War on Drugs Policy Makers

War on Drugs Policy Makers

The United States has been at the forefront of the fight against drugs for many years. The war on drugs refers to coordinated campaigns that aim at suppressing the production, trafficking, possession, and supply of drugs. The campaign can be achieved through law enforcement as well as policy formulation. Policy formulation is one of the primary focuses of the federal government in curbing the increasing cases of drug production, possession, and supply within the country. Formulation of evidence-based drug policy reforms at national and regional is a positive step towards realizing a drug-free world (Humphreys & Rappaport, 1993). Despite the high expectations of the positive effects of drug war policies, the policies have failed to give the desired results about the fight against drugs. Studies have shown that harsh drug policies have been unable to reduce the availability and use of the substance as several cases of drug production, supply, and users have been reported in various states.

Evidence point to the failure of the drug policies based on the prevalence of drug-related violence statistics in the county. According to Bush-Baskette, S. (2000), the Mexican government reported that approximately 34,000 homicide cases were directly linked to drugs. In this report, the murders were reported to have been instigated by a misunderstanding on the production, supply, and use of drugs where the victims failed to meet their parts of bargains or simply engaged in violence due to drug addiction (Bush-Baskette 2000). In this sense, the war against drugs has failed to meet global expectations.

Another key indicator that the war on drugs has failed is the increased cases of health epidemics that are linked to drugs and substance abuse.  According to the report from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 2018, more than 70,000 people have lost their lives due to drug overdose. On the same note, about 12 million people inject themselves with drugs, leading to about 10% of them contracting HIV (Bergman & Harris, 1985). The same report also noted that over 10 million drug addicts that rely on the injection of the body with drugs suffer from the hepatitis C virus. From the statistics above, it is evident that the drug war policy has not helped much in curbing the use of misuse and abuse of drugs..

Another critical concern that points to the failure of the drug war is the mass incarceration reported in the US. According to (Bergman and Harris (1985), the number of Americans incarcerated has increased from 40,900 in 198 0 and reached about 469,500 in 2015. Among the incarcerated individuals, 20% are incarcerated due to drugs and substance abuse. In this report, drugs and substance abuse turned the individuals into social misfits, violence, and criminals. Moreover, some of the incarcerated individuals had drugs or were engaged in drug trafficking.

Does the war on drugs policy warrant the taxpayers’money?

Based on research studies and evidence from reports, it is vital to assume that the war on drugs has not yielded the expected results. Yet, the government and several non-governmental organizations have spent billions of dollars in policy formulation, law-enforcement, and education about the effects of the drug. The drug war has consumed and will continue to waste trillions of taxpayer money if it is not carefully analyzed and strategies changed. According to Bergman and Harris (1985), the United States statistics on incarceration is a demonstration that the government spends a large amount of money in terms of workforce productivity, legal and law enforcement resources in the country. For instance, a majority of the incarcerated citizens are young people that can be productive in the country where the economic growth is vital for its future. As the young generation continues to find their homes in prisons, the majority of the remaining taxpayers have to carry the burden of the unproductive population in incarceration as well as the fact they cannot produce anything for the country.

Economists have cited various cases where the taxpayer’s money has been used in the war on drug policies. While the federal government spends a lot of money on policy formulation as well as the implementation of the policies, the results have not been achieved. According to Heinbockel and Csoka, A. B. (2018), the drug war policy has led to the distortion of the initial plans of the policymakers to appear as if the policies were meant to make life hard for the affected individuals. By jailing the drug traffickers, for instance, the government is committing to taking care of the needs of that population for as long as they remain in jails. In this regard, the role of the government turns from the implementation of the policies to caring for the inmates who have rights to basic human needs, just like the free individuals (Heinbockel & Csoka, 018). In this case, the government loses twice in the war against drugs because it loses productive people to incarceration while at the same time providing for their needs in jail.

There has been an increase in the number of people that are incarcerated in the United States correctional facilities due to the use of drug and other nonviolent drug arrests. According to Hart, Ksir, and Ray (2013), an estimated of over 45,000 were jailed between 1980 and 2015. This figure demonstrates the high spending by the government people that are unproductive in the country’s economy. Incarcerated individuals have the right to be provided with basic human needs, including food, shelter, and medical care. Consequently, the United States spends billions of taxpayers’ money on people that can be productive if allowed to lead responsible lives. While this approach of incarceration is meant to deter the would-be- drug lords, it is proving to be a substantial economic burden on the people of the United States. Most importantly, the punitive measure was meant to bring some hope and reduce the level of dependence on drugs in the country. However, people continue to lose lives and to get jailed because of drugs, meaning the intended outcome of the policies have failed to meet the objectives set.

The government has been consistent in finding better ways of curbing the issues of drugs in the country by setting up various agencies that focus on policymaking and ensuring that the scourge is fought effectively. The National Drug Control Strategy was set with a view to enhancing the prevention, treatment, and enforcement of the laws on drugs. The government has spent a total of $213 billion to realize the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy since 2008. This means that the government spends about $20 billion per year in the fight drugs. One question that one asks is whether this spending is equivalent to the results of the effort. As mentioned above, the majority of the cases of drug-related illnesses have prompted the government to provide medical services to the population. For instance, a report by Heinbockel and Csoka, A. B. (2018), indicated that the government spends about $600 billion annually on treatment of the drug-related health complications. In this sense, the government loses the money for policymaking as well as treating patients with illnesses that are related to drug and substance abuse. In terms of economics, the taxpayers’ money spent on both drug policy and the implementation of the policies can be considered a waste because they do not bear fruits as the government continues to spend on healthcare.

Treatment of patients diagnosed with drug-related illnesses such as cancer and hepatitis C is way more expensive than deterrence. Of the policymakers can successfully formulate and implement effective policies to fight drugs, the government’s spending would have reduced significantly. However, this has not been realized as the cost of treatment is relatively high, leading to a higher allocation of national budgets on the fight on drugs (Hart, Ksir, &Ray 2013).Given the financial implications of the war on drug policies, it is imperative to reconsider the approach to enable the government to mitigate the adverse effects of drugs and substance abuse at the same time reduce the cost of policing and implementation of the regulations. For instance, the number of people incarcerated can significantly reduce if the policymakers aimed at creating awareness among the target population rather than creating punitive laws that punish the drug addicts and other offenses that relate to drugs. On the same breath, allowing the incarcerated people to be part of the policymakers would greatly influence their participation in the process, making the war a national initiative other than the state against the drug offenders.

Various agencies are responsible for the formulation of drug policies in the US, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. The agencies are a law enforcement agency that works closely with the federal government and the department of justice to combat drug trafficking. This agency has been instrumental in cross border drug trafficking in other countries into the United States. Most importantly, the agency works with the justice system to ensure that offenders of drug trafficking are charged and subsequently jailed for the offenses they have committed (Heinbockel & Csoka 2018). Despite the good intention and the government funding of the agency, the United States remains vulnerable to drug trafficking and drug-related offenses, thus raining the question on the effectiveness of the agencies that are charged with the responsibility of combating drug trafficking.

DEA is a component of the Department of Justice headed by an administrator who is a direct appointee of the President the role of the agency makes it necessary to require the government funding with taxpayers’ money. According to the budgetary allocation between 2007 and 2010, the agency used over 120 billion to fight drugs and substance abuse (Heinbockel & Csoka 2018). The agency spent a total of $120 billion to formulate policies and create an environment where the agency could easily identify the drug lords operating across borders as well as curb the supply of drugs from across the country. Despite the massive spending by the federal government through DEA, there statistics of individuals in incarceration continued to rise during the periods indicated. This is a clear demonstration that the fight against drug and substance abuse has not made any significant step. In this sense, the budgetary allocation that is meant to create a substantial change in society in terms of behavior change, deterrence, and creation of awareness on the dangers of drugs and substance abuse has not produced the desired impacts in the community.

The efforts of the federal government in curbing drugs in the country cannot be underestimated. It has shifted from the public involvement in the fight against drugs and adopted a more comprehensive approach that aims at preventing the use, trafficking, supply, and production of illegal drugs. The Obama administration was instrumental in the implementation of policies and regulations. Drug use, which is another critical concern for the federal government, also falls under drug war in the US.  According to the 2015 drug control budget, the government spends over 60% of the budgetary allocation for drug control spending on law enforcement and ensuring that the policies that have been enacted about drugs are fully executed (Heinbockel & Csoka 2018). On the same note, 37% of all the budgetary allocation for drug control in the country is spent on the fight against drugs at the local level.

Another critical policymaker in the war on drugs is the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), which was founded in 1982 to fight organized drug traffickers. This agency has been instrumental in identifying key individuals that are involved in crimes and other petty offenses in the country. With a large resource allocation from the government, the citizen expects effective management of the borders to contain the menace of drug trafficking in the country. However, there have been a series of cases of successful drug trafficking between Mexican borders, which points to a weakness in the agency’s ability to meet its objectives. OCDEFT targets areas where there are prevalent cases of cross border trafficking of drugs intending to prevent the vice. According to the DEA report of 2011, about 21% of all the criminal drug cases filed in the US by the attorneys originated from the OCDETF.

Despite the success of the drug trafficking agency, the overall impacts of their actions remains a topic of discussion as some look at the financial implication of their action as compared to the overall weight of the crime. For instance, economists believe that taking for one person in jail costs the US government a total of $24,000 annually (Heinbockel & Csoka 2018). In this case, when the agency works hard to nub all offenders named in drug trafficking cases, including their accomplices, the incarceration areas will be full of drug offender, leading to high demand for financial support from the government to meet the basic needs of the inmates

The National Drug Control Strategy, in collaboration with High-IntensityHigh-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, has been instrumental in promoting surveillance and implementation of the drug policies in the country. The National Drug Strategy has also expanded its operations to the healthcare sector, where it focuses on monitoring the prescription of drugs. Drugs and drug use in the US is a complicated vice that entails the abuse of illegal drugs as well as misuse of legal drugs. There is a need to monitor the prescription of drugs to increase accountability in the prescription of drugs such as opioids. Most importantly, the agency aims at ensuring that the affected individuals are afforded the right medical attention as well as professional assistance, in extreme cases of drug offenses, the offenders are arrested and taken through the justice system for judicial procedures.

The war on the drug in the US dates back to the time of President Richard Nixon in 1971 when he called for the motion setting of tough policies that were considered tough on lawbreakers, especially the systems that touched on issues crime. Drug abuse and misuse in the country were considered an offense and were treated with harsh crime policies. The policymakers at all levels of the government were tasked with ensuring that lawbreakers such as drug traffickers received harsh punishment as a measure of deterrence to prevent others from committing the same crimes within the American boundaries. While the President’s intention was to curb the menace of drug abuse and drug trafficking, it was misinterpreted by some racism Whites in the country as a way of taking advantage of the communities of color. The law enforcement agencies focused on implementing the law by targeting Blacks in the country. This led to the failure of policy and implementation of the policies in the country as it was viewed as a way of punishing the Blacks and leaving the Whites to continue committing crimes. Consequently, the resources that were pumped into the fight against drugs in the country went to waste because of a lack of accountability and focus on the significant issue that influenced the President to propose punitive measures against drug offenders.

Regardless of the overall feeling about how the Blacks were treated in the country with regards to the implementation of the law, the federal government continued to spend billions of taxpayers’ money on the war on drugs. Under the immediate former President of the US, Barack Obama, the federal government spent over $26 billion of the federal budget drug war policies in 2015 (Hart,  Ksir & Ray 2013). The office of the National Drug Control Policy also sought to be allocated more resources in 2016 for the same purpose of creating awareness among the target population about the dangers of drugs. The report indicated that an additional $25 billion is spent annually on the drug war.

It is prudent to mention that a significant amount of the annual budget is directed towards policymaking processes that aim at reducing the supplies, such as interdiction, eradication, and domestic law enforcement agencies. This takes a total of 55% of the total budget allocation. The remaining 45% is devoted to treatment, education, and prevention of the vice in society. In essence, the spending on policy formulation shows a lack of priority and the ability to bring the problem to a stop. Supply-to-demand funding is the major method of funding the war on drugs. One concern that the majority of the citizens have raised in the priority of the government in making policies when it is clear that the policies lead to little or no impacts on the target behavior(Hart,  Ksir & Ray 2013). Since the government started spending on the policies, the prevalence of drug-related crimes in the country has continued to escalate, meaning the policies have not adequately captured the pertinent issues on drugs in the country.

The government’s move to ban some drugs as a policy in the country has also raised critical debates that focus on the economic viability of prohibiting drugs. While the proponents of the prohibition maintain that it leads to elimination or reduction of the demand and supply of the drugs, the opponents maintain that the illegal market makes access to drugs more difficult, making the product a scarce and valuable commodity. The banning of drugs leads to the emergence of black markets, where the drugs can be accessed and sold at higher prices. In this regard, the cost of accessing the drugs can motivate the would-be-drug offenders to continue doing the business regardless of the ban(Hart, Ksir& Ray 2013). Another cohort of opponents of policymakers believes that banning drugs act as a tax imposition on the sellers, who must transfer the tax to the consumers of the product. This means that the consumers of the drugs must spend more money to access the drugs. In this sense, instead of deterrence, the government increases the value of the drug and makes it one of the most valued commodities, thus increasing its consumption.

One of the primary failures of the government is its inability to identify the priorities in the drug war. Education and creation of awareness among citizens. Demand reduction strategy can be achieved through proper and relevant education programs that resonate with the citizens. For instance, the government funding ought to focus on community-based education programs that encourage the youths and the vulnerable population on drugs effects, their health implications, and the economic effects of taking drugs. In terms of the financial consequences of the program, it would be cheaper for the federal government to fund educational programs that arresting prosecuting drug offenders. The prosecution would require a working system where the judiciary and the correctional facilities are fully equipped as well as ensuring that the offenders are also protected from violation of human rights, which can cost the government more than educating them

In conclusion, the US government has practically waged war on drugs in the country, assigning various agencies responsibilities to ensure that they curb the vice in society. The government’s efforts have been instrumental in deterring drug offenders in various ways. Despite the great course of trying to fight the vice in community, the number of people incarcerated with drug-related offenders, the prevalence of drug-related illnesses has increased, and government spending on policy frameworks continues to grow by the day. This has led to critical thinking and objective reevaluation of the effectiveness of the policies with regards to the federal government’s spending on the same. The failure to meet the desired goals is a demonstration that the government spends taxpayers’ money on making policies and implementing what cannot be achieved. It is essential to redesign the strategies to meet the modern environment by focusing on education rather than arresting and incarcerating drug offenders.

References

Bergman, H. C., & Harris, M. (1985). Substance abuse among young adult chronic patients. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 9(1), 49.

Bush-Baskette, S. (2000). The war on drugs and the incarceration of mothers. Journal of Drug Issues, 30(4), 919-928.

Hart, C. L., Ksir, C., & Ray, O. S. (2013). Drugs, society & human behavior (p. 496). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Heinbockel, T., & Csoka, A. B. (2018). Epigenetic effects of drugs of abuse. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(10), 2098.

Humphreys, K., & Rappaport, J. (1993). From the community mental health movement to the war on drugs: A study in the definition of social problems. American Psychologist, 48(8), 892.