuana and other drugs. It is almost impossible for the government, police force, and judicial

system to tackle all of the drug users in the United States.

The actual drug laws
The main issue in this war is the actual laws themselves, Law enforcement has been doing a
magnificent job in attempting to enforce our current drug laws. The problem is with the drug laws
themselves, not the police, the courts, or the rest of the criminal justice system. Blaming law
enforcement for the failure of Drug Prohibition is no more appropriate than blaming Elliott Ness for the
failure of Alcohol Prohibition (Gray, 2001, p. 9). Gray (2001) goes on to say that, There is no
questions that law enforcement is doing a better job today than ever before--- we now see a larger
seizures of drugs, larger forfeitures of assets, more arrests and convictions of drug offenders, and longer
prison sentences than ever before. But this does not mean that we are in fact better off than we were
back when I was a prosecutor (p. 6). This statement is very accurate; law enforcement spends much of
their time and effort in busting these drug dealers and people who use the drugs. The judicial system is
doing their best with the cases they see every day, but there is only so much they can do with minor drug
related crimes. These people will eventually end up back in the streets, using the same drugs that once
put them in the back of the police car. The drug laws that are being enforced on citizens needs to be
reevaluate and enforced properly, because neither drug nor drug abuse has been eliminated or
appreciably reduced, despite massive spending on interdiction and harsh punishments (Gray, 2001, p.
3).
The citizens
Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project states that even though most of
those arrested don't go to prison, 'Law-enforcement resources go into arresting, processing, the court
system parceling out cases,' he says. 'Clearly we're talking about tens of millions of dollars in police
processing time. And for every hour police spend on making and processing marijuana arrests, that's an
hour not responding to domestic violence or conducting community policing' (Katel, 2010, p. 533).
Mauer makes a valid point, the police spend most of their time on not only marijuana relates crimes, but

any drug related crime. The citizens are the ones who lose the most in this war.
From an economic stand point, millions of their tax dollars go towards police arresting drug
dealers and users, drug tests, and building new prisons. Due to large amount of drug offenders that come
into the courts, drug courts were created to keep drug offenders out of jail by providing a period of
court-supervised treatment, during which defendants submit to periodic drug tests and often are required
to get and keep a full-time job. Generally, their charges are dropped if they pass the drug tests, while
defendants who fail the tests are jailed for short periods of time or face standard court proceedings
where they might get longer jail terms (qtd. in Katel, 2006, p. 485). With this process, citizens
unknowingly pay for these drug tests and the incarceration of those who fail their drug tests. The
concept of recidivism is the rate at which someone is rearrested, re-convicted, or sent back to prison due
to a minor or severe crime. In comparison to the War on Drugs, the drug courts are set up to stop
citizens from reappearing in front of a judge, Even though drug courts generally have been successful
at reducing recidivism, some analysts say they are part of the reason arrest rates have risen so steeply.
More people are being arrested for minor drug charges, such as marijuana possession, today than in the
past because the police know the non-jail drug court option exists (Katel, 2006, p. 485). Citizens pay
for this because they are paying these cops to protect them, instead the police force are spending most
of their time sending the same people to drug courts. With police focusing so much of their time on
cracking down drug related crimes, other more serious crimes are not tended to. And instead of the
people addicted to these drugs getting treatment, they are constantly seeing themselves in front of a
judge.
Treatment
Some critics believe that the government is spending all their time on stopping the supply of
drugs when they should also focus on the people who are currently addicted to drugs, critics of the
government's approach to the drug war argue that officials should emphasize reducing demand by
funding drug treatment programs rather than spending billions of dollars attacking the supply of drug by

trying to eradicate Latin American coca fields (Katel, 2006, p. 483). The government has been trying to
create many organizations and programs to help those who are addicted to drugs. For example, an
organization called Second Genesis which was founded in 1969 Is one of hundreds of local
organizations around the country that try to help drug users get off drugs, including alcohol. Once
residents complete their stay, generally four months, they move into an adjoining 'sober' house for a twomonth transition period leading to 'graduation' (Cooper, 2000, p. 602). Programs like Second Genesis
try to target teenagers and people in their earlier 20 since drug abuse and addiction typically starts early,
Second Genesis recently launched after-school education programs to discourage drug use among
middle and high school students. Attendance is voluntary, but students in some schools also can get
academic credit for attending the six-week course (Cooper, 2000, p. 602). As great as this program
sounds, there is unfortunately not a lot of support from the government in persuading people to receive
treatment for their problems. Executive director of Second Genesis, Gale Saler says that, 'There's such
a stigma attached to drug treatment that it's very, very hard to get people to move past that,' she says. '
We get so tired of hearing that these are bad people. Compared to mental-health patients, who are
supported by a phenomenal mental-health lobby, people in drug treatment have little political voice'
(Cooper, 2000, p. 602). Continuing on Saler says that the lack of support has a negative impact on the
amount of support the treatment community receives from Congress. It's hard to prove that prevention
works,' Saler says. 'You can't prove a negative. But there is a huge body of studies showing that
treatment works (Cooper, 2000, p. 602).
There are some critics that believe that drug treatments are unnecessary because drug abuse is
not some sort of medical illness. A professor of policy studies named Mark Kleiman does not believe in
treatment programs, 'Most people who use illicit drugs aren't sick, so what are we treating them for?'
(Cooper, 2000, p. 604). Kleiman believes that a better solution to this is to, require all people on parole
or probation to undergo drug testing as a condition of release. Known as 'coerced abstinence,' this
approach embraces drug testing and immediate, mild sanctions for drug use, generally on a few days in

jail (qtd. in Cooper, 2000, p. 604). But in Dr. Rosenthal's of Phoenix House experience, he says that,
the longer drug addicts are in treatment, the more likely they are to overcome their addiction. We
know from the research data that if you keep people in treatment for 12 to 18 months, both in and out of
prison, and there's real continuity in treatment, you're going to see positive results over time' (Cooper,
2000, p. 604).
The supply-side versus the demand-side
The supply-side in the war is described to be the focus on eradicating drug crops abroad and
seizing drugs either being smuggled into the United States or domestically grown or manufactured
(Katel, 2006, p. 487). In contrast, the demand-side is the focus on reducing U.S. Demand for illegal
drugs by spending more money on addiction treatment and programs to persuade users to quit taking
drugs and youngsters to refrain from taking them in the first place (Katel, 2006, p. 487). These two
sides have been arguing for about four decades now (Katel, 2006, p. 487). The terms interdiction and
eradication has been thrown around in this heated debate. Interdiction means an authoritative
prohibition. Eradication means to completely get rid of something, in this case drugs. Kevin Zeese of
Common Sense for Drug Policy argues that both interdiction and eradication have only made the drug
problems worse, and after the Reagan administration shut down seaborne and airborne marijuana
smuggling from Columbia in the early 1980s, 'The Colombians switched to cocaine, which is more
profitable and easier to smuggle. So we had a giant cocaine glut, which led to crack' (Katel, 2006, p.
487). Due to this large abundance of crack cocaine in the 1980s, Drug sellers aggressively began
pushing crack cocaine (Katel, 2006, p. 487). With this new drug on the market, many American cities
began to crumble with violent turf wars and addiction (Katel, 2006, p. 487). The debate of whether to
focus on interdiction or eradication only holds back progress that could be made to deal with the
smuggling and distribution of drugs.
Prohibition
Critics compare this drug debate to the prohibition of alcohol. Seeing how things went once

alcohol consumption was forbidden is an indicator that drug prohibition is probably a completely
dangerous and terrible idea:
Consumed widely throughout most of the country since the nation's earliest days, alcohol
became a focus of growing concern in the late 19th century. Blaming alcohol for a host of
social ills, from wife-beating to joblessness, many cities and states banned alcoholic
beverages. Congress followed suit in 1919 by passing the Volstead Act, which added the
18th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting the production, sale, import or export of
alcohol (Cooper, 1993).
Zeese believe that, 'prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the 1920s, and it's never going to work for
drugs' (Cooper, 2000, p. 595). During the prohibition, alcohol consumption was illegal but mass
organized criminal groups were created shortly after. Most people did not obey this law and because of
that they did not obey with the federal system, But almost as soon as Prohibition took effect, on Jan.
16, 1920, a multimillion-dollar black market in alcoholic beverages began to take shape, dominated by
organized crime. After 14 years of fruitless attempts to quash demand for alcohol, the 21st Amendment
was ratified, ending Prohibition in 1933 (Cooper, 1993). Going back to Zeese who believes that,
when something doesn't work, you have two choices: Face up to the fact and change course, or refuse
to admit you're failing and escalate. And that's what's been happening over the past 20 years' (Cooper,
2000, p. 596). Alfred Blumstein, the dean of Carnegie Mellon University's John Heinz III School of
Public Policy and Management says that the war on drugs has demonstrated for drugs what the country
learned about alcohol during Prohibition. We now know that the tighter the controls, the more a black
market will emerge,' he adds. 'The question is, is there a better balance?' (Cooper, 1993). When
prohibition ended, all of the crime that went along with it disappeared, so what does this mean if drug
use is no longer prohibited? Will the black market and the crime connected to the drug growth,
distribution, and use stop? In both cases, the government tries to get rid of something that society
craves. Citizens will illegally find an alternative way to get the things that they want.
Conclusion
Nadelmann of the Soros-backed Lindesmith Center makes a valid point by saying that 'We
should be aiming for some measure of legally regulating marijuana and then aiming for harm-reduction

approaches with respect to other drugs' (Cooper, 2000, p. 598). He continues to say that we should
'stop pretending that we can be a drug-free society and acknowledge that drugs are here to stay. The
challenge is not to get rid of drugs, but to have them cause the least possible harm' (Cooper, 2000, p.
598). There is no possible way the government can completely eliminate drugs. Similar to alcohol and
cigarettes, there is no way the government can get rid of these things since there will always be a high
demand. The government can only compromise and find a logical way to regulate the use of certain
drugs while making the more harmful drugs less harmful, Others argue that the only way to minimize
the criminality and social distress that drugs cause is to legalize narcotics so that the state may exert
proper control over the industry. It needs to be taxed and controlled, they insist (Glenny, 2007, p. B01).
But some people do not agree with legalizing or decriminalizing certain drugs, while legalization would
certainly result in reduced drug-related criminal activity, most experts say it would almost certainly lead
to increased drug use (Cooper, 2000, p. 598).
But those who disagree with drug regulation believe that the government may try to only
increase the price of certain drugs (like marijuana) to hopefully stop people from buying it anymore. The
concept of just price is a number in which people will buy something, until the price reaches a limit
where people are no longer willing to pay for it. Some speculate that if the government has control over
marijuana distribution that they will increase the price to force people to stop buying it, like they are
slowly doing for cigarettes. And while America is divided about what should happened with the current
drug laws, almost everyone can agree that certain drugs are completely bad. Conventional wisdom is the
notion that certain things are agreed upon by everyone in the general public. Everyone can agree that
certain drugs harm unborn children and children that are surrounded by drug users. Everyone can also
agree that using certain drugs, diminishes productivity and creates a lot of crime due to the demand of
certain drugs. So everyone agrees that something needs to be done to stop the issues that are
incorporated with drug use, but not everyone agrees with how the government should go about it. The
concept of boundary awareness means how much people care about a certain topic. In the War on

Drugs, many Americans care deeply about this topic. There are citizens that go before Congress,
politicians, and the entire U.S. government to show them that this topic is still relevant and needs to be
looked at. During presidential campaigns and even campaigns for governors, the topic of the War on
Drugs is often brought up by citizens who are interested to know how this issue will be tackled. Citizens
even go as far to protesting, especially when it comes to the legalizing marijuana debate.
There are many debates in how to government should deal with the current drug laws, the
treatment of people who are currently addicted to drugs, and how American tax dollars should be spent
when it comes to the war on drugs. The government has been doing the best job they can on reducing
and potentially eliminating drug use, but the government has a long way to go before they can officially
say they have won this war.

Bibliography

Bush-Baskette, S. (2000). The war on drugs and the incarceration of mothers. Journal of Drug Issues,
30(4), 919-928.
Cooper, M. H. War on drugs. CQ Researcher, 3(11), 241-264.
Cooper, M. H. (2000). Drug-policy debate. CQ Researcher, 10(26), 593-624.
Glenny, M. (2007, Aug 19, 2007). The lost war; we've spent 36 years and billions of dollars fighting it,
but the drug trade keeps growing. The Washington Post, pp. B.1-B.1.
Gray, J. P. (2001). Why our drug laws have failed and what we can do about it : A judicial indictment
of the war on drugs. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Temple University Press.
Scorgie, A. (Producer), & Harvey, B. (Director). (2007). The union: The business behind getting high.
[Video/DVD] Eagle Entertainment, Lace International, SuperChannel.
Hockenbury, D. H., & Hockenbury, S. E. (2011). Discovering psychology. New York, NY:
Katel, P. (2010). Legalizing marijuana. CQ Researcher, 19(22), 525-548.
Katel, P. (2011). Teen drug use. CQ Researcher, 21(21), 481-504.
Katel, P. (2006). War on drugs. CQ Researcher, 16(21), 481-504.
Merolla, D. (2008). The war on drugs and the gender gap in arrests: A critical perspective. Critical
Sociology, 34(2), 255-270.