Abstract
The USA coast has been proactive in the war against drugs. This can be indicated by the confiscation of more than three tones of drugs, meant to be shipped to the USA, in July, 2012. However, there are still some criticisms regarding drug policy in the USA; that the US government has not done enough in this war. Therefore, it is essential to analyze the drug war in the US, citing possible achievement and failures, and looking for solutions to problems identified.
Main Body
There is an argument that the balanced approach policy to drug war is not effective. In fact, the balanced approach policy is criticized for not providing sufficient measures to overcome drug use in the US (Ethan Nadelmann on CNN: Drug War Debate, 2012). The critics of this policy argue that the government is using more resources to control drugs, while only using few resources in drug victims’ treatment and rehabilitation. For example, the government used 31 billion US dollars to fight drugs in 2009, and used only 10 billion for treatment (Preston, 2004). A clear indication that this policy has failed, is the fact that, despite utilizing large amounts of money to control drugs, the situation keeps worsening. It was observed that half of all federal prisoners in the USA by 2011 were drug convicts.
Thus, despite using billions of money to control drugs in previous years, drug access and use keeps increasing (Ethan Nadelmann on CNN: Drug War Debate, 2012). Therefore, the critics of the US drug policy point this as a sign of defeat. There is an agreement that war on drugs has failed. The conclusion was made considering the amount of money that has been used to control drugs in America in the last 40 years, coupled with the proliferation of drugs in this country; it is apparent that such resources have been going to waste (Ethan Nadelmann on CNN: Drug War Debate, 2012).
A point of the agreement is that the levels of drug abuse have continued to increase over the years, while the number of fatalities arising from a drug overdose has hit their peak (Ethan Nadelmann on CNN: Drug War Debate, 2012). Thus, the drug policy adopted by the USA is not effective at all.
There are various arguments, which are perfectly agreeable, regarding the drug policy. First, the confiscation of drugs by state agencies is just a tip of the ice berg, since shows that more of such drugs pass unnoticed (Marcy, 2010). Therefore, such drug confiscations will have no effect in reducing drug abuse in the US, as there are still more channels that have not been discovered.
Therefore, the best thing is to shift resources from drug control, and utilize them for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation (Preston, 2004). Another agreeable argument is that even though it may appear as if the amount used for treatment and prevention is less than that used in drug control, the case could be different. While the budget of drug control portrays all the resources applied towards drug control in all the country, treatment and prevention budget is much higher, since the same practices are being undertaken at the state level (Ethan Nadelmann on CNN: Drug War Debate, 2012).
However, there is another argument that is not agreeable. Changing federal laws that require conviction of drug abusers, and replacing them with a law requiring mandatory treatment is not effective. The opinion in this case is; replacement of laws that instills fear on individuals, due to conviction consequences, with laws requiring compulsory treatment for drug abusers might encourage them further. As the fear of conviction is greater than the fear of mandatory treatment.
Thus, laws instilling fear are more appropriate (Marcy, 2010). This change may not be effective mainly because drug abuse is more of a state phenomenon than a federal phenomenon. It is observable that some states have effectively managed to reduce drug abuse than others, indicating that such actions should be state initiatives (Ethan Nadelmann on CNN: Drug War Debate, 2012).
Additionally, scrapping such laws will further increase the burden of treatment, since there are more resources already being utilized in the treatment of victims of legalized drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. Considering that the number of individuals convicted for alcohol related offences each year is more than the number of those convicted for use of the rest of drugs combined, then, applying leniency in drug laws will have more devastating effects (Preston, 2004).
Therefore, it is essential that the war on drug continues. If the war stops, it is likely that more people will be involved in drug abuse than it happens now (Marcy, 2010). Giving up the war on drugs will mean making all laws on drugs ineffective. The consequence is that drug use and drug abuse will become a normal activity, which will affect more lives than it is going to help. In fact, it is the high time to move war on drugs to a higher level, since it is apparent that the policy on drugs has failed (Ethan Nadelmann on CNN: Drug War Debate, 2012).
Increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of war on drugs does not necessarily mean commitment of more resource to this course. Increased commitment and vigilance on the side of drug control agencies is required, to unearth all channels of drug supply chain and block them. However, it is essential that focus is also shifted towards prevention, treatment and rehabilitation of drug abuse victims (Marcy, 2010). Nevertheless one fact remains, that drug control is better than treatment and rehabilitation of drug abuse victims, since control can entirely terminate drug access and availability. This in turn, reduces the number of people using drugs, requiring treatment and rehabilitation (Preston, 2004).
References
CNN Debate on Drug War: Ethan Nadelmann of Drug Policy Alliance Rocks It! (2012). Web.
Marcy, W. L. (2010). The politics of cocaine: How U.S. policy has created a thriving drug industry in Central and South America. Chicago, Ill: Lawrence Hill Books.
Preston, P. (2004). Under the influence: the disinformation guide to drugs. The Disinformation Company.