Page 1

Stevie kitchens English 1010 07-28-2013 WAR ON DRUGS Legalizing drugs, is a touchy subject. Some say that is a very outrageous thought, some agree its a good idea, while others think some minor drugs such as marijuana should be legal but other hard core drugs such as meth and heroin should stay illegal. Before doing this research and writing this paper I was already on the side of ending the War On Drugs. There was a time I had no clue there even was a war on drugs, but once brought to my attention, it caught my interest. I still kept an open mind while doing this essay. I have always challenged someone to change my mind on this subject. After everything I have read and researched I am still all for ending the war on drugs. There are so many different points of view on this subject. Some believe it is a waste of the governments time and the taxpayers money. Others think the war on drugs is effective and beneficial. The "War on Drugs" is a general term used to refer to the federal government's attempts to end the import, manufacture, sell, and use of illegal drugs. It's a term that does not refer in any meaningful way to a specific policy or objective, but rather to a series of antidrug initiatives that are vaguely directed towards the common goal of ending drug abuse. The war on drugs was officially declared in 1974 by Nixon (Suddath). Within the past 40 years, the U.S. government has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars fighting the War on Drugs (Suddath). Even with ant-drug ad campaigns, increased rates of incarceration, and a crackdown on smuggling, the number of

page 2 illicit drug users in America has risen over the years and now sits at 19.9 million Americans (Suddath) One writers perspective, Robert E. Peterson, J.D., is an attorney and former director of drug control policy for the State of Michigan. His company, Drug Facts, provides research and presentation materials on drug law enforcement, marijuana, and legalization matters. When asked has the war on drugs reduced crime rates? His opinion is yes. He states Strong drug enforcement in the United States is correlated with dramatic reductions in crime, drug use, and drug addiction rates. Historically, permissive enforcement policies brought record murder and crime rates, peak drug use levels, and increased the addict population. His conclusion to his opinion piece is that our policies dont need to change. The real problem is the minor drug user. He thinks the solution is zero tolerance such as, abstinence enforced through drug testing, fines, civil liability, loss of driving and other privileges, and treatment modalities to deter these users before they reach the hard core criminal stage. I dont agree with him at all he wants to put more control over the citizens of this country by invading privacy and drug testing. He thinks the biggest problem is the minor drug user, but I dont see where he thinks that is true when its the big drug dealers killing innocent people and getting into street wars over drug territory. His examples are not specific, and there is not very much information out there to support his Drug Facts business. On the other hand, Ethan A. Nadelmann, J.D., Ph.D., is founder and director of The Lindesmith Center, a drug policy research institute with offices in New York and San Francisco. He previously served, from 1987 to 1994, as assistant professor of politics and public affairs at

page 3 Princeton University. He believes the war on drugs has not decreased our crimes rates. His first point is that the U.S. law enforcement officials make over one million arrests for violations of drug laws alone each year. U.S. prisons and jails now hold more than 400,000 people incarcerated for violations of these laws -- an eight times increase from the 50,000 incarcerated in 1980. That is a very obvious increase. Second he explains how many drug addicts will burglarize and drug deal, in order to support their habit. There hard core drugs are sold with the hefty valued-added tax imposed by prohibition. The drug prohibition has generated a large black market for drugs that doesnt look like its slowing down any time soon. It is not a legitimate business that can deal with disputes through court, so they deal with it in the streets. That leads to death, not just to drug users, but innocent people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Ethan A. Nadelmann has much more information about him and you can find a lot about the Lindesmith institution. Nadelmanns facts and examples are specific an d you can research them and find out they are all accurate. I am more persuaded by Nadelmann, that the War On Drugs has not been beneficial so far. His most convincing example is Switzerland. In Switzerland, a recent national trial to prescribe pharmaceutical heroin to the most committed drug addicts (those who had failed methadone and/or other drug treatment on at least two occasions) resulted in a 60 percent drop in criminal offenses and the number of criminal offenders. The U.S. war on drugs essentially forecloses any open, much less government-sanctioned, discussion of such policy options. In Portugal they decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. There theory was, focusing on treatment and prevention instead

page 4 of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections. Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses, and new HIV cases dropped dramatically. The number of deaths dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances dropped from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute. Although possessing up to 10 days worth of drugs is decriminalized, the law for selling and trafficking drugs hasnt changed. They still go after the drug dealers. When I look at this information from these two countries that were brave enough to try something different, and see that there has been no negative out come, it makes me wonder, why arent more countries following there footsteps? It is more then obvious that The War On Drugs is not working. So why is it that our country is ignoring the obvious? If we followed in the footsteps of these countries and ended the war on drugs we could improve our economy and everyday lives. The street crime would go down and we would have more tax money to put towards education, rehabilitation programs, or anything else to help improve out economy. There is a report called, Ending the war: a dream deferred. It is a 19 page report put together by a group called L.E.A.P. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). They are a group of police, prosecutors, judges, military officers, and other law enforcers who have fought on the front lines of The War On Drugs. L.E.A.P. represents more then 40,000 people in 80 different countries. Ending the war: a dream deferred was originally made to present to President Obama. Its purpose was to persuade Obama to actually end The War On Drugs. On May 14, 2009, the Obama administrations drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, declared during a newspaper

page 5 interview that he was ending the war on drugs. To this d ay the drug policies are almost exactly the same as with the Bush Administration. Despite President Obamas politically popular statement that we have to think more about drugs as a public -health problem, the budgets request funding for punishment at a much higher level than for treatment and prevention. They state that Obama administration does deserve credit for at least recognizing that the American people are ready for fundamental changes to drug policy. According to polls, 76% of the American people and 67% of chiefs of police have declared the drug war a failure. If drugs were legal and regulated, the financial incentives for selling drugs on the black market and the violent turf battles that are part of the illegal trade would disappear. After all, Budweiser and Coors distributors never get into gun fights over market share in the now-legal market for alcohol, while the gangsters who once controlled the illegal prohibition-era market for booze often did to deadly effect. I feel like this report is very powerful because of the people involved in putting it together (L.E.A.P). If a report done by the people who have worked on the frontlines of the War On Drugs is saying its time to end the war on drugs, I think its time to end it. There are 19 pages of statistics and facts proving why they think the war should end. I dont understand how anyone could argue with these law enforcers. There is more then enough evidence to prove that the War On Drugs is a failure. My opinion has still not been changed. I believe that if we were to end the War On Drugs and legalize them, our country would benefit the same way Switzerland, and Portugal have. The crime rates would probably go down a long with over dose

page 6 rates, and the transferring of aids from sharing needles. It is time to end the War On Drugs. If we legalized and taxed them the same way we do with tobacco, and alcohol, we could have more tax money put towards schools, libraries, or parks. The facts can t be ignored forever.

page 7

Works cited

Against Prohibition web site: www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com/40years Angell, tom. Franklin, neil. Fried, bill. Rowland, Ethel. Sterling, Eric. Title, Shaeleen Assessment 2010. http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/38661p.pdf. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition This report is available in PDF format on the Law Enforcement Nadelmann, Ethan A. Has The War On Drugs Reduced Crime? Thirteen.org Peterson, Robert. Has The War On Drugs Reduced Crime? Thirteen.org ScientificAmerican.com. April 7th 2009. Suddath, Claire. War On Drugs. Time.com Wednesday, Mar. 25, 2009 U.S. Department of Justice. National Drug Intelligence Center. (February 2010). National Drug Threat Vastag, Brian. 5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results.