Running Head: DRUGS AND CRIME 1

Drugs and Crime

Name

Course

Date
DRUGS AND CRIME 2

Drugs and Crimes

History of the War on Drugs

The U.S. federal government led a campaign on the War on Drugs a few decades ago.

The aim of the campaign was to reduce the drug trade in the United States. (Hart & Ksir,

2011). The initiative consisted of policies whose intentions were to curb the production as well

as the distribution and also the consumption of illegal drugs that had continued to increase. On

18th June 1971, President Richard Nixon held a press conference where he declared drug abuse

as the enemy of the people. The President had sent a message to the Congress before on the

focus on drugs. He had insisted on the use of more federal resources to curb the disease of drugs

abuse. The federal government was tasked with the responsibility of preventing the creation of

new addicts and also the rehabilitation of the people who were already addicted. The President

declared the War on Drugs. Prior to this, the President had still declared War on Drugs. This war

was meant to eradicate drugs and incarcerate the offenders only. It is estimated that the War on

Drugs consumes approximately $51 billion per year.

Impact of the War on Drugs

The United States has been fighting drug abuse for decades. In fact, four American

presidents have publicly declared war on drugs. The war has been a continued failure. People

who have abused drugs have increased over the years and have continued to fill the hospitals,

prisons as well as the courts. The increased drug trade across the borders has caused numerous

violent crimes. Children from these drug users have been abused, neglected and also abandoned.

The only people who benefit from drug abuse are the drug dealers as well as the members of the

organized crimes.
DRUGS AND CRIME 3

Criminalization of drug use has been the main focus in the United States. Over the years

the government has spent significant amounts of money in the fight of drug abuse. It has not

succeeded though as the number of drug users and distributors have continued to grow. The

federal government of the United States has had made numerous efforts on drug eradication. The

initiatives have however been counterproductive (Felbab-Brown, 2010). The fight on drugs is

very costly and has cost the government a lot of money that could be used in more productive

initiatives. The prosecution of drug dealers, as well as their detention, is quite costly. More

prison is built for drug offenders. There is also an increase of street children who have been

abandoned by their drug-addicted parents.

Consequences of the war on drugs

There have been unintended negative consequences on the War on Drugs. These

consequences include criminalization of people who use drugs, sentencing practices that are

punitive, fuelling of disease transmission among many others.

Harsh sentencing policies and overcrowding in prisons

Over the last fifty years, the prison population has significantly increased. This is due to

the harsh sentencing policies on drugs. Drug offenders are given exaggerated sentences. A

significant number of people using or possessing drugs are incarcerated annually. This is far

more the case for people who have drug-related charges who are also imprisoned. Each country

has a way of dealing with drug offenders. Some are given warnings or fines while others are

referred to treatment facilities. Other countries prefer lengthy sentencing while others even give

the death penalty. The seriousness of the crime determines the sentencing. According to Hart &

Ksir (2011), most of the people in prison who are incarcerated due to drug charges, have been

given very long sentences that are disproportionate to their offenses.

DRUGS AND CRIME 4

Felbab-Brown (2010) argues that in Ecuador, a drug offender can receive a longer sentence than

a convicted murderer. In other states, the possession of minimal drug amounts as less as 0.03 g

can lead to three years of imprisonment. In Georgia, drug tests results can lead to imprisonment

if they come out positive. The three strikes laws in the United States demand that a drug offender

even with no prior criminal record can receive a mandatory twenty-five years imprisonment.

This is on the lower side. As a result of the sentencing laws, numerous drug offenders have been

given life sentences with no possibility of parole. Most of the drug offenders are low-level drug

users or traffickers. This penalty undermines the fairness of the law since major offenders such

as armed robbers or murderers are given lesser sentences.

Criminalization of women

Over recent years, the number of women incarcerated on drug charges has increased

significantly (Irwin, 2005). Women who are drug offenders are mostly from economically and

socially marginalized communities. It is noted that most women are involved with low quantities

of drug distribution and are usually nonviolent as compared to male counterparts. For instance, in

Georgia, the sentencing of female drug offender is 7 to 10 years. In most cases, the quantity of

drugs being distributed by these women does not go beyond 0.05 g of either cocaine or heroin.

(Felbab-Brown, 2010). Most female drug offenders have histories of physical or drug abuse, low

self-esteem, are illiterate or are living with HIV. Most of these women do not have skills, most

are single mothers and also do not get family support. In addition, the female may be dependent

on the male counterpart who is a drug offender.

Fuelling the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and other health-related risks

The increased imprisonment due to the War on Drugs has also caused an increase in the

transmission of HIV\AIDS as well as other diseases transmitted through blood. Irwin (2005)
DRUGS AND CRIME 5

argues that HIV and AIDS transmission in prisons is usually higher compared to the general

population. In addition, a quarter of the current population living with HIV has passed through

prison. Therefore, imprisonment has been regarded as a risk factor in contracting HIV.

The criminalization of users, as well as drug treatment, has had an indirect impact on the

HIV epidemic. The banning of needles and syringes for the drug users have created an

environment of fear and thus driving them away from receiving health services. In addition, due

to the ban, people share the available needles and syringes and therefore increase the

transmission of blood-borne diseases. Most drug addicts or addicts who have HIV avoid

treatment.

Conclusion

As much as the War on Drugs has continued to fail over the years, there have been few

victories to be noted. There have been people who have been enrolled in the federal treatment

programs and come out victorious. There have been cases where people who used to abuse drugs

have been clean and have created employment opportunities for other clean counterparts. Most

of them become productive in society. In addition, the recovering addicts can be able to take on

the responsibility of family as well as be positive role models to their communities.

So as to decriminalize drugs, society needs to do away with the notion that people who

use drugs are morally deviant. The government ought to shift its drug policies concentration to

the drug demand side. Numerous ways to eradicate drug abuse has been used over the years with

no avail. It is time to focus on the prevention of drug abuse through education. Changing the

policies on drug abuse is not admitting defeat. It is acknowledging failure and advocating for

improvement (Rolles, 2010). The bottom line is the number of drug abusers needs to be reduced

as well as the people incarcerated. The root cause of drug abuse needs to be uprooted.
DRUGS AND CRIME 6

References

Felbab-Brown, V. (2010). Shooting up. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Irwin, J. (2005). The warehouse prison. Los Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury Pub. Co.

Hart, C., & Ksir, C. (2011). Drugs, society, & human behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rolles, S. (2010). After the war on drugs. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 10(1), 22-24. Doi:

10.5042/daat.2010.0124