1

The U.S. Continued War on Drugs

Written by: Muhammad Aftab

Alam

clickaftab@yahoo.com

Introduction:
Illicit drugs are a $60 billion per annum industry patronized by as a minimum 16
million Americans, 7 % of the U.S. populace over the age of 12. This intensity of usage
visibly worries the rest of the inhabitants. From 1985 until now, “drugs” was constantly 1 of
the top 10 responses when Americans were asked, what they considered was the most main
problem facing the state. In reaction to such concerns, central & state legislators & executive-
branch representatives have enacted & implemented policies that, whereas diverse in
advance, are adjusted toward enforcement. These plans include the ban of almost every use or
control of cocaine, marijuana, heroin and a broad variety of other psychoactive materials. To
make it more complex to purchase such drugs, policies have been applied that range from
annihilation of crops similar to coca in source states, through prohibition of smugglers, to
distraction of street markets & internment of dealers within U.S. boundaries. At the equal
time, governmental groups have sought to diminish Americans’ demand for drugs from side
to side treatment of material abusers & prevention programs presented through schools &
over the media. On the other hand, most expenditure on drug control at central, state, & local
stages combined have been directed to enforcement. Above the last several years, these
actions have had a striking impact on some segments of the public. They have not, yet, led to
large decreases in the sternness of related difficulties, prompting clamorous denunciations of
present policy. A lot of critics argue that the boosted toughness of that strategy has done more
destruction than good.

Objectives
The objective of this research report is also to observe the U.S. continued War on
Drugs, its origin, cost and information about its success and failure.

Literature Review
In a work, David Evans, 2003 states that the major user of illegal drugs in the earth is
the US. The information in the US present for much confidence: drug control has decreased
informal use, chronic use & addiction, & prevented others from opening to use drugs. Drug
exploit in the US is losing by more than a 3rd since the late 1970s. It means that 9.5 million
fewer natives use illegal drugs & cocaine use has been compact by an astounding 70 percent
resulting in 4.1 million fewer natives using cocaine. (David Evans, 2003)
In another work, On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the present Director of the
Office of NDCP( National Drug Control Policy), indicated that though it did not plan to
radically alter drug enforcement plan, the Obama government would not employ the term
"War on Drugs," like he claims it be "counter productive". (Gil Kerlikowske, May 13, 2009)

Discussion:
 2

In 1925, the US administration was advocating the abolition of coca, hemp & opium
puppy. The combat on drugs started in intense in 1968, through the Nixon administration,
when a spokesperson campaign to eliminate natural drug crops in Mexico obtained under
way. The same kind of ’war’ carried on in Thailand in the year 1970’s. During 1989, the US
pronounced it’s Andean Initiative (planed principally at Peru), that meant $220 million yearly
expenditure in order to do away with cultivation & assembly of cocaine. In the year 1995, the
United State’s National Security Council suggested eradication of illegal crops as the most
essential strategy in order to reduce drug abuse. Subsequently, the congress approved $246
million for the abolition of coca crops in Peru, Colombia & Bolivia.
The US is disingenuously waging its war on drugs whilst simultaneously profiting
from them. The intimate objective of the US strategy, faraway from the presumed war on
drugs, is to more its own interests by achieving & maintaining a sturdy military presence in
the region. Some intellectuals are of the opinion that with the end of the Cold War, the US
had to somehow justify its military existence in Latin America, & the war on drugs is an
ultimate excuse to serve that intention. In carrying out the said strategy, the United States has
the European Union’s assent.
The double-faced US policy has accomplished a point where conciliations have given
way to a further hard-line approach. The novel president of Colombia, in spite of his slam ties
to Medellin drug cartel (Medellin cartel, based in the metropolitan of the alike name, used be
one of the major operators in Colombian drug traffic), which was guaranteed complete US
support after announcing that he will not discuss in any way by the rebels, thus rejecting to
seek other than military resolution to the Colombian civil war that has before now heaved on
for decades. The current situation in is essentially the following: drug yields are being
poisoned by toxic herbicides in spite of promises of more “environmental friendly” means of
eradication- by the United States backed (& -trained) troops, who, along among right wing
paramilitary groups, threaten the country side as they perceive fit, whereas at the same time
the drug lords are existing happy & care free in their houses.
With an official declaration passed in the year 2002, the United States war on drugs
has been overtly extended into a war next to the left wing guerrilla groups. Therefore the US
has authoritatively selected sides in the Colombian social war, associating guerillas as
accountable for protecting the farming of coca. While FARC most liable finances its war
attempt by drug trafficking, the right faction paramilitary groupings, divisions in the
Colombian army & police power, not to point out civil servants & administration officials,
are at least likewise involved in the alike line of business. Hence what possibly worries the
US further, are the probable attacks the guerrillas might open against business targets,
specifically the oil industry. Therefore the real cause for the substantial support to the
Colombian administration is to defend the US trade and industry interests, not to war drugs.
The US war going on drugs in its present form is useless, for as long as there is insist,
there will be production & traffic. Natives are worried about the in-efficient policies of
government. No suitable results are shown.

Conclusion:
Since President Richard Nixon announced war on drugs in the year 1971, we've
heeded much talk regarding America's drug anticipation initiatives. Every year, billions of
dollars are used up on keeping illicit substances out -- & reducing drug use countrywide.
However, several argue the war is ineffective or perchance even counter productive. Though,
Government has been trying to control this issue but, the situation is going down day by day.
People are not satisfied with the Government’s policies and need more steps to resolve the
issue.
 3

References:
1. Jonathan P. Caulkins, (200); “How Goes the War on Drugs?: An Assessment of U.S. Drug
Problems and Policy”; RAND Corporation; NY.

2. Peter Andreas; (2009); “Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Divide (Cornell Studies in
Political Economies)”; Cornell University Press; NY.

3. Alfred W. McCoy; (2003); “The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug
Trade” Lawrence Hill Books; Chicago.