effect of war on drugs essay

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Suggested Results

Antes de cambiar....

Esta página no está disponible en español

¿Le gustaría continuar en la página de inicio de Brennan Center en español?

al Brennan Center en inglés

al Brennan Center en español

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

We respect your privacy .

• Analysis & Opinion

Race, Mass Incarceration, and the Disastrous War on Drugs

Unravelling decades of racially biased anti-drug policies is a monumental project.

• Nkechi Taifa
• Cutting Jail & Prison Populations
• Social & Economic Harm

This essay is part of the  Brennan Center’s series  examining  the punitive excess that has come to define America’s criminal legal system .

I have a long view of the criminal punishment system, having been in the trenches for nearly 40 years as an activist, lobbyist, legislative counsel, legal scholar, and policy analyst. So I was hardly surprised when Richard Nixon’s domestic policy advisor  John Ehrlichman  revealed in a 1994 interview that the “War on Drugs” had begun as a racially motivated crusade to criminalize Blacks and the anti-war left.

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin and then criminalizing them both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night in the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did,” Ehrlichman said.

Before the War on Drugs, explicit discrimination — and for decades, overtly racist lynching — were the primary weapons in the subjugation of Black people. Then mass incarceration, the gradual progeny of a number of congressional bills, made it so much easier. Most notably, the 1984  Comprehensive Crime Control and Safe Streets Act  eliminated parole in the federal system, resulting in an upsurge of  geriatric prisoners . Then the 1986  Anti-Drug Abuse Act  established mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, including the infamous 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentences.  Its expansion  in 1988 added an overly broad definition of conspiracy to the mix. These laws flooded the federal system with people convicted of low-level and nonviolent drug offenses.

During the early 1990s, I walked the halls of Congress lobbying against various omnibus crime bills, which culminated in the granddaddy of them all — the  Violent Crime Control and Safe Streets Act  of 1994. This bill featured the largest expansion of the federal death penalty in modern times, the gutting of habeas corpus, the evisceration of the exclusionary rule, the trying of 13-year-olds as adults, and 100,000 new cops on the streets, which led to an explosion in racial profiling. It also included the elimination of Pell educational grants for prisoners, the implementation of the federal three strikes law, and monetary incentives to states to enact “truth-in-sentencing” laws, which subsidized an astronomical rise in prison construction across the country, lengthened the amount of time to be served, and solidified a mentality of meanness.

The prevailing narrative at the time was “tough on crime.” It was a narrative that caused then-candidate Bill Clinton to leave his presidential campaign trail to oversee the execution of a mentally challenged man in Arkansas. It was the same narrative that brought about the crack–powder cocaine disparity, supported the transfer of youth to adult courts, and popularized the myth of the Black child as “superpredator.”

With the proliferation of mandatory minimum sentences during the height of the War on Drugs, unnecessarily lengthy prison terms were robotically meted out with callous abandon. Shockingly severe sentences for drug offenses — 10, 20, 30 years, even life imprisonment — hardly raised an eyebrow. Traumatizing sentences that snatched parents from children and loved ones, destabilizing families and communities, became commonplace.

Such punishments should offend our society’s standard of decency. Why haven’t they? Most flabbergasting to me was the Supreme Court’s 1991  decision  asserting that mandatory life imprisonment for a first-time drug offense was not cruel and unusual punishment. The rationale was ludicrous. The Court actually held that although the punishment was cruel, it was not unusual.

The twisted logic reminded me of another Supreme Court  case  that had been decided a few years earlier. There, the Court allowed the execution of a man — despite overwhelming evidence of racial bias — because of fear that the floodgates would be opened to racial challenges in other aspects of criminal sentencing as well. Essentially, this ruling found that lengthy sentences in such cases are cruel, but they are usual. In other words, systemic racism exists, but because that is the norm, it is therefore constitutional.

In many instances, laws today are facially neutral and do not appear to discriminate intentionally. But the disparate treatment often built into our legal institutions allows discrimination to occur without the need of overt action. These laws look fair but nevertheless have a racially discriminatory impact that is structurally embedded in many police departments, prosecutor’s offices, and courtrooms.

Since the late 1980s, a combination of federal law enforcement policies, prosecutorial practices, and legislation resulted in Black people being disproportionately arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for possession and distribution of crack cocaine. Five grams of crack cocaine — the weight of a couple packs of sugar — was, for sentencing purposes, deemed the equivalent of 500 grams of powder cocaine; both resulted in the same five-year sentence. Although household surveys from the National Institute for Drug Abuse have revealed larger numbers of documented white crack cocaine users, the overwhelming number of arrests nonetheless came from Black communities who were disproportionately impacted by the facially neutral, yet illogically harsh, crack penalties.

For the system to be just, the public must be confident that at every stage of the process — from the initial investigation of crimes by police to the prosecution and punishment of those crimes — people in like circumstances are treated the same. Today, however, as yesterday, the criminal legal system strays far from that ideal, causing African Americans to often question, is it justice or “just-us?”

Fortunately, the tough-on-crime chorus that arose from the War on Drugs is disappearing and a new narrative is developing. I sensed the beginning of this with the 2008  Second Chance Reentry  bill and 2010  Fair Sentencing Act , which reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine. I smiled when the 2012 Supreme Court ruling in  Miller v. Alabama  came out, which held that mandatory life sentences without parole for children violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In 2013, I was delighted when Attorney General Eric Holder announced his  Smart on Crime  policies, focusing federal prosecutions on large-scale drug traffickers rather than bit players. The following year, I applauded President Obama’s executive  clemency initiative  to provide relief for many people serving inordinately lengthy mandatory-minimum sentences. Despite its failure to become law, I celebrated the  Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act  of 2015, a carefully negotiated bipartisan bill passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2015; a few years later some of its provisions were incorporated as part of the 2018  First Step Act . All of these reforms would have been unthinkable when I first embarked on criminal legal system reform.

But all of this is not enough. We have experienced nearly five decades of destructive mass incarceration. There must be an end to the racist policies and severe sentences the War on Drugs brought us. We must not be content with piecemeal reform and baby-step progress.

Indeed, rather than steps, it is time for leaps and bounds. End all mandatory minimum sentences and invest in a health-centered approach to substance use disorders. Demand a second-look process with the presumption of release for those serving life-without-parole drug sentences. Make sentences retroactive where laws have changed. Support categorical clemencies to rectify past injustices.

It is time for bold action. We must not be satisfied with the norm, but work toward institutionalizing the demand for a standard of decency that values transformative change.

Nkechi Taifa is president of The Taifa Group LLC, convener of the Justice Roundtable, and author of the memoir,  Black Power, Black Lawyer: My Audacious Quest for Justice.

Related Issues:

• Cutting Jail & Prison Populations
• Social & Economic Harm

The American ‘Punisher’s Brain’

U.S. sentencing practices seem especially extreme when compared with countries like Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Treating All Kids as Kids

Persistent and longstanding racism has fueled harsher treatment of young Black people in the justice system.

What Did You Call Me?

An incarcerated person writes about how dehumanizing language like “inmate” is destructive.

Informed citizens are democracy’s best defense

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The War On Drugs: 50 Years Later

After 50 years of the war on drugs, 'what good is it doing for us'.

During the War on Drugs, the Brownsville neighborhood in New York City saw some of the highest rates of incarceration in the U.S., as Black and Hispanic men were sent to prison for lengthy prison sentences, often for low-level, nonviolent drug crimes. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

During the War on Drugs, the Brownsville neighborhood in New York City saw some of the highest rates of incarceration in the U.S., as Black and Hispanic men were sent to prison for lengthy prison sentences, often for low-level, nonviolent drug crimes.

When Aaron Hinton walked through the housing project in Brownsville on a recent summer afternoon, he voiced love and pride for this tightknit, but troubled working-class neighborhood in New York City where he grew up.

He pointed to a community garden, the lush plots of vegetables and flowers tended by volunteers, and to the library where he has led after-school programs for kids.

But he also expressed deep rage and sorrow over the scars left by the nation's 50-year-long War on Drugs. "What good is it doing for us?" Hinton asked.

Revisiting Two Cities At The Front Line Of The War On Drugs

Critics Say Chauvin Defense 'Weaponized' Stigma For Black Americans With Addiction

As the United States' harsh approach to drug use and addiction hits the half-century milestone, this question is being asked by a growing number of lawmakers, public health experts and community leaders.

In many parts of the U.S., some of the most severe policies implemented during the drug war are being scaled back or scrapped altogether.

Hinton, a 37-year-old community organizer and activist, said the reckoning is long overdue. He described watching Black men like himself get caught up in drugs year after year and swept into the nation's burgeoning prison system.

"They're spending so much money on these prisons to keep kids locked up," Hinton said, shaking his head. "They don't even spend a fraction of that money sending them to college or some kind of school."

Aaron Hinton, a 37-year-old veteran activist and community organizer, said it's clear Brownsville needed help coping with the cocaine, heroin and other drug-related crime that took root here in the 1970s and 1980s. His own family was devastated by addiction. Brian Mann hide caption

Aaron Hinton, a 37-year-old veteran activist and community organizer, said it's clear Brownsville needed help coping with the cocaine, heroin and other drug-related crime that took root here in the 1970s and 1980s. His own family was devastated by addiction.

Hinton has lived his whole life under the drug war. He said Brownsville needed help coping with cocaine, heroin and drug-related crime that took root here in the 1970s and 1980s.

His own family was scarred by addiction.

"I've known my mom to be a drug user my whole entire life," Hinton said. "She chose to run the streets and left me with my great-grandmother."

Four years ago, his mom overdosed and died after taking prescription painkillers, part of the opioid epidemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Hinton said her death sealed his belief that tough drug war policies and aggressive police tactics would never make his family or his community safer.

The nation pivots (slowly) as evidence mounts against the drug war

During months of interviews for this project, NPR found a growing consensus across the political spectrum — including among some in law enforcement — that the drug war simply didn't work.

"We have been involved in the failed War on Drugs for so very long," said retired Maj. Neill Franklin, a veteran with the Baltimore City Police and the Maryland State Police who led drug task forces for years.

He now believes the response to drugs should be handled by doctors and therapists, not cops and prison guards. "It does not belong in our wheelhouse," Franklin said during a press conference this week.

Aaron Hinton has lived his whole life under the drug war. He has watched many Black men like himself get caught up in drugs year after year, swept into the nation's criminal justice system. Brian Mann/NPR hide caption

Aaron Hinton has lived his whole life under the drug war. He has watched many Black men like himself get caught up in drugs year after year, swept into the nation's criminal justice system.

Some prosecutors have also condemned the drug war model, describing it as ineffective and racially biased.

"Over the last 50 years, we've unfortunately seen the 'War on Drugs' be used as an excuse to declare war on people of color, on poor Americans and so many other marginalized groups," said New York Attorney General Letitia James in a statement sent to NPR.

On Tuesday, two House Democrats introduced legislation that would decriminalize all drugs in the U.S., shifting the national response to a public health model. The measure appears to have zero chance of passage.

But in much of the country, disillusionment with the drug war has already led to repeal of some of the most punitive policies, including mandatory lengthy prison sentences for nonviolent drug users.

In recent years, voters and politicians in 17 states — including red-leaning Alaska and Montana — and the District of Columbia have backed the legalization of recreational marijuana , the most popular illicit drug, a trend that once seemed impossible.

Last November, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize small quantities of all drugs , including heroin and methamphetamines.

Many critics say the course correction is too modest and too slow.

"The war on drugs was an absolute miscalculation of human behavior," said Kassandra Frederique, who heads the Drug Policy Alliance, a national group that advocates for total drug decriminalization.

She said the criminal justice model failed to address the underlying need for jobs, health care and safe housing that spur addiction.

Indeed, much of the drug war's architecture remains intact. Federal spending on drugs — much of it devoted to interdiction — is expected to top $37 billion this year.

The Coronavirus Crisis

Drug overdose deaths spiked to 88,000 during the pandemic, white house says.

The U.S. still incarcerates more people than any other nation, with nearly half of the inmates in federal prison held on drug charges .

But the nation has seen a significant decline in state and federal inmate populations, down by a quarter from the peak of 1.6 million in 2009 to roughly 1.2 million last year .

There has also been substantial growth in public funding for health care and treatment for people who use drugs, due in large part to passage of the Affordable Care Act .

"The best outcomes come when you treat the substance use disorder [as a medical condition] as opposed to criminalizing that person and putting them in jail or prison," said Dr. Nora Volkow, who has been head of the National Institute of Drug Abuse since 2003.

Volkow said data shows clearly that the decision half a century ago to punish Americans who struggle with addiction was "devastating ... not just to them but actually to their families."

From a bipartisan War on Drugs to Black Lives Matter

Wounds left by the drug war go far beyond the roughly 20.3 million people who have a substance use disorder .

The campaign — which by some estimates cost more than $1 trillion — also exacerbated racial divisions and infringed on civil liberties in ways that transformed American society.

Frederique, with the Drug Policy Alliance, said the Black Lives Matter movement was inspired in part by cases that revealed a dangerous attitude toward drugs among police.

In Derek Chauvin's murder trial, the former officer's defense claimed aggressive police tactics were justified because of small amounts of fentanyl in George Floyd's body. Critics described the argument as an attempt to "weaponize" Floyd's substance use disorder and jurors found Chauvin guilty.

Breonna Taylor, meanwhile, was shot and killed by police in her home during a drug raid . She wasn't a suspect in the case.

"We need to end the drug war not just for our loved ones that are struggling with addiction, but we need to remove the excuse that that is why law enforcement gets to invade our space ... or kill us," Frederique said.

The United States has waged aggressive campaigns against substance use before, most notably during alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s.

The modern drug war began with a symbolic address to the nation by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.

Speaking from the White House, Nixon declared the federal government would now treat drug addiction as "public enemy No. 1," suggesting substance use might be vanquished once and for all.

"In order to fight and defeat this enemy," Nixon said, "it is necessary to wage a new all-out offensive."

President Richard Nixon's speech on June 17, 1971, marked the symbolic start of the modern drug war. In the decades that followed Democrats and Republicans embraced ever-tougher laws penalizing people with addiction.

Studies show from the outset drug laws were implemented with a stark racial bias , leading to unprecedented levels of mass incarceration for Black and brown men .

As recently as 2018, Black men were nearly six times more likely than white men to be locked up in state or federal correctional facilities, according to the U.S. Justice Department .

Researchers have long concluded the pattern has far-reaching impacts on Black families, making it harder to find employment and housing, while also preventing many people of color with drug records from voting .

In a 1994 interview published in Harper's Magazine , Nixon adviser John Ehrlichman suggested racial animus was among the motives shaping the drug war.

"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the [Vietnam] War or Black," Ehrlichman said. "But by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."

Despite those concerns, Democrats and Republicans partnered on the drug war decade after decade, approving ever-more-severe laws, creating new state and federal bureaucracies to interdict drugs, and funding new armies of police and federal agents.

At times, the fight on America's streets resembled an actual war, especially in poor communities and communities of color.

Police units carried out drug raids with military-style hardware that included body armor, assault weapons and tanks equipped with battering rams.

President Richard Nixon explaining aspects of the special message sent to the Congress on June 17, 1971, asking for an extra $155 million for a new program to combat the use of drugs. He labeled drug abuse "a national emergency." Harvey Georges/AP hide caption

President Richard Nixon explaining aspects of the special message sent to the Congress on June 17, 1971, asking for an extra $155 million for a new program to combat the use of drugs. He labeled drug abuse "a national emergency."

"What we need is another D-Day, not another Vietnam, not another limited war fought on the cheap," declared then-Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., in 1989.

Biden, who chaired the influential Senate Judiciary Committee, later co-authored the controversial 1994 crime bill that helped fund a vast new complex of state and federal prisons, which remains the largest in the world.

On the campaign trail in 2020, Biden stopped short of repudiating his past drug policy ideas but said he now believes no American should be incarcerated for addiction. He also endorsed national decriminalization of marijuana.

While few policy experts believe the drug war will come to a conclusive end any time soon, the end of bipartisan backing for punitive drug laws is a significant development.

More drugs bring more deaths and more doubts

Adding to pressure for change is the fact that despite a half-century of interdiction, America's streets are flooded with more potent and dangerous drugs than ever before — primarily methamphetamines and the synthetic opioid fentanyl.

"Back in the day, when we would see 5, 10 kilograms of meth, that would make you a hero if you made a seizure like that," said Matthew Donahue, the head of operations at the Drug Enforcement Administration.

As U.S. Corporations Face Reckoning Over Prescription Opioids, CEOs Keep Cashing In

"Now it's common for us to see 100-, 200- and 300-kilogram seizures of meth," he added. "It doesn't make a dent to the price."

Efforts to disrupt illegal drug supplies suffered yet another major blow last year after Mexican officials repudiated drug war tactics and began blocking most interdiction efforts south of the U.S.-Mexico border.

"It's a national health threat, it's a national safety threat," Donahue told NPR.

Last year, drug overdoses hit a devastating new record of 90,000 deaths , according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The drug war failed to stop the opioid epidemic

Critics say the effectiveness of the drug war model has been called into question for another reason: the nation's prescription opioid epidemic.

Beginning in the late 1990s, some of the nation's largest drug companies and pharmacy chains invested heavily in the opioid business.

State and federal regulators and law enforcement failed to intervene as communities were flooded with legally manufactured painkillers, including Oxycontin.

"They were utterly failing to take into account diversion," said West Virginia Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who sued the DEA for not curbing opioid production quotas sooner.

"It's as close to a criminal act as you can find," Morrisey said.

Courtney Hessler, a reporter for The (Huntington) Herald-Dispatch in West Virgina, has covered the opioid epidemic. As a child she wound up in foster care after her mother became addicted to opioids. "You know there's thousands of children that grew up the way that I did. These people want answers," Hessler told NPR. Brian Mann/NPR hide caption

Courtney Hessler, a reporter for The (Huntington) Herald-Dispatch in West Virgina, has covered the opioid epidemic. As a child she wound up in foster care after her mother became addicted to opioids. "You know there's thousands of children that grew up the way that I did. These people want answers," Hessler told NPR.

One of the epicenters of the prescription opioid epidemic was Huntington, a small city in West Virginia along the Ohio River hit hard by the loss of factory and coal jobs.

"It was pretty bad. Eighty-one million opioid pills over an eight-year period came into this area," said Courtney Hessler, a reporter with The (Huntington) Herald-Dispatch.

Public health officials say 1 in 10 residents in the area still battle addiction. Hessler herself wound up in foster care after her mother struggled with opioids.

In recent months, she has reported on a landmark opioid trial that will test who — if anyone — will be held accountable for drug policies that failed to keep families and communities safe.

"I think it's important. You know there's thousands of children that grew up the way that I did," Hessler said. "These people want answers."

A needle disposal box at the Cabell-Huntington Health Department sits in the front parking lot in 2019 in Huntington, W.Va. The city is experiencing a surge in HIV cases related to intravenous drug use following a recent opioid crisis in the state. Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images hide caption

A needle disposal box at the Cabell-Huntington Health Department sits in the front parking lot in 2019 in Huntington, W.Va. The city is experiencing a surge in HIV cases related to intravenous drug use following a recent opioid crisis in the state.

During dozens of interviews, community leaders told NPR that places like Huntington, W.Va., and Brownsville, N.Y., will recover from the drug war and rebuild.

They predicted many parts of the country will accelerate the shift toward a public health model for addiction: treating drug users more often like patients with a chronic illness and less often as criminals.

But ending wars is hard and stigma surrounding drug use, heightened by a half-century of punitive policies, remains deeply entrenched. Aaron Hinton, the activist in Brownsville, said it may take decades to unwind the harm done to his neighborhood.

"It's one step forward, two steps back," Hinton said. "But I remain hopeful. Why? Because what else am I going to do?"

• drug policy
• war on drugs
• public health
• opioid epidemic

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.54(1); 2022

How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system

Aliza cohen.

a Department of Research and Academic Engagement, Drug Policy Alliance, New York, NY, USA

Sheila P. Vakharia

Julie netherland, kassandra frederique.

b Drug Policy Alliance, New York, NY, USA

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.

There is a growing recognition in the fields of public health and medicine that social determinants of health (SDOH) play a key role in driving health inequities and disparities among various groups, such that a focus upon individual-level medical interventions will have limited effects without the consideration of the macro-level factors that dictate how effectively individuals can manage their health. While the health impacts of mass incarceration have been explored, less attention has been paid to how the “war on drugs” in the United States exacerbates many of the factors that negatively impact health and wellbeing, disproportionately impacting low-income communities and people of colour who already experience structural challenges including discrimination, disinvestment, and racism. The U.S. war on drugs has subjected millions to criminalisation, incarceration, and lifelong criminal records, disrupting or altogether eliminating their access to adequate resources and supports to live healthy lives. This paper examines the ways that “drug war logic” has become embedded in key SDOH and systems, such as employment, education, housing, public benefits, family regulation (commonly referred to as the child welfare system), the drug treatment system, and the healthcare system. Rather than supporting the health and wellbeing of individuals, families, and communities, the U.S. drug war has exacerbated harm in these systems through practices such as drug testing, mandatory reporting, zero-tolerance policies, and coerced treatment. We argue that, because the drug war has become embedded in these systems, medical practitioners can play a significant role in promoting individual and community health by reducing the impact of criminalisation upon healthcare service provision and by becoming engaged in policy reform efforts.

KEY MESSAGES

• A drug war logic that prioritises and justifies drug prohibition, criminalisation, and punishment has fuelled the expansion of drug surveillance and control mechanisms in numerous facets of everyday life in the United States negatively impacting key social determinants of health, including housing, education, income, and employment.
• The U.S. drug war’s frontline enforcers are no longer police alone but now include physicians, nurses, teachers, neighbours, social workers, employers, landlords, and others.
• Physicians and healthcare providers can play a significant role in promoting individual and community health by reducing the impact of criminalisation upon healthcare service provision and engaging in policy reform.

Introduction

Social determinants of health (SDOH) are “the conditions in the environments where people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.” [ 1 ] There is a growing recognition in the fields of public health and medicine that SDOH play a key role in driving health inequities and disparities, such that a focus on individual-level medical interventions will have limited effects without the consideration of the macro-level factors that dictate how effectively individuals can manage their health. For instance, differences in access to nutritious foods, safe neighbourhoods, stable housing, well-paying job opportunities, enriching school environments, insurance, and healthcare can lead to differential health outcomes for individuals, their families, and their communities. And as these mid- and downstream SDOH have gained more attention, we must also focus on more macro SDOH in order to understand “how upstream factors, such as governance and legislation, create structural challenges and impose downstream barriers that impact the ability and opportunity to lead a healthy lifestyle.” [ 2 ]

One underexplored upstream SDOH is the “war on drugs” in the United States and how it exacerbates many of the factors that negatively impact health and wellbeing, disproportionately affecting low-income communities and people of colour who already experience structural challenges including discrimination, disinvestment, and racism [ 3 ]. President Richard Nixon launched the contemporary drug war in the U.S. in 1971 when he signed the Controlled Substances Act and declared drug abuse as “public enemy number one.” [ 4 ] Since the declaration of the U.S. drug war, billions of dollars each year have been spent on drug enforcement and punishment because it was made a local, state, and federal priority [ 5 ]. For the past half century, the war on drugs has subjected millions to criminalisation, incarceration, and lifelong criminal records, disrupting or altogether eliminating access to adequate resources and supports to live healthy lives.

Drug offences remain the leading cause of arrest in the nation; over 1.1 million drug-related arrests were made in 2020, and the majority were for personal possession alone [ 6 ]. Black people – who are 13% of the U.S. population – made up 24% of all drug arrests in 2020, despite the fact that people of all races use and sell drugs at similar rates [ 6–8 ]. While incarceration rates for drug-related offences skyrocketed in the 1980s and 1990s, they have decreased in recent years motivated both by cost savings and criminal legal reform efforts to promote a public health approach to drug use. However, estimates still suggest that roughly 20% of people who are incarcerated are there for a drug charge, and racial disparities in incarceration persist [ 9 , 10 ].

Meanwhile, the illicit drug supply has become increasingly unpredictable and contaminated due to drug supply disruptions, contributing to an exponential increase in drug overdose deaths [ 11 , 12 ]. Estimates suggest that one million people died of a drug-involved overdose between 1999 and 2020, with over 100,000 deaths occurring in a calendar year for the first time in 2021 [ 13 , 14 ]. Since 2015, overdose deaths have disproportionately impacted racial and ethnic minorities; Black people have had the biggest increase in overdose fatality rates, and today, Black and Native people have the highest overdose death rates across the U.S [ 15 ]. The most recent “fourth wave” of the overdose crisis can be attributed to a fentanyl-contaminated drug supply caused by drug prohibition; criminalisation that leads to stigma and fear of punishment that deters people from getting support they might need; and a lack of robust, scaled-up investment in harm reduction and evidence-based treatment services [ 16 , 17 ]. Although harm reduction interventions, including supervised consumption spaces (also called supervised injection facilities, drug consumption rooms, or overdose prevention centres) and heroin-assisted treatment have been widely studied and found effective outside of the U.S., these strategies have not been widely adopted in this country [ 18–21 ].

The drug war has also become deeply embedded within many of the systems and structures of U.S. life well beyond the criminal legal apparatus [ 3 ]. Since the health impacts of incarceration have been studied elsewhere, this paper will specifically discuss the impacts of criminalisation in other facets of life [ 22 ].

We argue that an underlying drug war logic has fuelled the expansion of drug surveillance and control mechanisms in numerous facets of everyday life in the U.S. We define drug war logic as a logic that prioritises and justifies drug prohibition, criminalisation, and punishment to purportedly address the real and perceived health harms of drug use over a public health approach to address these issues. In coining this term, we hope to make more visible the implicit assumptions about drug use that are often unnamed but common in the policies and practices across different institutions. We acknowledge that many actors in these settings where drug war logic is embedded, including physicians and other healthcare providers, are often well-intentioned yet unaware of how they may be perpetuating this logic through their own actions. We argue that drug war logic defies and contradicts widely accepted understandings of addiction as a health issue and has, in many cases, made a public health approach more challenging to implement [ 23 ]. Notably, the American Society of Addiction Medicine defines addiction as “a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences.” [ 24 ] As this paper will outline, drug war logic undermines rather than supports the health of people who use drugs, their families, and their communities by treating drug use as a criminal issue.

Drug war logic is made concrete, not just within criminal legal systems, but also through mandated drug reporting and monitoring systems in treatment and healthcare settings, compulsory drug testing in employment and for the receipt of social services, the proliferation of zero-tolerance workplaces and school zones, mandated treatment in order to receive resources or avoid loss of benefits, background checks for work and housing, and numerous other measures which will be discussed in detail below. As a result, the drug war’s frontline enforcers are no longer police alone but now include physicians, nurses, teachers, neighbours, social workers, employers, landlords, and others who are required to engage in these forms of surveillance and punishment.

This commentary will use a SDOH lens to explore a number of systems where the drug war and its logic have taken root, impacting individual and community health and subjecting many people in the U.S. to surveillance due to suspected or confirmed drug use. Healthcare providers must have a robust understanding of the impact of drug war logic in employment, housing, education, public benefits, the family regulation system (commonly referred to as the child welfare system), the drug treatment system, and the healthcare system because these deeply impact the health of their patients, particularly their patients who use drugs (For the purposes of this paper, we are using the term “Family Regulation System,” coined by Emma Williams and used by other scholars, instead of the more commonly used term “Child Welfare System” to reflect the fact that, particularly for low-income families and families of color, state intervention often occurs in order to regulate their families rather than to prioritize the welfare of the entire family unit, of which the child is a part).

Employment, with its link to income and health insurance, is an important determinant of health. However, drug testing, criminal background checks, and exclusions of those with criminal histories from certain professions create significant barriers to obtaining and maintaining employment. Beginning in the 1980s, employment-based drug testing became widespread. In a 1994 report, the National Research Council noted that “[i]n a period of about 20 years, urine testing has moved from identifying a few individuals with major criminal or health problems to generalized programs that touch the lives of millions of citizens.” [ 25 ] Between 2017 and 2020, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that approximately 21% of respondents were tested as part of the hiring process, and 15% were subject to random employee drug testing [ 26 ].

Despite the widespread use of testing, less than 5.5% of results are positive for any drug, according to data from Quest Diagnostics, one of the largest testing companies in the country [ 27 ]. There is little evidence that these policies are effective in reducing drug use, improving workplace safety, or increasing productivity [ 28–30 ]. Notably, drug tests cannot specify how much of a drug was consumed, whether the person is currently intoxicated or impaired, or if they have a SUD. Drug tests cannot indicate if drug use will impact a person’s ability to perform their work or if they present a safety risk. Rather, drug tests simply show whether or not someone has a particular metabolite in their system [ 31–35 ].

Beyond workplace drug testing, hundreds of thousands are excluded from stable, well-paid work because of drug-related convictions. Over 70 million people – more than 20% of the U.S. population – have some type of criminal record [ 36 ]. A drug arrest or charge, even without a conviction, can be a barrier to getting a job because it can appear in many web searches and background checks [ 37 ]. Criminal background checks have become cheaper and easier to access, even though these records are notoriously inaccurate [ 38 , 39 ]. In addition, more than a quarter of jobs in the U.S. require some kind of licence, and a drug conviction history can automatically prevent people from getting a professional licence for their trade, like trucking or barbering [ 40 ].

These employment barriers disproportionately affect Black men, who already face additional impediments to employment and who are most harmed by the drug war and criminalisation [ 41 ]. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance stating that denying employment based on criminal records could be a form of racial discrimination because people of colour are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement and thus more likely to have an arrest or conviction record [ 42 , 43 ]. As a recent report by the Brennan Centre points out: “the staggering racial disparities in our criminal justice system flow directly into economic inequality” [ 36 ]. This same report found that those with a history of imprisonment earned 52% less than those with no history of incarceration.

Employment is a health issue that should be of concern to healthcare providers because it provides income, access to health insurance and medical treatment, and social connection [ 44 ]. Precarious employment and low income are linked to poor health, and some research has shown that people who use drugs and who are precariously employed face increased vulnerability to violence and HIV infection [ 45–47 ]. Being unemployed can lead to poverty and negative health effects and is associated with increased rates of drug use and SUDs [ 48 ].

Rather than supporting people who use drugs in accessing employment and the health benefits attached to it, drug war logic in employment settings can erect barriers. Eliminating or greatly restricting workplace drug testing as well as banning criminal background checks and professional licencing restrictions are important steps towards restoring access to employment and the many health benefits it confers.

Housing is another key SDOH that is significantly impacted by drug war policies and practices. Drug war surveillance in housing began with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which prohibited public housing authorities (PHAs) from allowing tenants to engage in drug-related activity on or near public housing premises and deemed such activity grounds for immediate eviction [ 49 ].

The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 expanded on this so that if a tenant’s family member or guest - regardless of whether they live on-site - engages in drug-related activity, the tenant and their household can be evicted [ 50 ]. Additionally, the Act states that evicted households must be banned from public housing for a minimum of three years unless the tenant completes an agency-approved drug treatment program or has otherwise been “rehabilitated successfully.” [ 50 ]

Six years later in 1996, Congress passed the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act, which established “One Strike” laws and expanded on previous acts to give PHAs the authority to evict tenants if they or a guest was suspected of using or selling drugs, even outside of the premises [ 51 ]. This series of public housing policies requires neither a drug arrest nor proof that a tenant or their guest is involved in drug use, sales, or activity [ 52 ].

Private housing markets can also enforce zero-tolerance drug policies. In over 2,000 cities across the U.S., landlords can certify their property as “crime-free” by taking a class, implementing “crime prevention” architecture, and including clauses in their leases that allow for immediate eviction should a tenant, family member, or guest engage in “criminal activity,” particularly drug-related activity, on or off the premises [ 53 , 54 ]. Landlords, in close partnership with law enforcement, can invoke these laws by claiming to enforce crime-free ordinances, regardless of whether the alleged drug-related activity is illegal. In states across the U.S., private landlords have evicted tenants following an overdose [ 55–59 ]. In practice, these programs and ordinances increase the surveillance and displacement of low-income Black and Latinx tenants while not decreasing crime and potentially deterring someone from calling 911 for medical assistance in case of an overdose [ 55 ].

Evictions can lead to unstable housing or homelessness, which is associated with a host of chronic health problems, infectious diseases, emotional and developmental problems, food insecurity, and premature death [ 60–63 ]. Lacking a permanent address and reliable transportation makes it more difficult to receive and store medications and travel to a hospital or clinic; this is compounded with the stigma and discrimination that unhoused people often face from healthcare providers [ 64 ]. Being unhoused or housing unstable is also associated with difficulty obtaining long-term employment and education [ 65–67 ]. Longitudinal studies have found that family eviction has both short- and long-term impacts among newborns and children, including adverse birth outcomes, poorer health, risk of lead exposure, worse cognitive function, and lower educational outcomes [ 68 ]. These negative health outcomes are compounded for people with SUDs [ 69 ]. Unhoused people who use drugs are often forced into more unsafe, more unsanitary, and riskier injection and drug-using practices to avoid detection [ 70 ]. Evictions and homelessness are also associated with increased risk of drug-related harms, including non-fatal and fatal overdose, infectious diseases, and syringe sharing [ 71–73 ]. In addition, evictions can disrupt relationships between users and trusted sellers, making an already unregulated drug supply even more unpredictable [ 70 ].

While housing is understood as a key component of health and safety for all people, including people who use drugs, drug war logic can encourage and facilitate displacement, making it hard for housed people to remain so and creating barriers for those who are unhoused to find safe, affordable housing options. Solutions for improving housing access include ending evictions and removing housing bans based solely on drug-related activity or suspected activity, restricting landlords from using criminal background checks to exclude prospective tenants, and ending collaborations between housing complexes and law enforcement. Housing interventions that can improve the health of people who use drugs, in particular, include investing in Housing First programs and permanent supportive housing, providing eviction protection to people who call for help during an overdose emergency (i.e. expanding 911 Good Samaritan laws), and establishing overdose prevention centres.

Education is also understood as a strong predictor of health [ 74–76 ], but drug war logic in educational settings can subject young people who use drugs to punishment rather than needed support. Adolescent substance use is associated with sexual risk behaviour, experience of violence, adverse childhood experiences, and mental health and suicide risks, which should justify greater mental health and support services in schools [ 77 ]. Despite this, punitive responses to suspected or confirmed drug use, ranging from surveillance and policing to drug testing and expulsion, are commonplace in the field of education.

In 2018, 94% of high schools used security cameras, 65% did random sweeps for contraband, and 13% used metal detectors [ 78 ]. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have almost as many police and security officers in schools as they do school counsellors [ 79 , 80 ]. Drug use is one of the most common sources of referrals of students to police [ 80 ]. And recent estimates show that over a third of all U.S. school districts with middle or high schools had student drug testing policies [ 81–83 ].

Drug war policies also impact higher education, which is integral to economic mobility [ 84 ]. Prior to December 2020, federal law prohibited educational grants and financial aid to people in prison, one-fifth of whom were there for a drug offence, and drug convictions could lead to temporary or indefinite suspension of federal financial aid for students [ 85 ]. Still today, fourteen states have some temporary or permanent denial of financial aid for college or university education for people with criminal records [ 86 ].

These education policies – surveillance, policing, drug testing, zero tolerance, and barriers to financial aid – restrict access to education and ultimately impede economic wellbeing and positive health outcomes. For example, dropout risk increases every time a student receives harsh school discipline or comes into contact with the criminal legal system, including through school police officers [ 87 ]. Dropping out, in turn, is associated with higher unemployment and chronic health conditions [ 88 ]. In addition, discipline, such as expulsion for a drug violation, can contribute to more arrests for drug offences or the development of SUDs [ 89–91 ]. In contrast, school completion can help reduce higher risk substance use patterns [ 92 ], and education is a strong predictor of long-term health and quality of life [ 93 ].

Rather than supporting young people in completing their education and getting the support they may need, drug war logic prioritises punishing them in schools while often restricting access to financial aid and educational services for those seeking higher education. If we want to improve the health of young people, we need to reverse these policies. For example, the American Academy of Paediatrics opposes the random drug testing of young people based on an exhaustive review of the literature finding it did more harm than good [ 94 ]. Removing police from schools, ending zero-tolerance policies, and offering young people who use drugs counselling and support, instead of expulsion, could also help improve completion rates, ultimately leading to better health outcomes.

Public benefits

Though economic and food insecurity are linked with poor health outcomes, decades of drug policies have restricted access to public assistance programs. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) [ 95 ], and one of the stated goals was to facilitate the transition from reliance on public assistance to full-time employment [ 96 ]. This law restricted benefits for people who use drugs, people with prior drug convictions, and their families in several ways.

The PRWORA introduced a lifetime ban on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance benefits for people with felony drug convictions, unless the state modified or opted out of the ban. Today, one state - South Carolina - fully bars people with felony drug convictions from receiving SNAP, and twenty-one states have instituted a modified SNAP ban [ 97 ]. Seven states fully bar people with felony drug convictions from receiving TANF, and seventeen states and the District of Columbia have instituted modified TANF bans [ 97 ]. Common features of modified bans can include mandatory drug treatment, drug testing, and parole compliance [ 98 , 99 ]. These zero-tolerance bans have discriminatory and disproportionate impacts among Black and Latinx people and women, who are disproportionately incarcerated for federal and state drug offences [ 100 ].

Drug testing of public benefits applicants is less discussed in the peer-reviewed literature [ 101 ]. Although the PRWORA authorised, but did not require, drug screenings of public benefits applicants, today 13 states drug test TANF applicants [ 102 , 103 ]. States that drug test as a condition of receiving TANF can only test if drug use is suspected. For example, some states automatically require people with felony drug convictions to take a drug test [ 104 ], while other states require all applicants to undergo a drug screening questionnaire and then require a test if there is suspicion of drug use [ 105 ]. Many TANF applicants, who are already low income, are expected to pay for their drug tests. The impact of drug testing on people with felony drug convictions is compounded since they are already disproportionately poor, unemployed, and food insecure compared to people who have never been incarcerated [ 106–108 ].

In most states that test, a positive drug test can temporarily or permanently disqualify a person from receiving TANF benefits [ 105 ]. Even if cash assistance is allocated to other household members (e.g. children) through a different parent or guardian, overall benefits for the family can be reduced. In some cases, a person who tests positive for drugs may still receive benefits but only if they complete mandated, abstinence-based treatment [ 105 ]. Such policies and practices can deter many eligible candidates and those in need of support from ultimately seeking these public benefits altogether [ 109 ].

There are numerous negative health consequences associated with food and economic insecurity [ 110–112 ]. In particular, studies have found that loss or reduction of SNAP is associated with increased odds of household and child food insecurity and increased odds of forgoing health or dental care [ 113 ]. Loss or reduction of TANF is associated with increased risk of hunger, homelessness or eviction, utility shutoff, inadequate medical care, and poor health [ 114 ].

When people are seeking financial and nutritional support to better care for themselves and their families, especially in crisis, drug war logic justifies more barriers to SNAP and TANF and the discontinuation of assistance precisely when people need it the most. To better support financial and economic security of low-income people, advocates can support removing TANF and SNAP bans for people who have felony drug convictions, ending drug testing requirements for public assistance, eliminating mandatory drug treatment requirements for public benefits applicants and recipients, and adequately investing in public benefit programs to ensure they provide enough assistance for families.

Family regulation

The family regulation system (FRS) often treats any drug use as a predictor of child abuse or neglect, even though research shows that poverty is one of the largest predictors of adverse infant and child health outcomes [ 115 ]. Drug war logic within the FRS justifies the separation and punishment of families for drug use even absent evidence of abuse or neglect. Half of all states and the District of Columbia require healthcare professionals to report any suspected drug use during pregnancy to FRS authorities, and eight states require them to drug test patients suspected of drug use [ 116 ]. Statutes in nineteen states and the District of Columbia define any drug use during pregnancy as a form of child maltreatment [ 117 ]. These policies exist even though most people who use drugs use them infrequently and do not meet criteria for SUDs [ 118 ]. Additionally, evidence proving causal links between prenatal drug use and child harm and maltreatment is limited. Research finds that in utero exposure to drugs may not have long-term negative developmental impacts on the child and that confounding variables, like poverty and food insecurity, have significant and often stronger impacts on child development than drug use [ 117 ].

Drug testing, mandatory reporting, and the prospect of punishments result in poorer health outcomes for pregnant people who use drugs, especially if they struggle with their use. A fear of punishment and family separation leads some pregnant people who use drugs to avoid honest, open conversations about healthcare needs or how to reduce drug use harms so that many delay, avoid, or forgo prenatal care altogether [ 119 , 120 ].

Like healthcare professionals, most school teachers, counsellors, social workers, and mental healthcare providers are required by law to report any suspicion of child maltreatment or neglect, which then initiates an FRS investigation [ 121 ]. A child can be removed from their home if the caregiver tests positive for drugs, even absent any other evidence of mistreatment or abuse. In addition, a positive drug test can lead to a parent being mandated to complete abstinence-based treatment even if the parent does not meet criteria for a diagnosable SUD [ 122 ]. Intervention by the FRS, such as placing children in foster care, can lead to adverse education, employment, and mental and behavioural health outcomes among children; increased parental mental illness diagnoses; and increased parental drug use to cope with the trauma of family separation [ 123–125 ].

These policies have disproportionate impacts on Black people. Black pregnant women are more likely to be tested for drug use, and Black women are reported to the FRS at higher rates than white women [ 126–128 ]. Over half of Black children will experience an FRS investigation at some point during their lifetime [ 129 ]. One study that analysed cumulative foster system removals between 2000 and 2011 found that 1 in 17 U.S. children, 1 in 9 Black children, and 1 in 7 Indigenous children will experience foster placement before they turn 18, and data show that many FRS cases involve allegations of parental drug use at some point [ 130 ]. These disparities in FRS involvement are not because Black parents are using drugs or mistreating their children at higher rates; rather, it’s because Black families, especially poor Black families, more often encounter state systems – like public hospitals and public benefits offices – and mandated reporters within these systems that monitor behaviour and drug use [ 131 ].

Drug war logic prioritises separation, coercion, and punishment in families where drug use occurs or is suspected. For pregnant people and parents who do use problematically, their use should be treated as a public health issue, according to international bodies like the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on drugs [ 132 ]. Advocates can support legislative policy changes to prohibit removals based on drug tests alone, eliminate mandatory reporting for drug use alone, and repeal laws that define drug use during pregnancy as de facto child abuse or maltreatment. Healthcare professionals can also advocate to only allow drug testing when medically necessary and when the parent provides informed consent; support practices that keep parents and infants together, like breastfeeding and skin-to-skin contact, that can mitigate the effects of neonatal abstinence syndrome [ 133 , 134 ]; and create programs providing both perinatal healthcare and SUD treatment to improve access and continuity of care as well as initiation and maintenance of medications for addiction treatment.

Substance use treatment system

Substance use treatment can be an essential lifeline for people with SUD working towards recovery. Yet surveillance and punishment are embedded into SUD treatment through the numerous constraints placed upon clients because of the role of institutional referral sources in treatment, such as the criminal legal system, the FRS, social services, and others. Studies suggest that roughly 25% of clients in publicly funded treatment were referred from the criminal legal system as a condition of their probation, parole, or drug court program [ 135 ]. This has led to therapeutic jurisprudence: the belief that the criminal legal system can support and facilitate efforts towards rehabilitation using the threat of incarceration [ 136 ]. Another 25% of clients are referred to treatment by other sources, including the FRS, social services, schools, and employers [ 133 ]. Criminal legal controls such as those from the courts, or formal social controls such as those from the other aforementioned institutions, coerce clients to either comply with treatment or face other harsh consequences, like incarceration, the termination of parental rights, or losing public benefits [ 137 ].

Treatment providers monitor client compliance and abstinence by conducting and observing routine urine drug tests, and providers are often in regular contact with referral sources about client progress in treatment. Any drug use or negative progress reports can be used as grounds to sanction those on probation, parole, or in drug court which can lead to incarceration and, in cases of drug courts, longer sentences than if participants had accepted a jail sentence [ 136 ]. Clients referred by other sources can also face ramifications for positive drug tests or treatment non-compliance, impacting child custody hearings as well as their ability to secure certain social services and resources, stay enrolled in school, or remain employed.

Referral sources influence the type of care that clients receive in facilities, including evidence-based treatments. Research suggests that only 5% of clients with opioid use disorder (OUD), who were referred to treatment from the criminal legal system, received either methadone or buprenorphine, compared to nearly 40% those who were not referred by the system [ 138 ]. This represents an extension of a broader problem within the criminal legal system wherein access to these gold standard medications for OUD is almost nonexistent in most jails and prisons across the U.S [ 139 ].

Drug war logic is also deeply rooted in the restrictions for prescribing and dispensing methadone and buprenorphine since they are controlled substances under the oversight of the Drug Enforcement Agency, a federal law enforcement entity. When taken in effective doses, these life-saving medications can cut the risk of overdose and all-cause mortality dramatically among people with OUD [ 140 ]. However, due to tight federal restrictions and guidelines for these controlled medications, patients can be subjected to routine drug testing, counselling requirements, daily clinic visits, and observed or highly monitored medication dispensing. Patients deemed non adherent to medications or who test positive for other drugs can then be subjected to dose reductions, required to attend treatment more frequently, or even terminated from care altogether [ 141 ]. The tight restrictions on both methadone and buprenorphine, combined with the oversight of the DEA, create obstacles for prescribers and stigmatise these medications by conveying that they cannot be used like other medications in routine healthcare [ 142 ]. These policies have also contributed to striking racial disparities in who receives buprenorphine versus methadone due to costly co-pays and insurance coverage issues [ 143 ]. Studies also suggest that the DEA’s involvement in monitoring buprenorphine has made pharmacies reluctant to stock the medication or to dispense it to patients for fear of triggering an investigation [ 144 , 145 ]. Ultimately, it is estimated that only 10% of all people with OUD receive these medications [ 146 ].

Providers can take steps to extract the drug war from our substance use treatment system, through their conscious and judicious documentation of treatment progress since those records could be used by criminal legal and other referral sources in decisions about clients and their families. In addition, eligible buprenorphine prescribers should begin prescribing to patients and join advocacy efforts to change policies to expand access to buprenorphine and methadone through looser restrictions.

Healthcare system

People with SUDs often have high rates of co-occurring medical needs requiring treatment, including psychiatric disorders, infectious diseases, and other chronic health conditions. However, research suggests that people with SUDs are often deterred from seeking healthcare to address their medical needs due to prior negative and stigmatising experiences with providers, and that having experienced discrimination in healthcare is associated with greater risk behaviours, psychological distress, and negative health outcomes among people who use drugs [ 147–149 ]. Some of these challenges are due to a lack of training on how to work with patients with SUDs, in addition to pre-existing personal biases and stigmatising views held by healthcare professionals, which impacts the type of care they provide [ 142 ].

The widespread use of drug testing in healthcare settings also creates ethical challenges and conflicts for providers and patients since results are often entered into the electronic health record (EHR). While EHRs are typically thought of as beneficial and intended for greater transparency and access, they also pose challenges surrounding patient privacy, confidentiality, and autonomy; they can, therefore, make patients reluctant to disclose drug use or consent to drug testing [ 150 ]. For instance, medical records that include drug test results, can be accessed by a wide variety of actors in the medical system, subpoenaed for court, and used in future medical decision making without the patient’s knowledge or consent. Providers might not receive adequate training to weigh the need for these tests as part of treatment adherence monitoring with the potential social or legal ramifications of these tests for the patient. Patients might also not be adequately informed of these potential consequences prior to testing.

Universal drug screening and testing in obstetric and gynecological care is an example wherein testing intersects with the role of most healthcare providers as mandated reporters. Mandated reporting for suspected child abuse or neglect due to parental drug use is purported to protect the foetus or children in the parents’ custody, yet this can often be a deterrent for patients to seek medical treatment altogether if they believe that they may lose their children or be subject to other mandates. The racial and class disparities in how such testing is used, as well as the punitive measures used against families, have been noted earlier in the text but is a compelling reason for healthcare providers to consider making recommendations for counselling or supportive case management in order to address family challenges.

Healthcare providers need more training and resources to work with patients with SUDs to ensure that they are engaging them in evidence-based treatments and treating their complex medical needs while avoiding some of the lifelong and harmful ramifications that can occur when drug testing, health records, and mandated reporting deter patients from seeking and receiving care.

Because of the social, economic, and health effects of drug policies, the work of ending the drug war cannot be situated within criminal legal reform efforts alone. The drug war and a punitive drug war logic impact most systems of everyday life in the U.S., subjecting people to surveillance, suspicion, and punishment and undermining key SDOH, including education, employment, housing, and access to benefits. Combined, these have resulted in poorer health outcomes for individuals, families, and communities, particularly for people who use drugs. These policies and practices, while race-neutral as written, are not [ 151 ]. The targeted effects on people of colour further entrench health and economic disparities. As the public and policymakers call for a health approach to drug use, it is vital to recognise how systems meant to care and support are often unable to serve their intended purposes; rather than help people who use drugs or are suspected of using drugs, they frequently punish them.

In their day-to-day practice, healthcare professionals must understand the deep roots of the drug war as well as their role in both perpetuating and undermining drug war logic and practices. Healthcare providers can treat people who use drugs with dignity, respect, and trust and ensure that healthcare and treatment decisions are made in partnership with individuals. Medical professionals can also work to situate drug use within a larger social and economic context [ 152 ], understanding that drug-related harms often stem from lack of resources – like housing and food precarity, economic insecurity, and insufficient healthcare – rather than from drugs themselves. Treatment need not be the only antidote for people who experience drug-related harms but should be one option among an array of health services, resources, and support.

At the mezzo- and institutional levels, healthcare providers can advocate to shift hospital and programmatic policies around drug testing, mandatory reporting, and collaborations with law enforcement. As outlined in this paper, drug testing is not an effective monitoring strategy for care and support, but rather, it is more often a punitive tool of surveillance. If drug testing cannot be eliminated, at the very least, patients should have the right to understand the implications of drug testing and provide explicit consent for the test. To the extent possible, providers should not share private patient information with police or state agencies. Healthcare professionals should understand the implications of reporting positive drug tests and suspicion of use and should work to change these policies where possible and inform their patients of them. Providers can ensure that their patients who use drugs have access to evidence-based, non-coercive harm reduction and treatment options in addition to robust and supportive primary healthcare. Healthcare professionals involved with medical education and licensure can work to ensure that all students graduate with a deep understanding of SDOH and the impact of the drug war on individual and community health.

Finally, healthcare providers can get involved with policy-level changes to end drug testing, mandatory reporting, zero-tolerance policies, coerced treatment, and denial of services and resources based on arrest or conviction records at the municipal, state, and federal levels. Providers can follow the leadership and expertise of people who use drugs, some of whom have organised themselves into user unions [ 153 ]. Policy advocacy can include drafting and joining sign-on letters, delivering expert testimony, speaking to media, writing op-eds, and lobbying medical professional organisations to release policy statements. Providers, who see firsthand the consequences of the war on drugs, are well positioned to be effective advocates in undoing these harmful policies that have for too long undermined key SDOH [ 154 ]. In order to improve individual and collective health, healthcare providers should resist drug war logic and work to transform these systems so they can truly promote health and safety.

For the purposes of this paper, we are using the term “Family Regulation System,” coined by Emma Williams and used by other scholars, instead of the more commonly used term “Child Welfare System” to reflect the fact that, particularly for low-income families and families of color, state intervention often occurs in order to regulate their families rather than to prioritize the welfare of the entire family unit, of which the child is a part.

Authors contribution

All authors (AC, SV, JN, KF) were involved in the conception and drafting of the paper, revising it critically for intellectual content; and the final approval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure statement

All authors are employed by the Drug Policy Alliance, a non-profit policy advocacy organisation. No other interests to disclose.

Data availability statement

The views expressed in the submitted article are those of the authors.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

War on Drugs

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system
• Cato Institute - The International War on Drugs
• Academia - The "War on Drugs" as Imperialism
• The Guardian - Nixon's 'war on drugs' began 40 years ago, and the battle is still raging
• Drug Policy Alliance - A Brief History of the Drug War
• PBS Frontline - Thirty Years Of America's Drug War
• History Today - Has a War on Drugs Ever Been Won?
• GlobalSecurity.org - War on Drugs

War on Drugs , the effort in the United States since the 1970s to combat illegal drug use by greatly increasing penalties, enforcement, and incarceration for drug offenders.

The War on Drugs began in June 1971 when U.S. Pres. Richard Nixon declared drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” and increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and drug-treatment efforts. In 1973 the Drug Enforcement Administration was created out of the merger of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and the Office of Narcotics Intelligence to consolidate federal efforts to control drug abuse.

The War on Drugs was a relatively small component of federal law-enforcement efforts until the presidency of Ronald Reagan , which began in 1981. Reagan greatly expanded the reach of the drug war and his focus on criminal punishment over treatment led to a massive increase in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 1984 his wife, Nancy , spearheaded another facet of the War on Drugs with her “ Just Say No” campaign, which was a privately funded effort to educate schoolchildren on the dangers of drug use. The expansion of the War on Drugs was in many ways driven by increased media coverage of—and resulting public nervousness over—the crack epidemic that arose in the early 1980s. This heightened concern over illicit drug use helped drive political support for Reagan’s hard-line stance on drugs. The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of “ mandatory minimum ” prison sentences for various drug offenses. A notable feature of mandatory minimums was the massive gap between the amounts of crack and of powder cocaine that resulted in the same minimum sentence: possession of five grams of crack led to an automatic five-year sentence while it took the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger that sentence. Since approximately 80% of crack users were African American , mandatory minimums led to an unequal increase of incarceration rates for nonviolent Black drug offenders, as well as claims that the War on Drugs was a racist institution.

Concerns over the effectiveness of the War on Drugs and increased awareness of the racial disparity of the punishments meted out by it led to decreased public support of the most draconian aspects of the drug war during the early 21st century. Consequently, reforms were enacted during that time, such as the legalization of recreational marijuana in an increasing number of states and the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 that reduced the discrepancy of crack-to-powder possession thresholds for minimum sentences from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. Prison reform legislation enacted in 2018 further reduced the sentences for some crack cocaine–related convictions . While the War on Drugs is still technically being waged, it is done at a much less intense level than it was during its peak in the 1980s.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

War on Drugs

By: History.com Editors

Updated: December 17, 2019 | Original: May 31, 2017

The War on Drugs is a phrase used to refer to a government-led initiative that aims to stop illegal drug use, distribution and trade by dramatically increasing prison sentences for both drug dealers and users. The movement started in the 1970s and is still evolving today. Over the years, people have had mixed reactions to the campaign, ranging from full-on support to claims that it has racist and political objectives.

The War on Drugs Begins

Drug use for medicinal and recreational purposes has been happening in the United States since the country’s inception. In the 1890s, the popular Sears and Roebuck catalogue included an offer for a syringe and small amount of cocaine for $1.50. (At that time, cocaine use had not yet been outlawed.)

In some states, laws to ban or regulate drugs were passed in the 1800s, and the first congressional act to levy taxes on morphine and opium took place in 1890.

The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act in 1909 banned the possession, importation and use of opium for smoking. However, opium could still be used as a medication. This was the first federal law to ban the non-medical use of a substance, although many states and counties had banned alcohol sales previously.

In 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and cocaine.

Alcohol prohibition laws quickly followed. In 1919, the 18th Amendment was ratified, banning the manufacture, transportation or sale of intoxicating liquors, ushering in the Prohibition Era. The same year, Congress passed the National Prohibition Act (also known as the Volstead Act), which provided guidelines on how to federally enforce Prohibition.

Prohibition lasted until December, 1933, when the 21st Amendment was ratified, overturning the 18th.

Marijuana Tax Act of 1937

In 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act” was passed. This federal law placed a tax on the sale of cannabis, hemp, or marijuana .

The Act was introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina and was drafted by Harry Anslinger. While the law didn’t criminalize the possession or use of marijuana, it included hefty penalties if taxes weren’t paid, including a fine of up to $2000 and five years in prison.

Controlled Substances Act

President Richard M. Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) into law in 1970. This statute calls for the regulation of certain drugs and substances.

The CSA outlines five “schedules” used to classify drugs based on their medical application and potential for abuse.

Schedule 1 drugs are considered the most dangerous, as they pose a very high risk for addiction with little evidence of medical benefits. Marijuana , LSD , heroin, MDMA (ecstasy) and other drugs are included on the list of Schedule 1 drugs.

The substances considered least likely to be addictive, such as cough medications with small amounts of codeine, fall into the Schedule 5 category.

Nixon and the War on Drugs

In June 1971, Nixon officially declared a “War on Drugs,” stating that drug abuse was “public enemy number one.”

A rise in recreational drug use in the 1960s likely led to President Nixon’s focus on targeting some types of substance abuse. As part of the War on Drugs initiative, Nixon increased federal funding for drug-control agencies and proposed strict measures, such as mandatory prison sentencing, for drug crimes. He also announced the creation of the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), which was headed by Dr. Jerome Jaffe.

Nixon went on to create the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1973. This agency is a special police force committed to targeting illegal drug use and smuggling in the United States. 

At the start, the DEA was given 1,470 special agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Today, the agency has nearly 5,000 agents and a budget of $2.03 billion.

Ulterior Motives Behind War on Drugs?

During a 1994 interview, President Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, provided inside information suggesting that the War on Drugs campaign had ulterior motives, which mainly involved helping Nixon keep his job.

In the interview, conducted by journalist Dan Baum and published in Harper magazine, Ehrlichman explained that the Nixon campaign had two enemies: “the antiwar left and black people.” His comments led many to question Nixon’s intentions in advocating for drug reform and whether racism played a role.

Ehrlichman was quoted as saying: “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”

The 1970s and The War on Drugs

In the mid-1970s, the War on Drugs took a slight hiatus. Between 1973 and 1977, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession.

Jimmy Carter became president in 1977 after running on a political campaign to decriminalize marijuana. During his first year in office, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize up to one ounce of marijuana.

Say No to Drugs

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan reinforced and expanded many of Nixon’s War on Drugs policies. In 1984, his wife Nancy Reagan launched the “ Just Say No ” campaign, which was intended to highlight the dangers of drug use.

President Reagan’s refocus on drugs and the passing of severe penalties for drug-related crimes in Congress and state legislatures led to a massive increase in incarcerations for nonviolent drug crimes. 

In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses. This law was later heavily criticized as having racist ramifications because it allocated longer prison sentences for offenses involving the same amount of crack cocaine (used more often by black Americans) as powder cocaine (used more often by white Americans). Five grams of crack triggered an automatic five-year sentence, while it took 500 grams of powder cocaine to merit the same sentence.

Critics also pointed to data showing that people of color were targeted and arrested on suspicion of drug use at higher rates than whites. Overall, the policies led to a rapid rise in incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses, from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 in 1997. In 2014, nearly half of the 186,000 people serving time in federal prisons in the United States had been incarcerated on drug-related charges, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

A Gradual Dialing Back

Public support for the war on drugs has waned in recent decades. Some Americans and policymakers feel the campaign has been ineffective or has led to racial divide. Between 2009 and 2013, some 40 states took steps to soften their drug laws, lowering penalties and shortening mandatory minimum sentences, according to the Pew Research Center .

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which reduced the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100:1 to 18:1.

The recent legalization of marijuana in several states and the District of Columbia has also led to a more tolerant political view on recreational drug use.

Technically, the War on Drugs is still being fought, but with less intensity and publicity than in its early years.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

The war on drugs, explained

by German Lopez

The US has been fighting a global war on drugs for decades. But as prison populations and financial costs increase and drug-related violence around the world continues, lawmakers and experts are reconsidering if the drug war’s potential benefits are really worth its many drawbacks.

What is the war on drugs?

In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon formally launched the war on drugs to eradicate illicit drug use in the US. “If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us,” Nixon told Congress in 1971. “I am not prepared to accept this alternative.”

Over the next couple decades, particularly under the Reagan administration, what followed was the escalation of global military and police efforts against drugs. But in that process, the drug war led to unintended consequences that have proliferated violence around the world and contributed to mass incarceration in the US, even if it has made drugs less accessible and reduced potential levels of drug abuse.

Nixon inaugurated the war on drugs at a time when America was in hysterics over widespread drug use. Drug use had become more public and prevalent during the 1960s due in part to the counterculture movement, and many Americans felt that drug use had become a serious threat to the country and its moral standing.

Over the past four decades, the US has committed more than $1 trillion to the war on drugs. But the crackdown has in some ways failed to produce the desired results: Drug use remains a very serious problem in the US, even though the drug war has made these substances less accessible. The drug war also led to several — some unintended — negative consequences, including a big strain on America’s criminal justice system and the proliferation of drug-related violence around the world.

While Nixon began the modern war on drugs, America has a long history of trying to control the use of certain drugs. Laws passed in the early 20th century attempted to restrict drug production and sales. Some of this history is racially tinged , and, perhaps as a result, the war on drugs has long hit minority communities the hardest.

In response to the failures and unintended consequences, many drug policy experts and historians have called for reforms: a larger focus on rehabilitation , the decriminalization of currently illicit substances, and even the legalization of all drugs.

The question with these policies, as with the drug war more broadly, is whether the risks and costs are worth the benefits. Drug policy is often described as choosing between a bunch of bad or mediocre options, rather than finding the perfect solution. In the case of the war on drugs, the question is whether the very real drawbacks of prohibition — more racially skewed arrests, drug-related violence around the world, and financial costs — are worth the potential gains from outlawing and hopefully depressing drug abuse in the US.

Is the war on drugs succeeding?

The goal of the war on drugs is to reduce drug use. The specific aim is to destroy and inhibit the international drug trade — making drugs scarcer and costlier, and therefore making drug habits in the US unaffordable. And although some of the data shows drugs getting cheaper, drug policy experts generally believe that the drug war is nonetheless preventing some drug abuse by making the substances less accessible.

The prices of most drugs, as tracked by the Office of National Drug Control Policy , have plummeted. Between 1981 and 2007, the median bulk price of heroin is down by roughly 93 percent, and the median bulk price of powder cocaine is down by about 87 percent. Between 1986 and 2007, the median bulk price of crack cocaine fell by around 54 percent. The prices of meth and marijuana, meanwhile, have remained largely stable since the 1980s.

Much of this is explained by what’s known as the balloon effect : Cracking down on drugs in one area doesn’t necessarily reduce the overall supply of drugs. Instead, drug production and trafficking shift elsewhere, because the drug trade is so lucrative that someone will always want to take it up — particularly in countries where the drug trade might be one of the only economic opportunities and governments won’t be strong enough to suppress the drug trade.

The balloon effect has been documented in multiple instances, including Peru and Bolivia to Colombia in the 1990s, the Netherlands Antilles to West Africa in the early 2000s, and Colombia and Mexico to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala in the 2000s and 2010s.

Sometimes the drug war has failed to push down production altogether, like in Afghanistan. The US spent $7.6 billion between 2002 and 2014 to crack down on opium in Afghanistan, where a bulk of the world’s supply for heroin comes from. Despite the efforts, Afghanistan’s opium poppy crop cultivation reached record levels in 2013.

On the demand side, illicit drug use has dramatically fluctuated since the drug war began. The Monitoring the Future survey , which tracks illicit drug use among high school students, offers a useful proxy: In 1975, four years after President Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs, 30.7 percent of high school seniors reportedly used drugs in the previous month. In 1992, the rate was 14.4 percent. In 2013, it was back up to 25.5 percent.

Still, prohibition does likely make drugs less accessible than they would be if they were legal. A 2014 study by Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, suggested that prohibition multiplies the price of hard drugs like cocaine by as much as 10 times. And illicit drugs obviously aren’t available through easy means — one can’t just walk into a CVS and buy heroin. So the drug war is likely stopping some drug use: Caulkins estimates that legalization could lead hard drug abuse to triple, although he told me it could go much higher.

But there’s also evidence that the drug war is too punitive: A 2014 study from Peter Reuter at the University of Maryland and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago found there’s no good evidence that tougher punishments or harsher supply-elimination efforts do a better job of pushing down access to drugs and substance abuse than lighter penalties. So increasing the severity of the punishment doesn’t do much, if anything, to slow the flow of drugs.

Instead, most of the reduction in accessibility from the drug war appears to be a result of the simple fact that drugs are illegal, which by itself makes drugs more expensive and less accessible by eliminating avenues toward mass production and distribution.

The question is whether the possible reduction of potential drug use is worth the drawbacks that come in other areas, including a strained criminal justice system and the global proliferation of violence fueled by illegal drug markets. If the drug war has failed to significantly reduce drug use, production, and trafficking, then perhaps it’s not worth these costs, and a new approach is preferable.

How does the US decide which drugs are regulated or banned?

The US uses what’s called the drug scheduling system . Under the Controlled Substances Act , there are five categories of controlled substances known as schedules, which weigh a drug’s medical value and abuse potential.

Medical value is typically evaluated through scientific research, particularly large-scale clinical trials similar to those used by the Food and Drug Administration for pharmaceuticals. Potential for abuse isn’t clearly defined by the Controlled Substances Act, but for the federal government, abuse is when individuals take a substance on their own initiative, leading to personal health hazards or dangers to society as a whole.

Under this system, Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Schedule 2 drugs have high potential for abuse but some medical value. As the rank goes down to Schedule 5, a drug’s potential for abuse generally decreases.

It may be helpful to think of the scheduling system as made up of two distinct groups: nonmedical and medical. The nonmedical group is the Schedule 1 drugs, which are considered to have no medical value and high potential for abuse. The medical group is the Schedule 2 to 5 drugs, which have some medical value and are numerically ranked based on abuse potential (from high to low).

Marijuana and heroin are Schedule 1 drugs, so the federal government says they have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Cocaine, meth, and opioid painkillers are Schedule 2 drugs, so they’re considered to have some medical value and high potential for abuse. Steroids and testosterone products are Schedule 3, Xanax and Valium are Schedule 4, and cough preparations with limited amounts of codeine are Schedule 5. Congress specifically exempted alcohol and tobacco from the schedules in 1970.

Although these schedules help shape criminal penalties for illicit drug possession and sales, they’re not always the final word. Congress, for instance, massively increased penalties against crack cocaine in 1986 in response to concerns about a crack epidemic and its potential link to crime. And state governments can set up their own criminal penalties and schedules for drugs as well.

Other countries, like the UK and Australia , use similar systems to the US, although their specific rankings for some drugs differ.

How does the US enforce the war on drugs?

The US fights the war on drugs both domestically and overseas.

On the domestic front, the federal government supplies local and state police departments with funds, legal flexibility, and special equipment to crack down on illicit drugs. Local and state police then use this funding to go after drug dealing organizations.

“[Federal] assistance helped us take out major drug organizations, and we took out a number of them in Baltimore,” said Neill Franklin, a retired police major and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition , which opposes the war on drugs. “But to do that, we took out the low-hanging fruit to work up the chain to find who was at the top of the pyramid. It started with low-level drug dealers, working our way up to midlevel management, all the way up to the kingpins.”

Some of the funding, particularly from the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program , encourages local and state police to participate in anti-drug operations. If police don’t use the money to go after illicit substances, they risk losing it — providing a financial incentive for cops to continue the war on drugs.

Although the focus is on criminal groups, casual users still get caught in the criminal justice system. Between 1999 and 2007, Human Rights Watch found at least 80 percent of drug-related arrests were for possession, not sales.

It seems, however, that arrests for possession don’t typically turn into convictions and prison time. According to federal statistics , only 5.3 percent of drug offenders in federal prisons and 27.9 percent of drug offenders in state prisons in 2004 were in for drug possession. The overwhelming majority were in for trafficking, and a small few were in for an unspecified “other” category.

Mexican officials incinerate 130 tons of seized marijuana.

Internationally, the US regularly aids other countries in their efforts to crack down on drugs. For example, the US in the 2000s provided military aid and training to Colombia — in what’s known as Plan Colombia — to help the Latin American country go after criminal organizations and paramilitaries funded through drug trafficking.

Federal officials argue that helping countries like Colombia attacks the source of illicit drugs, since such substances are often produced in Latin America and shipped north to the US. But the international efforts have consistently displaced , not eliminated, drug trafficking — and the violence that comes with it — to other countries.

Given the struggles of the war on drugs to meet its goals , federal and state officials have begun moving away from harsh enforcement tactics and tough-on-crime stances. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy now advocates for a bigger focus on rehabilitation and less on law enforcement. Even some conservatives, like former Texas Governor Rick Perry , have embraced drug courts , which place drug offenders into rehabilitation programs instead of jail or prison.

The idea behind these reforms is to find a better balance between locking up more people for drug trafficking while moving genuinely problematic drug users to rehabilitation and treatment services that could help them. “We can’t arrest our way out of the problem,” Michael Botticelli, US drug czar, said , “and we really need to focus our attention on proven public health strategies to make a significant difference as it relates to drug use and consequences to that in the United States.”

How has the war on drugs changed the US criminal justice system?

The escalation of the criminal justice system’s reach over the past few decades, ranging from more incarceration to seizures of private property and militarization, can be traced back to the war on drugs.

After the US stepped up the drug war throughout the 1970s and '80s, harsher sentences for drug offenses played a role in turning the country into the world's leader in incarceration . (But drug offenders still make up a small part of the prison population: About 54 percent of people in state prisons — which house more than 86 percent of the US prison population — were violent offenders in 2012, and 16 percent were drug offenders, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics .)

Still, mass incarceration has massively strained the criminal justice system and led to a lot of overcrowding in US prisons — to the point that some states, such as California , have rolled back penalties for nonviolent drug users and sellers with the explicit goal of reducing their incarcerated population.

In terms of police powers, civil asset forfeitures have been justified as a way to go after drug dealing organizations. These forfeitures allow law enforcement agencies to take the organizations’ assets — cash in particular — and then use the gains to fund more anti-drug operations. The idea is to turn drug dealers’ ill-gotten gains against them.

But there have been many documented cases in which police abused civil asset forfeiture, including instances in which police took people’s cars and cash simply because they suspected — but couldn’t prove — that there was some sort of illegal activity going on. In these cases, it’s actually up to people whose private property was taken to prove that they weren’t doing anything illegal — instead of traditional legal standards in which police have to prove wrongdoing or reasonable suspicion of it before they act.

Similarly, the federal government helped militarize local and state police departments in an attempt to better equip them in the fight against drugs. The Pentagon’s 1033 program , which gives surplus military-grade equipment to police, was created in the 1990s as part of President George HW Bush’s escalation of the war on drugs. The deployment of SWAT teams, as reported by the ACLU, also increased during the past few decades, and 62 percent of SWAT raids in 2011 and 2012 were for drug searches.

Various groups have complained that these increases in police power are often abused and misused. The ACLU, for instance, argues that civil asset forfeitures threaten Americans’ civil liberties and property rights, because police can often seize assets without even filing charges. Such seizures also might encourage police to focus on drug crimes, since a raid can result in actual cash that goes back to the police department, while a violent crime conviction likely would not. The libertarian Cato Institute has also criticized the war on drugs for decades, because anti-drug efforts gave cover to a huge expansion of law enforcement’s surveillance capabilities, including wiretaps and US mail searches.

The militarization of police became a particular sticking point during the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri, over the police shooting of Michael Brown . After heavily armed police responded to largely peaceful protesters with armored vehicle that resemble tanks, tear gas, and sound cannons, law enforcement experts and journalists criticized the tactics.

Since the beginning of the war on drugs, the general trend has been to massively grow police powers and expand the criminal justice system as a means of combating drug use. But as the drug war struggles to halt drug use and trafficking, the heavy-handed policies — which many describe as draconian — have been called into question. If the war on drugs isn’t meeting its goals, critics say these expansions of the criminal justice system aren’t worth the financial strain and costs to liberty in the US.

How has the drug war contributed to violence around the world?

The war on drugs has created a black market for illicit drugs that criminal organizations around the world can rely on for revenue that payrolls other, more violent activities. This market supplies so much revenue that drug trafficking organizations can actually rival developing countries’ weak government institutions.

In Mexico, for example, drug cartels have leveraged their profits from the drug trade to violently maintain their stranglehold over the market despite the government’s war on drugs. As a result, public decapitations have become a particularly prominent tactic of ruthless drug cartels. As many as 80,000 people have died in the war. Tens of thousands of people have gone missing since 2007, including 43 students who vanished in 2014 in a widely publicized case.

But even if Mexico were to actually defeat drug cartels, this potentially wouldn’t reduce drug war violence on a global scale. Instead, drug production and trafficking, and the violence that comes with both, would likely shift elsewhere, because the drug trade is so lucrative that someone will always want to take it up — particularly in countries where the drug trade might be one of the only economic opportunities and governments won’t be strong enough to suppress the drug trade.

In 2014, for instance, the drug war significantly contributed to the child migrant crisis. After some drug trafficking was pushed out of Mexico, gangs and drug cartels stepped up their operations in Central America’s Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. These countries, with their weak criminal justice and law enforcement systems, didn’t seem to have the capacity to deal with the influx of violence and crime.

The war on drugs “drove a lot of the activities to Central America, a region that has extremely weakened systems,” Adriana Beltran of the Washington Office on Latin America explained . “Unfortunately, there hasn’t been a strong commitment to building the criminal justice system and the police.”

As a result, children fled their countries by the thousands in a major humanitarian crisis . Many of these children ended up in the US, where the refugee system simply doesn’t have the capacity to handle the rush of child migrants.

Although the child migrant crisis is fairly unique in its specific circumstances and effects, the series of events — a government cracks down on drugs, trafficking moves to another country, and the drug trade brings violence and crime — is pretty typical in the history of the war on drugs. In the past couple of decades it happened in Colombia , Mexico , Venezuela , and Ecuador after successful anti-drug crackdowns in other Latin American countries.

The Wall Street Journal explained :

Ironically, the shift is partly a by-product of a drug-war success story, Plan Colombia. In a little over a decade, the U.S. spent nearly $8 billion to back Colombia’s efforts to eradicate coca fields, arrest traffickers and battle drug-funded guerrilla armies such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Colombian cocaine production declined, the murder rate plunged and the FARC is on the run. But traffickers adjusted. Cartels moved south across the Ecuadorean border to set up new storage facilities and pioneer new smuggling routes from Ecuador’s Pacific coast. Colombia’s neighbor to the east, Venezuela, is now the departure point for half of the cocaine going to Europe by sea.

As a 2012 report from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime explained, "one country’s success became the problem of others."

This global proliferation of violence is one of the most prominent costs of the drug war. When evaluating whether the war on drugs has been successful, experts and historians weigh this cost, along with the rise of incarceration in the US, against the benefits, such as potentially depressed drug use, to gauge whether anti-drug efforts have been worth it.

How much does the war on drugs cost?

Enforcing the war on drugs costs the US more than $51 billion each year, according to the Drug Policy Alliance . As of 2012, the US had spent $1 trillion on anti-drug efforts.

The spending estimates don’t account for the loss of potential taxes on currently illegal substances. According to a 2010 paper from the libertarian Cato Institute, taxing and regulating illicit drugs similarly to tobacco and alcohol could raise $46.7 billion in tax revenue each year.

These annual costs — the spending, the lost potential taxes — add up to nearly 2 percent of state and federal budgets, which totaled an estimated $6.1 trillion in 2013. That’s not a huge amount of money, but it may not be worth the cost if the war on drugs is leading to drug-related violence around the world and isn’t significantly reducing drug abuse .

Is the war on drugs racist?

In the US, the war on drugs mostly impacts minority, particularly black, communities. This disproportionate effect is why critics often call the war on drugs racist .

Although black communities aren’t more likely to use or sell drugs, they are much more likely to be arrested and incarcerated for drug offenses.

When black defendants are convicted for drug crimes, they face longer prison sentences as well. Drug sentences for black men were 13.1 percent longer than drug sentences for white men between 2007 and 2009, according to a 2012 report from the US Sentencing Commission.

The Sentencing Project explained the differences in a February 2015 report: “Myriad criminal justice policies that appear to be race-neutral collide with broader socioeconomic patterns to create a disparate racial impact… Socioeconomic inequality does lead people of color to disproportionately use and sell drugs outdoors, where they are more readily apprehended by police.”

One example: Trafficking crack cocaine, one of the few illicit drugs that’s more popular among black Americans, carries the harshest punishment. The threshold for a five-year mandatory minimum sentence of crack is 28 grams. In comparison, the threshold for powder cocaine, which is more popular among white than black Americans but pharmacoligically similar to crack, is 500 grams.

As for the broader racial disparities, federal programs that encourage local and state police departments to crack down on drugs may create perverse incentives to go after minority communities. Some federal grants , for instance, previously required police to make more drug arrests in order to obtain more funding for anti-drug efforts. Neill Franklin, a retired police major from Maryland and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition , said minority communities are “the low-hanging fruit” for police departments because they tend to sell in open-air markets, such as public street corners, and have less political and financial power than white Americans.

In Chicago, for instance, an analysis by Project Know , a drug addiction resource center, found enforcement of anti-drug laws is concentrated in poor neighborhoods, which tend to have more crime but are predominantly black :

“Doing these evening and afternoon sweeps meant 20 to 30 arrests, and now you have some great numbers for your grant application,” Franklin said. “In that process, we also ended up seizing a lot of money and a lot of property. That’s another cash cow.”

The disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates have clearly detrimental effects on minority communities. A 2014 study published in the journal Sociological Science found boys with imprisoned fathers are much less likely to possess the behavioral skills needed to succeed in school by the age of 5, starting them on a vicious path known as the school-to-prison pipeline .

As the drug war continues, these racial disparities have become one of the major points of criticism against it. It’s not just whether the war on drugs has led to the widespread, costly incarceration of millions of Americans, but whether incarceration has created “the new Jim Crow” — a reference to policies, such as segregation and voting restrictions, that subjugated black communities in America.

What are the roots of the war on drugs?

Beyond the goal of curtailing drug use , the motivations behind the US war on drugs have been rooted in historical fears of immigrants and minority groups.

The US began regulating and restricting drugs during the first half of the 20th century, particularly through the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 , the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 , and the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 . During this period, racial and ethnic tensions were particularly high across the country — not just toward African Americans, but toward Mexican and Chinese immigrants as well.

As the New York Times explained , the federal prohibition of marijuana came during a period of national hysteria about the effect of the drug on Mexican immigrants and black communities. Concerns about a new, exotic drug, coupled with feelings of xenophobia and racism that were all too common in the 1930s, drove law enforcement, the broader public, and eventually legislators to demand the drug’s prohibition. “Police in Texas border towns demonized the plant in racial terms as the drug of ‘immoral’ populations who were promptly labeled ‘fiends,’” wrote the Times’s Brent Staples.

These beliefs extended to practically all forms of drug prohibition. According to historian Peter Knight , opium largely came over to America with Chinese immigrants on the West Coast. Americans, already skeptical of the drug, quickly latched on to xenophobic beliefs that opium somehow made Chinese immigrants dangerous. “Stories of Chinese immigrants who lured white females into prostitution, along with the media depictions of the Chinese as depraved and unclean, bolstered the enactment of anti-opium laws in eleven states between 1877 and 1900,” Knight wrote .

Cocaine was similarly attached in fear to black communities, neuroscientist Carl Hart wrote for the Nation. The belief was so widespread that the New York Times even felt comfortable writing headlines in 1914 that claimed “Negro cocaine ‘fiends’ are a new southern menace.“ The author of the Times piece — a physician — wrote, ”[The cocaine user] imagines that he hears people taunting and abusing him, and this often incites homicidal attacks upon innocent and unsuspecting victims.” He later added, “Many of the wholesale killings in the South may be cited as indicating that accuracy in shooting is not interfered with — is, indeed, probably improved — by cocaine. … I believe the record of the ‘cocaine n----r’ near Asheville who dropped five men dead in their tracks using only one cartridge for each, offers evidence that is sufficiently convincing.”

Most recently, these fears of drugs and the connection to minorities came up during what law enforcement officials characterized as a crack cocaine epidemic in the 1980s and ‘90s. Lawmakers, judges, and police in particular linked crack to violence in minority communities. The connection was part of the rationale for making it 100 times easier to get a mandatory minimum sentence for crack cocaine over powder cocaine, even though the two drugs are pharmacologically identical. As a result, minority groups have received considerably harsher prison sentences for illegal drugs. (In 2010, the ratio between crack’s sentence and cocaine’s was reduced from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1.)

Hart explained , after noting the New York Times’s coverage in particular: “Over the [late 1980s], a barrage of similar articles connected crack and its associated problems with black people. Entire specialty police units were deployed to ‘troubled neighborhoods,’ making excessive arrests and subjecting the targeted communities to dehumanizing treatment. Along the way, complex economic and social forces were reduced to criminal justice problems; resources were directed toward law enforcement rather than neighborhoods’ real needs, such as job creation.”

None of this means the war on drugs is solely driven by fears of immigrants and minorities, and many people are genuinely concerned about drugs’ effects on individuals and society. But when it comes to the war on drugs, the historical accounts suggest the harshest crackdowns often follow hysteria linked to minority drug use — making the racial disparities in the drug war seem like a natural consequence of anti-drug efforts’ roots.

What about the band The War on Drugs?

They’re pretty great, though they don’t have much to do with the actual war on drugs.

But since you mentioned them, take a break and listen to a couple songs from their latest album, Lost in the Dream .

The War on Drugs, “Red Eye”:

The War on Drugs, “Under the Pressure”:

Bonus from their 2011 album, Slave Ambient : The War on Drugs, “Best Night”:

What are the most dangerous drugs?

This is actually a fairly controversial question among drug policy experts. Although some researchers have tried to rank drugs by their harms, some experts argue the rankings are often far more misleading than useful.

In a report published in The Lancet , a group of researchers evaluated the harms of drug use in the UK, considering factors like deadliness, chance of developing dependence, behavioral changes such as increased risk of violence, and losses in economic productivity. Alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine topped the chart.

There are at least two huge caveats to this report. First, it doesn’t entirely control for the availability of these drugs, so it’s likely heroin and crack cocaine in particular would be ranked higher if they were as readily available as alcohol. Second, the scores were intended for British society, so the specific scores may differ slightly for the US. David Nutt, who led the analysis, suggested meth’s harm score could be much higher in the US, since it’s more widely used in America.

But drug policy experts argue the study and ranking miss some of the nuance behind the harm of certain drugs.

Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, gave the example of an alien race visiting Earth and asking which land animal is the biggest. If the question is about weight, the African elephant is the biggest land animal. But if it’s about height, the giraffe is the biggest. And if the question is about length, the reticulated python is the biggest.

“You can always create some composite, but composites are fraught with problems,” Caulkins said. “I think it’s more misleading than useful.”

The blunt measures of drug harms present similar issues. Alcohol, tobacco, and prescription painkillers are likely deadlier than other drugs because they are legal, so comparing their aggregate effects to illegal drugs is difficult. Some drugs are very harmful to individuals, but they’re so rarely used that they may not be a major public health threat. A few drugs are enormously dangerous in the short term but not so much the long term (heroin), or vice versa (tobacco). And looking at deaths or other harms caused by certain drugs doesn’t always account for substances, such as prescription medications, that are often mixed with others, making them more deadly or harmful than they would be alone.

Given the diversity of drugs and their effects, many experts argue that trying to establish a ranking of the most dangerous drugs is a futile, misleading exercise. Instead of trying to base policy on a ranking, experts say, lawmakers should build individual policies that try to minimize each drug’s specific set of risks and harms.

Why are alcohol and tobacco exempted from the war on drugs?

Tobacco and alcohol are explicitly exempted from drug scheduling, despite their detrimental impacts on individual health and society as a whole, due to economic and cultural reasons.

Tobacco and alcohol have been acceptable drugs in US culture for hundreds of years, and they are still the most widely used drugs , along with caffeine, in the nation. Trying to stop Americans — through the threat of legal force — from using these drugs would likely result in an unmitigated policy disaster, simply because of their popularity and cultural acceptance.

In fact, exactly that happened in the 1920s: In 1920, the federal government attempted to prohibit alcohol sales through the 18th Amendment . Experts and historians widely consider this policy, popularly known as Prohibition, a failure and even a disaster , since it led to a massive black market for alcohol that funded criminal organizations across the US. It took Congress just 14 years to repeal Prohibition.

Alcohol and tobacco are also major parts of the US economy. In 2013, alcohol sales totaled $124.7 billion (excluding purchases in bars and restaurants), and tobacco sales amounted to $108 billion. If lawmakers decided to prohibit and dismantle these legal industries, it would cost the economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

Lawmakers were well aware of these cultural and economic issues when they approved the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 . So they exempted alcohol and tobacco from the definition of controlled substances.

If these drugs weren’t exempted, tobacco and alcohol would likely be tightly controlled under the current scheduling regime. Mark Kleiman , one of the nation’s leading drug policy experts, argued both would be considered schedule 1 substances if they were evaluated today, since they’re highly abused, addictive, detrimental to one’s health and society, and have no established medical value.

All of this gets to a key point about the war on drugs: Policymakers don’t evaluate drugs in a vacuum. They also consider the socioeconomic implications of banning a substance, and whether those potential drawbacks are worth the gains of potentially reducing substance use and abuse.

But this type of analysis of the pros and cons is also why critics want to end the war on drugs today. Even if the drug war has successfully brought down drug use and abuse, its effects on budgets , civil rights , and international violence are so great and detrimental that the minor impact it may have on drug use might not be worth the costs.

How much of the war on drugs is tied to international treaties?

If lawmakers decided to stop the war on drugs tomorrow, a major hurdle could be international agreements that require restrictions and regulations on certain drugs.

There are three major treaties: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 , the Convention on Psychotropic Drugs of 1971 , and the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 . Combined, the treaties require participants to limit and even prohibit the possession, use, trade, and distribution of drugs outside of medical and scientific purposes, and work together to stop international drug trafficking.

There is a lot of disagreement among drug policy experts, enforcers, and reformers about the stringency of the treaties. Several sections of the conventions allow countries some flexibility so they don’t violate their own constitutional protections. The US, for example, has never enforced penalties on inciting illicit drug use on the basis that it would violate rights to freedom of speech.

Many argue that any move toward legalization of use, possession, and sales is in violation of international treaties. Under this argument, some governments — including several US states and Uruguay — are technically in violation of the treaties because they legalized marijuana for personal possession and sales.

Others say that countries have a lot of flexibility due to the constitutional exemptions in the conventions. Countries could claim, for instance, that their protections for right to privacy and health allow them to legalize drugs despite the conventions. When it comes to individual states in the US, the federal government argues that America’s federalist system allows states some flexibility as long as the federal government keeps drugs illegal.

“It’s pretty clear that the war on drugs was waged for political reasons and some countries have used the treaties as an excuse to pursue draconian policies,” said Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, director of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program. “Nevertheless, we’ve seen a number of countries drop criminal penalties for minor possession of all drugs. We’ve seen others put drugs into a pharmaceutical model, including the prescription of heroin to people with serious addictions. This seems completely possible within the treaties.”

Even if a country decided to dismantle prohibition and violate the treaties, it’s unclear how the international community would respond. If the US, for example, ended prohibition, there’s little other countries could do to interfere; there’s no international drug court, and sanctions would be very unlikely for a country as powerful as America.

Still, Martin Jelsma, an international drug policy expert at the Transnational Institute, argued that ignoring or pulling out of the international drug conventions could seriously damage America’s standing around the world. “Pacta sunt servanda (‘agreements must be kept’) is the most fundamental principle of international law and it would be very undermining if countries start to take an ‘a-la-carte’ approach to treaties they have signed; they cannot simply comply with some provisions and ignore others without losing the moral authority to ask other countries to oblige to other treaties,” Jelsma wrote in an email. “So our preference is to acknowledge legal tensions with the treaties and try to resolve them.”

To resolve such issues, many critics of the war on drugs hope to reform international drug laws in 2016 during the next General Assembly Special Session on drugs .

“There is tension with the tax-and-regulate approach to marijuana in some jurisdictions,” Malinowska-Sempruch said. “But it’s all part of a process, and that’s why we hope the UN debate in 2016 is as open as possible, so that we can settle some of these questions and, if necessary, modernize the system.”

Until then, any country taking steps to revamp its drug policy regime could face criticisms and a loss of credibility from its international peers.

How do other countries deal with drugs?

There is a lot of variety in how different countries have adopted the UN conventions , ranging from levels of enforcement even more stringent than US drug laws to outright decriminalization. Here are a few examples:

• China carries out some of the harshest punishments for illicit drug trafficking. In the lead-up to International Anti-Drug Day , Chinese officials unveiled executions and other harsh punishments for drug traffickers in 2014 , 2013 , 2012 , 2010 , and 2009 .
• The United Kingdom maintains a classification system similar to America’s scheduling system , with criminal penalties set based on a drug’s classification. For example, selling class A substances can get someone up to life in prison, while class B sentences are limited to a maximum of 14 years.
• Portugal in 2001 decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. A 2009 report authored by Glenn Greenwald for the libertarian Cato Institute found drug use fell among teenagers in Portugal following decriminalization, but use ticked up for young adults ages 20 to 24.
• Uruguay in 2012 legalized marijuana for personal use and sales to eliminate a major source of revenue for violent drug cartels. The government is now working to establish regulations for the sales and distribution of pot.

The varied approaches show that even though the US has been a major leader in the global war on drugs, its model of combating drug use and trafficking domestically is hardly the only option. Other countries have looked at the pros and cons and decided on vastly different drug policy regimes, with varying degrees of success.

What’s the case for focusing more on rehabilitation and addiction treatment?

The most cautious reform to the drug war puts more emphasis on rehabilitation instead of locking up drug users in prison, but it does this without decriminalizing or legalizing drugs.

This is the approach recently embraced by the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, which plans to increase funding for rehabilitation programs in the coming years. The Obama administration also approved several legal and regulatory reforms , including Obamacare , that increased access to addiction treatment through health insurance. (However, the federal government still spends billions each year on conventional law enforcement operations against drugs.)

Drug courts , which even some conservatives like former Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) support, are an example of the rehabilitation-focused approach. Instead of throwing drug offenders into jail or prison, these courts send them to rehabilitation programs that focus on treating addiction as a medical, not criminal, problem. (The Global Commission on Drug Policy, however, argues that drug courts can end up nearly as punitive as the full criminalization of drugs, because the courts often enforce total drug abstinence with the threat of incarceration. Since relapse is a normal part of rehabilitation, the threat of incarceration means a lot of nonviolent drug offenders can end up back in jail or prison through drug courts.)

Other countries have taken even more drastic steps toward rehabilitation, some of which acknowledge that not all addicts can be cured of drug dependency. Several European countries prescribe and administer , with supervision, heroin to a small number of addicts who prove resistant to other treatments. These programs allow some addicts to satisfy their drug dependency without a large risk of overdose and without resorting to other crimes to obtain drugs, such as robbery and burglary.

Researchers credit the heroin-assisted treatment program in Switzerland, the first national scheme of its kind, with reductions in drug-related crimes and improvements in social functioning, such as stabilized housing and employment. But some supporters of the war on drugs, such as the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy , argue that these programs give the false impression that drug habits can be managed safely, which could weaken the social stigma surrounding drug use and lead more people to try dangerous drugs.

For drug policymakers, the question is whether potentially breaking this stigma — and perhaps leading to more drug use — is worth the benefit of getting more people the treatment they need. Generally, drug policy experts agree that this tradeoff is worth it.

What’s the case for decriminalizing drugs?

Pointing to the drug war’s failure to significantly reduce drug use, many drug policy experts argue that the criminalization of drug possession is flawed and has contributed to the massive rise of incarceration in the US. To these experts, the answer is decriminalizing all drug possession while keeping sales and trafficking illegal — a scheme that would, in theory, keep nonviolent drug users out of prison but still let law enforcement go after illicit drug supplies.

Mark Kleiman , one of the leading drug policy experts in the country, once opposed the idea of decriminalization, but he warmed up to it after looking at the evidence. “What I’ve learned since then,” he said, “is nobody’s got any empirical evidence that shows criminalization reduces consumption noticeably.”

Kleiman said decriminalization could be paired with a focus on rehabilitation. He advocated for policies like 24/7 Sobriety Programs that require twice-daily alcohol testing for every single person convicted of drunk driving; anyone who fails the test is swiftly sent to jail for a few days. In South Dakota, alcohol-related traffic deaths declined by 33 percent between 2006 and 2007 — the highest decrease in the nation — after implementation of a 24/7 Sobriety Program.

In a paper , Kleiman analyzed a similar program in Hawaii for illicit drug users. Participants in that program had large reductions in positive drug tests and were significantly less likely to be arrested during follow-ups at three months, six months, and 12 months.

"Nobody's got any empirical evidence that shows criminalization reduces consumption noticeably"

A 2009 report from the libertarian Cato Institute found that after Portugal decriminalized all drugs, people were more willing to seek out rehabilitation programs. “The most substantial barrier to offering treatment to the addict population was the addicts’ fear of arrest,” Glenn Greenwald, who authored the paper, wrote. “One prime rationale for decriminalization was that it would break down that barrier, enabling effective treatment options to be offered to addicts once they no longer feared prosecution. Moreover, decriminalization freed up resources that could be channeled into treatment and other harm reduction programs.”

As with heroin-assisted treatment programs, supporters of the war on drugs argue decriminalization legitimizes and increases drug use by removing the social stigma attached to it. But the research doesn’t appear to support this point.

Some drug policy reform advocates and experts, however, are critical of decriminalization without the legalization of sales. Isaac Campos , a drug historian at the University of Cincinnati, argued that keeping the drug market in criminal hands lets them maintain a huge source of revenue. “The black market might even be fueled somewhat by the fact that people won’t be arrested anymore, because maybe more people will use,” Campos said. “We don’t know if that’s the case, but it’s possible.”

The concern for decriminalization supporters is that letting businesses come in and sell drugs could lead to aggressive marketing and advertising, similar to how the alcohol industry behaves today. This could lead to more drug use, particularly among problem users who would likely make up most of the demand for drugs. The top 10 percent of alcohol drinkers, for example, account for more than half the alcohol consumed in any given year in the US.

Decriminalization, then, is a bit of a compromise in reforming the war on drugs. It would reduce some of the incarceration caused by the drug war, but it would continue operations that seek to reduce drug trafficking and hopefully make a drug habit less affordable and accessible.

What’s the case for legalizing drugs?

Given the concerns about the illicit drug market as a source of revenue for violent drug cartels , some advocates call for outright legalization of drug use, possession, distribution, and sales. Exactly what legalization entails, however, can vary.

Drug policy experts point out that there are several ways to legalize a drug. For example, in a January 2015 report about marijuana legalization for the Vermont legislature , some of the nation's top drug policy experts outlined several alternatives, including allowing possession and growing but not sales (like DC), allowing distribution only within small private clubs, or having the state government operate the supply chain and sell pot.

The report particularly favors a state-run monopoly for marijuana production and sales to help eliminate the black market and produce the best public health outcomes, since regulators could directly control prices and who buys pot. Previous research found that states that maintained a government-operated monopoly for alcohol kept prices higher, reduced access to youth, and reduced overall levels of use — all benefits to public health. A similar model could be applied to other drugs.

There are other options. Governments could spend much, much more on prevention and treatment programs alongside legalization to deal with a potential wave of new drug users. They could require and regulate licenses to buy drugs, as some states do with guns. Or they could limit drug use to special facilities, like supervised heroin-injection sites or special facilities in which people can legally use psychedelics.

But Jeffrey Miron , an economist at Harvard University and the libertarian Cato Institute, supports full legalization, even it means the commercialization of drugs that are currently illegal. This, he said, is the only complete answer to eliminating the black market as a source of revenue for violent criminal groups.

When asked about full legalization, Mark Kleiman , a drug policy expert who supports decriminalization, pushed back against the concept. He said full legalization could foster and encourage more problem drug users. For-profit drug businesses, just like alcohol and tobacco companies, would prefer heavy users, because the heavy users tend to buy way more of their product. In Colorado’s legal marijuana market , for example, the heaviest 30 percent of users make up nearly 90 percent of demand for pot. “They are an industry with a set of objectives that flatly contradicts public interest,” Kleiman said.

Miron argued that even if sales or distribution are legalized, the harder drugs could be taxed and regulated similarly to or more harshly than tobacco and alcohol, although he personally doesn’t support that approach. “You could absolutely legalize it and have restrictions on commercialization,” Miron said. “Those should be separate questions.”

Kleiman argued the alcohol model has clear pitfalls . Alcohol still causes health problems that kill tens of thousands each year, it’s often linked to violent crime, and some experts consider it one of the most dangerous drugs .

Still, some evidence suggests the alcohol model could be adjusted to reduce its issues. In a big review of the evidence , Alexander Wagenaar, Amy Tobler, and Kelli Komro concluded that increasing alcohol taxes — and, as a result, getting people to drink less alcohol — would significantly reduce violence, crime, and other negative repercussions of alcohol use.

But there’s evidence that the drug war increases prices and decreases accessibility far beyond taxes and regulation could. A 2014 study by Jon Caulkins, a drug policy expert at Carnegie Mellon University, found that prohibition multiplies hard drug prices by as much as 10 times, so legalization — by eliminating prohibition and allowing greater access to drugs — could greatly increase the rates of drug abuse.

The question of legalization, then, goes back once again to considerations about balancing the good and the bad: Is reducing the rates of drug abuse, particularly in the US, worth the carnage enabled by the money violent criminal organizations make off the black market for drugs? This is a common refrain of drug policy that’s repeated again and again by experts: A perfect solution doesn’t exist, so policymaking should focus on picking the best of many bad options.

“There are always choices,” Keith Humphreys, a drug policy expert at Stanford University, explained. “There is no framework available in which there’s not harm somehow. We’ve got freedom, pleasure, health, crime, and public safety. You can push on one and two of those — maybe even three with different drugs — but you can’t get rid of all of them. You have to pay the piper somewhere.”

Most Popular

• Michelle Obama articulated something Democrats have been afraid to say
• Republicans ask the Supreme Court to disenfranchise thousands of swing state voters
• What Barack Obama’s DNC speech was actually about
• The case of the nearly 7,000 missing pancreases
• The major political transformation flying under the radar at the DNC

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

More in archives

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

The economy’s stacked against us.

A Texas judge issued a national ruling against medication abortion. Here’s what you need to know.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

25 The Impact of the US Drug War on People of Color

Samuel K. Roberts is Associate Professor of History and Sociomedical Sciences at Columbia University, and former Director of its Institute for Research in African American Studies. He is the author of Infectious Fear: Politics, Disease, and the Health Effects of Segregation (2009), and is completing a book about “Race, Recovery, and America’s Misadventures in Drug Policy.”

• Published: 18 March 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter surveys three facets of the US war on drugs and its effects on communities of color. The first is how sentencing reforms from the 1960s on (mandatory minimums, stronger punitive drug laws) contributed to the rise of today’s mass incarceration crisis. Second is what scholars term the “collateral effects” of the drug war, including material impacts on wealth and assets, structural effects on communities of color (such as social punishments beyond prison), and health impacts, including psychological trauma to families and children. The third problem is its impact on Black politics: the post-Civil Rights generation of mayors and officials governed over declining urban enclaves, paradoxically responsible, with little dissent, for enforcing damaging drug policies. Federal drug policy emphasized zero-tolerance, drug testing, and abstinence, and thereby stigmatized the formation of citizens as “addicts,” which proved devastating to Black public health at the start of the 1980s HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Foreign Affairs
• CFR Education
• Newsletters

Climate Change

Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland December 5, 2023 Renewing America

• Defense & Security
• Diplomacy & International Institutions
• Energy & Environment

Human Rights

• Politics & Government
• Social Issues

Myanmar’s Troubled History

Backgrounder by Lindsay Maizland January 31, 2022

• Europe & Eurasia
• Global Commons
• Middle East & North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa

How Tobacco Laws Could Help Close the Racial Gap on Cancer

Interactive by Olivia Angelino, Thomas J. Bollyky , Elle Ruggiero and Isabella Turilli February 1, 2023 Global Health Program

• Backgrounders
• Special Projects

United States

Reagan: His Life and Legend

Book by Max Boot September 10, 2024

• Centers & Programs
• Books & Reports
• Independent Task Force Program
• Fellowships

Oil and Petroleum Products

Academic Webinar: The Geopolitics of Oil

Webinar with Carolyn Kissane and Irina A. Faskianos April 12, 2023

• Students and Educators
• State & Local Officials
• Religion Leaders
• Local Journalists

NATO's Future: Enlarged and More European?

Virtual Event with Emma M. Ashford, Michael R. Carpenter, Camille Grand, Thomas Wright, Liana Fix and Charles A. Kupchan June 25, 2024 Europe Program

• Lectureship Series
• Webinars & Conference Calls
• Member Login

Human Rights and Duterte’s War on Drugs

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs has led to thousands of extrajudicial killings, raising human rights concerns, says expert John Gershman in this interview.

Interview by Michelle Xu , Interviewer John Gershman , Interviewee

December 16, 2016 3:56 pm (EST)

Since becoming president of the Philippines in June 2016, Rodrigo Duterte has launched a war on drugs that has resulted in the extrajudicial deaths of thousands of alleged drug dealers and users across the country. The Philippine president sees drug dealing and addiction as “major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress,” says John Gershman, an expert on Philippine politics. The drug war is a cornerstone of Duterte’s domestic policy and represents the extension of policies he’d implemented earlier in his political career as the mayor of the city of Davao. In December 2016, the United States withheld poverty aid to the Philippines after declaring concern over Duterte’s war on drugs.

How did the Philippines’ war on drugs start?  

When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug addiction were major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress. He promised a large-scale crackdown on dealers and addicts, similar to the crackdown that he engaged in when he was mayor of Davao, one of the Philippines’ largest cities on the southern island of Mindanao. When Duterte became president in June, he encouraged the public to “go ahead and kill” drug addicts. His rhetoric has been widely understood as an endorsement of extrajudicial killings, as it has created conditions for people to feel that it’s appropriate to kill drug users and dealers. What have followed seem to be vigilante attacks against alleged or suspected drug dealers and drug addicts. The police are engaged in large-scale sweeps. The Philippine National Police also revealed a list of high-level political officials and other influential people who were allegedly involved in the drug trade.

“When Rodrigo Duterte campaigned for president, he claimed that drug dealing and drug addiction were major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress.”

Philippines

Rodrigo Duterte

Drug Policy

The dominant drug in the Philippines is a variant of methamphetamine called shabu. According to a 2012 United Nations report , among all the countries in East Asia, the Philippines had the highest rate of methamphetamine abuse. Estimates showed that about 2.2 percent of Filipinos between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four were using methamphetamines, and that methamphetamines and marijuana were the primary drugs of choice. In 2015, the national drug enforcement agency reported that one fifth of the barangays, the smallest administrative division in the Philippines, had evidence of drug use, drug trafficking, or drug manufacturing; in Manila, the capital, 92 percent of the barangays had yielded such evidence.

How would you describe Duterte’s leadership as the mayor of Davao?

After the collapse of the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship, there were high levels of crime in Davao and Duterte cracked down on crime associated with drugs and criminality more generally. There was early criticism of his time as mayor by Philippine and international human rights groups because of his de facto endorsement of extrajudicial killings, under the auspices of the “Davao Death Squad.”

Duterte was also successful at negotiating with the Philippine Communist Party. He was seen broadly as sympathetic to their concerns about poverty, inequality, and housing, and pursued a reasonably robust anti-poverty agenda while he was mayor. He was also interested in public health issues, launching the first legislation against public smoking in the Philippines, which he has claimed he will launch nationally.

What have been the outcomes of the drug war?

By early December , nearly 6,000 people had been killed: about 2,100 have died in police operations and the remainder in what are called “deaths under investigation,” which is shorthand for vigilante killings. There are also claims that half a million to seven hundred thousand people have surrendered themselves to the police. More than 40,000 people have been arrested.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with cfr analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.  weekdays., think global health.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.  Weekly.

Although human rights organizations and political leaders have spoken out against the crackdown, Duterte has been relatively successful at not having the legislature engaged in any serious oversight of or investigation into this war. Philippine Senator Leila de Lima, former chairperson of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights and a former secretary of justice under the previous administration, had condemned the war on drugs and held hearings on human rights violations associated with these extrajudicial killings. However, in August, Duterte alleged that he had evidence of de Lima having an affair with her driver, who had been using drugs and collecting drug protection money when de Lima was the justice secretary. De Lima was later removed from her position chairing the investigative committee in a 16-4 vote by elected members of the Senate committee.

What is the public reaction to the drug war?

The war on drugs has received a high level of popular support from across the class spectrum in the Philippines. The most recent nationwide survey on presidential performance and trust ratings conducted from September 25 to October 1 by Pulse Asia Research showed that Duterte’s approval rating was around 86 percent. Even through some people are concerned about these deaths, they support him as a president for his position on other issues. For example, he has a relatively progressive economic agenda, with a focus on economic inequality.

Duterte is also supporting a range of anti-poverty programs and policies. The most recent World Bank quarterly report speaks positively about Duterte’s economic plans. The fact that he wants to work on issues of social inequality and economic inequality makes people not perceive the drug war as a war on the poor.

How is Duterte succeeding in carrying out this war on drugs?

The Philippine judicial system is very slow and perceived as corrupt, enabling Duterte to act proactively and address the issue of drugs in a non-constructive way with widespread violations of human rights. Moreover, in the face of a corrupt, elite-dominated political system and a slow, ineffective, and equally corrupt judicial system, people are willing to tolerate this politician who promised something and is now delivering.

“Drug dealers and drug addicts are a stigmatized group, and stigmatized groups always have difficulty gaining political support for the defense of their rights.”

There are no trials, so there is no evidence that the people being killed are in fact drug dealers or drug addicts. [This situation] shows the weakness of human rights institutions and discourse in the face of a popular and skilled populist leader. It is different from college students being arrested under the Marcos regime or activists being targeted under the first Aquino administration, when popular outcry was aroused. Drug dealers and drug addicts are a stigmatized group, and stigmatized groups always have difficulty gaining political support for the defense of their rights.

How has the United States reacted to the drug war and why is Duterte challenging U.S.-Philippines relations?

It’s never been a genuine partnership. It’s always been a relationship dominated by U.S. interests. Growing up in the 1960s, Duterte lived through a period when the United States firmly supported a regime that was even more brutal than this particular regime and was willing to not criticize that particular government. He noticed that the United States was willing to overlook human rights violations when these violations served their geopolitical interests. He was unhappy about the double standards. [Editor’s Note: The Obama administration has expressed concern over reports of extrajudicial killings and encouraged Manila to abide by its international human rights obligations.] For the first time, the United States is facing someone who is willing to challenge this historically imbalanced relationship. It is unclear what might happen to the relationship under the administration of Donald J. Trump, but initial indications are that it may not focus on human rights in the Philippines. President-Elect Trump has reportedly endorsed the Philippine president’s effort, allegedly saying that the country is going about the drug war "the right way," according to Duterte .

The interview has been edited and condensed.

Explore More on Philippines

President Marcos Jr. Meets With President Biden—But the U.S. Position in Southeast Asia is Increasingly Shaky

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick May 2, 2023 Asia Unbound

Marcos Jr. Tries to Escape Duterte’s Legacy, But Can He Be Trusted?

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick November 22, 2022 Asia Unbound

Why Democracy in Southeast Asia Will Worsen in 2023

Blog Post by Joshua Kurlantzick September 9, 2022 Asia Unbound

Top Stories on CFR

China Strategy Initiative

America’s China Strategy, With Rush Doshi

Podcast with James M. Lindsay and Rush Doshi August 13, 2024 The President’s Inbox

Monetary Policy

What Is the U.S. Federal Reserve?

Backgrounder by James McBride , Anshu Siripurapu and Noah Berman August 15, 2024 Renewing America

WHO Declares Mpox a Global Health Emergency. Why? Link

via Council on Foreign Relations with Thomas J. Bollyky August 15, 2024

Just What Is So Wrong With the War on Drugs?

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

All our lives we have been taught that when someone uses or sells drugs, justice dictates that he or she should go to prison. We are taught that those who commit drug crimes are a threat to society , either because they want to turn others into addicts or steal from them for drug money; they belong in prison, safely away from law abiding citizens. But lately, newspapers and legislatures are abuzz with a message that is just the opposite: relying less on prison sanctions for drug crimes can actually increase public safety.

The rhetoric and policies of the so-called war on drugs may be the cultural norm, but they aren’t always sensible. Our lawmakers should have listened to Milton Friedman, who from the start warned that the drug war would result in disastrous consequences for inner city neighborhoods with the only benefit being a highly profitable black market for drug cartels .

This Friday, June 17th, marks 40 years from the date President Richard Nixon first declared a “war on drugs,” referencing the policies he implemented in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act . The progeny of this Act have left us with a convoluted maze of billions of pages of federal and state criminal codes that dole out stiff, lengthy sentences for drug crimes. The proffered goal: to reduce and ultimately end the production, distribution, and use of drugs labeled “illicit.”

So what’s the verdict 40 years later? Have we won the war on drugs? Quite simply, no. From a public safety perspective, the war has been completely ineffective at stemming the supply or use of drugs in this country. From a cost perspective, it’s been horrific — with a whopping $1 trillion price tag thus far and an unimaginably higher toll in lives and families lost to prison. In terms of fairness, it has been a total bust as well. The effect on communities of color has been astonishingly tragic: there are more African-Americans under the control of prison and corrections departments today than were ever enslaved by this country. Even the current head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske , and more recently the Global Commission on Drug Policy , have announced that the drug war has been an abject disaster.

According to the federal government, drugs are increasingly widely available and the rates of drug use are actually up by 10 percent since the start of the war on drugs. Drug supply and use have increased despite the 2.3 million people languishing in prisons — about 25 percent of whom are locked up for drug violations . If we look at just federal prisons, things are even worse, with nearly half of those in prison locked up for drug crimes.

When we incarcerate drug offenders, they stay locked up for insanely lengthy periods of time — and often forever. We increasingly sentence them to life in prison under three-strikes-and-you’re-outlaws for petty drug crimes. And disappointingly, our Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of laws imposing disproportionate mandatory sentences of life without parole for simple possession of drugs.

To make matters worse, the policies of the drug war have made an intentional — though baseless — determination that certain segments of our population deserve to be imprisoned for drug crimes more than others. You don’t see cops busting through NYU dragging away young coeds for smoking up in their dorm rooms or selling coke to their friends at East Village bars. Instead, you see the NYPD executing massive drug sweeps in housing projects and on the street corners of Harlem, throwing black men into cop cars for minimal amounts of marijuana in their pockets. These types of selective enforcement practices are the reason our prisons are bursting at the seams with black Americans convicted of petty drug offenses — despite the fact that white Americans use drugs at a higher rate than African-Americans .

There is nothing rational about such drug policies. In no other area of criminal law do we lock up huge numbers of people because they might pose threats to themselves, but have done nothing to harm another person.

So what’s the alternative? Some say legalize and regulate drugs the way we do alcohol and tobacco. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that legalizing drugs would inject $83 billion a year into the U.S. economy.

But even if you think that drugs should be illegal, it’s hard to justify prison sentences for possession or nonviolent drug crimes. Imprisoning people for drug offenses basically destroys their lives — even if they’re lucky enough to exit prison . Prison neither treats nor trains nor rehabilitates. Instead, prison makes people more likely to commit crimes in the future and makes them effectively unemployable with little hope of a future. Evidence indisputably shows that treatment is far more cost-effective than incarceration for drug offenses, rehabilitating individuals so they can be productive members of society.

Recognizing this reality, several states have recently reformed their drug laws. Texas has increased the use of treatment and rehabilitation and now has its lowest crime rate since 1973 . This year, Connecticut decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana and California is considering a proposal to turn drug possession into a misdemeanor. These policies are far more sensible ways to address drug abuse than the drug war policies that not-so-blindly lock people up and throw away the key.

Driven by politics and fear, the war on drugs has been ineffective, fiscally irresponsible, racially biased, and just plain foolish. Simply put, it hasn’t worked and has actually made us worse off. If 40 years of failed drug policies and our status as the largest incarcerator in the world isn’t a sufficient wake-up call that we need to change the way we deal with drugs in this country, it’s hard to imagine what else could be.

(Originally posted on ACSBlog.)

Learn more about the war on drugs: Sign up for breaking news alerts , follow us on Twitter , and like us on Facebook .

Learn More About the Issues on This Page

• Smart Justice
• The War on Drugs
• Sentencing Reform
• Marijuana Law Reform
• Drug Law Reform
• Criminal Law Reform

Related Content

Just City And Legal Advocates Challenge Tennessee’s Unprecedented Bail Law

Court Rejects Attempt to Dismiss Case Seeking Accountability for Wrongful Prosecution of Abortion

ACLU Releases Legal, Legislative, and Advocacy Roadmap to Fight the Expansion of Mass Incarceration by a Second Trump Administration

Horton v. Rangos (Amicus Brief)

• How to Contribute

• Join Our Email Listserv

Search form

• Key Concepts
• Key Thinkers
• Key Moments

The Global War on Drugs

The U.S.-led global War on Drugs (WoD) refers to the conflict and violence produced by the enforcement of prohibitionist policies on the manufacture, distribution, and consumption of banned substances commonly known as “illegal drugs.” [1]   After forty years of a militaristic approach to a public health problem, studies continue to report higher records of narcotics production in so-called southern nations, and rising rates of consumption particularly in northern economies. [2 ] It is thus common for institutional reports, journalistic articles, and academic studies to declare the complete “failure” of  the WoD. [3]  However, despite the lack of results and the human cost of still-increasing incarceration and violence, governments and intergovernmental organizations around the world continue to invest in a global war on the production and distribution of illegal narcotics.

Shifting the focus on the WoD from its unobtained goals to the actual outcomes of law enforcement, my intent here is to clarify how the WoD has been and continues to be a militaristic and economic success for the United States. This essay presents the drug war as a global mechanism to police, disenfranchise, and displace poor communities of color in areas of capitalist expansion. In this transnational perspective, a description of the cocaine and heroin trades will exemplify how the war successfully legitimizes the militarization and appropriation of territories for political intervention and economic exploitation. 

After presenting recent academic research that proposes an analysis of the expansionist objectives of the WoD, this essay briefly presents the cocaine and heroin trades as instances of how the WoD: a) facilitates the militarization and paramilitarization of producing nations where social movements, insurgencies, and armed resistances prevent corporations from freely accessing areas for extraction of resources a nd b) legitimizes the world-wide criminalization, policing, and mass incarceration of racialized communities. As a conclusion, it proposes that the trafficking routes are not only maps of capitalist expansion but also potential networks of solidarity between Global South communities that endure similar conditions of exploitation.

The War on Drugs as Necropolitical Expansion

Building on early 20th century drug-related xenophobic fears and racist stereotypes, [4]   U.S. President Richard Nixon set the legal and militaristic foundations for the modern global WoD. [5]   Throughout his presidency, Nixon launched an all-out offensive to fight drug abuse, or what he described as the U nited  S tates ’ “public enemy number one.” At the dusk of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan expanded the reach and power of this offensive by framing the fight against addiction as a new “war for our freedom” and ordered U.S. citizens to swing into action as “when we were attacked in World War II.” Since then, the prohibitionist approach to narcotics has unsuccessfully attempted to reduce rates of consumption by seizing supply sources and dismantling distribution routes, within and outside the nation’s borders.

To address the persistence of WoD methods and rhetoric, recent research focuses on a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes of anti-drug policy.  Offering concepts such as  “narco-colonialism”  (Villar and Cottle 2011) , “drug war capitalism” (Paley 2014), and “gore capitalism” (Valencia  2016),  t his research understands  drug war rhetoric, legislation, and militarization as a mechanism of necropolitical expansion into the Global South. [6]   In other words, the White House’s rhetoric that frames drug consumption as a bellic conflict justifies the increase of military resources, and legitimizes  exceptional legislation to curtail civil rights as well as international law in the name of national security. [7]   As the history of the drug trade exhibits, these wartime discourses and policies against a “foreign menace” produce a racialized enemy: throughout the Global South, the outcome of enforcing anti-drug laws transforms the policing, incarceration, displacement, and killing of black and brown bodies into profit for the security industry and the world-wide expansion of corporate capitalism.  

As demonstrated in the examples analyzed below,  the  privatized military industry (PMI)  profits from  seizing these particular commodities and  fighting  the illegal  corporations that  produce and distribute them . [8]   Focusing on the lower links of the production and distribution chain,  p rivate and state actors inefficiently enforce the law by preventing growers from supplying raw material, disrupting manufacturing, and interdicting transnational and local couriers. Regardless of the low success of this militaristic approach, security corporations continue profiting from running incarceration facilities, performing aerial fumigation, and providing military support and training to combat cartels’ private security forces or militias. [9]

In addition to being a major contributor in the security industry — as in the cases of Mexico and Colombia — the WoD finances paramilitary structures whose purpose is to disenfranchise workers and communities to foster a favorable environment for the investment of capital. Funded through legitimate law enforcement agencies or paid by private corporations, these private armies displace communities for land appropriation and carry out a dirty war on union and social leaders, environmental activists, and human rights advocates who oppose exploitative practices. [10]   The necropolitical outcomes of these anti-drug policies are measured in the violence that makes possible low-cost labor and emptied lands for extracting industries.

 As mentioned before, t his framework also exhibits how the WoD deepens the global color line .  Responding to transnational racist discourses, the mechanisms of the WoD — including  increased  policing and prosecution of producers and street distributors — are disproportionately applied to minorities and people of color in producing, transporting, and consuming nations. [11]   In the United States, for example, anti-narcotics war rhetoric adds drug-related crimes to already existing stereotypes of criminality among African American communities. As Michelle Alexander demonstrates in her seminal book,  The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness  (2010), skyrocketing drug convictions gave rise to the U.S. prison industrial complex, a system of private prisons that generates immense profit from the incarceration of black and brown bodies. [12]

History offers multiple examples of the imperial objectives behind the racialized WoD. The most documented case is perhaps the Iran-Contra affair. In congressional hearings from May-August 1986, Reagan’s CIA admitted its role in providing funding for the right-wing paramilitary group known as Contras to support their campaign against the Sandinista Revolutionary government in Nicaragua. Looking for ways to bypass a congressional refusal to fund this army, the CIA prevented law enforcement from investigating the Contras’ drug networks, allowing them to finance their counterinsurgency while cocaine flooded the United States, particularly urban black neighborhoods in the form of crack cocaine. [13]   This instance exhibits a U.S.-orchestrated effort to paramilitarize a foreign nation while disregarding the use of addictive substances in the United States for the achievement of political goals. It is one example of how the WoD has been used as a justification of expense budgets for the militarization and paramilitarization of narcotics-producing nations to guarantee access to natural resources and unjust labor practices. Perpetuating the logic of racial oppression, the violent enforcement of drug war policy disproportionately focuses on people of color producing their transnational overrepresentation in casualty and incarceration rates. 

The War on Drugs and Neocolonial Expansion in the Global South

The long history of the heroine trade provides extensive illustration of the WoD as the implementation of imperial objectives rather than an effort to protect consumers. Since the Opium Wars (1839-1860), growing poppy and distributing its derivatives  —  heroin and morphine  —  has been linked to violent colonial projects. In its expansion, the U nited  S tates  has collaborated or coexisted with heroin trafficking for geopolitical positioning of American power. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government forged alliances with drug warlords in the so-called “Golden Triangle” —  Laos, Thailand and Myanmar .  According to Alfred W. McCoy, the CIA allowed them to commercialize their product in exchange for their private armies to act as an anti-insurgency force in the region. [14]

The defeat in Vietnam shifted U.S. efforts to Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan, an area known as the “Golden Crescent.” The U.S. wars on drugs and terror overlap in this oil-rich region, a key area for geopolitical dominance. In 1979, during Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the CIA backed opium smugglers in Afghanistan, the anti-communist Mujahedin army, in their drug-funded war against the government of the Marxist People’s Democratic Party (Villar and Cottle 2011, 36-40). After taking power from the Mujahedin in 1996, the religious and military organization called the Taliban made taxation on opium exports its largest source of revenue. In the first year of the post-9/11 invasion in 2001, U.S. forces once again sought support from heroin-trafficking organizations as allies against the ruling Taliban. In return, the drug enforcement agencies would overlook opium trafficking, producing a record spike in the cultivation of poppy and the production of its derivatives. [15]  

When considering the expansionist goals of the WoD in the Golden Crescent alongside the lack of regulations on legal drug-distributing companies in the United States, it becomes clear that addiction prevention is not a principal concern of the American legal system. Journalistic investigations have repeatedly exposed how heavy lobbying from pharmaceutical companies “influenced” lawmakers to weaken the DEA regulations on the commercialization of opioids. The permissiveness of this legislation, as well as the over-prescription of painkillers in mostly white, working class communities, are the major causes of what is currently known as the opioid epidemic. [16]   In contrast to the  so-called  crack epidemic in black communities during the 1980s, increasing death rates in these communities has generated a wealth of research on the issue as well as sympathetic coverage by the media. As a result, social pressure has propelled scrutiny into the industry-friendly legislation that fostered the epidemic. However, as legal supplies of opioids become increasingly restricted, the dependent populations left behind turn toward illegal providers of heroin from Mexico . The demand  fuel s  the supply chain increasing the cycle of violence on the South-North routes, and ultimately justifying the militarization of heroin trafficking and producing areas under cartel control.  

Similarly to heroine commercialization,  the cocaine trade  does  not  appear  as a force against — or even parallel — to the capitalist system but an integral part of it. The boom in demand for cocaine in Europe and the United States in the 1970s and 1980s spurred the rise of corporate-like trafficking organizations that began supplying these markets using old colonial contraband routes. [17]   As they expanded, these organizations required a large labor force of farm workers known as  cocaleros , and an extensive network of couriers. This new illegal business provided jobs for those marginalized from the production system by the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s in Mexico and Colombia. [18]   These organizations also forged an alliance with traditional upper classes in both countries; local elites laundered immense fortunes through the legal financial system and received exorbitant donations for political campaigns. [19]

The underground economy produced by drug trafficking is not just an “anomaly” of the Global South. The bulk of the cocaine trade profits remains in the consuming northern financial systems. According to Villar and Cottle, approximately 80 percent of the profits from global drug-trafficking are laundered by banks of consuming countries rather than in producing and trafficking nations (2011, 16). In an interview with  The Observer , the head of the UN Office on Drug and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, denounced the complacency of the legal economy towards the flow of cash from drug transactions. Costa affirms that in the midst of the Great Recession, “drug money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis”  (Syal 2009).

With the financial and political systems as accomplices, drug-trafficking organizations expand their power and influence over different territories, substituting the state as the ruling institution. Cartels incorporate into their ranks armies of young men from disenfranchised communities to provide security, intimidate adversaries, settle disputes, and silence uncooperative citizens. In their areas of influence, these private armed structures administrate the use of violence and decide on people’s properties and rights. Incapable of controlling their entire territories and protecting the lives of their citizens within their borders, Mexico and Colombia have been declared in many occasions “failing states.” 

The instability caused by these underground corporations legitimizes the militarization of trafficking nations. To regain security in these areas, the U nited  S tates  created the international cooperation agreements Plan Colombia (2000) and Mexico’s Mérida Initiative (2008). Negotiated during Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s presidencies, these two landmark policies in the WoD are based on heavy military investment and involvement of U.S. agencies and private consultants. [20 ] In both cases, the spread of paramilitary structures began right after the implementation of the agreements. These irregular armies coincidentally operate in areas of drug trafficking, and territories projected for infrastructure development and/or extractive projects. 

The Colombian city of Buenaventura epitomizes the effects of the racist drug war in Global South communities. Located on the Pacific coast, this predominantly Afro-Latinx seaport city is responsible for the transit of about 60 percent of the country’s trade. Ironically, while the port generates private fortunes and millions in taxes, the unemployment rate is 64 percent in this city of nearly half a million people. Fueled by inequality, the drug-trafficking parallel economy has flourished, turning Buenaventura into a strategic point in the cocaine shipping route to Asia and the United States via Mexico. 

Following the logic of the WoD, the militarization and paramilitarization of the area since 2008 produced a spike in the city’s murder rates and the display of gruesome violence, such as torture, massacres, and dismemberment. While drug-trafficking has not substantially decreased in the port city, local organizers and researchers from Colombia’s Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica have insisted on the correlation between high rates of performative violence, the long list of murdered social and ethnic leaders, and interests to displace Afro-Colombian communities from their ancestral lands near the port for the development of new infrastructure. As a displaced Colombian social leader describes the WoD, “it’s simply a war about land and resources, and people living in these lands happen to be in the way” (Villar and Cottle 2011, 112-13). 

Since taking office in early 2017, the Trump administration has  set in motion a new wave of global repressive measures to fight production and distribution of illegal substances . Led by Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, the constant attempts to impose federal law over states’ legislation on the legalization of marijuana seek to maintain drug related incarceration rates both as a profitable business and as a tool for social control. [21]   Abroad, this  coming cycle of the WoD implements new technology in the militarization of  producing nations .  In Colombia, Trump’s WoD recently introduced  drones in the return of aerial fumigation with the toxic chemical known as glyphosate. [22]   Trafficking routes around the world, however, not only map the northbound movement of drugs and the expansion of power in the opposite direction, they also draw a potential network of solidarity among populations in the Global South targeted by narco-colonialism. Anti-drug war organizations, academic institutions, and the civil society at large across the Global South must start to interconnect, share experiences, narrate their stories, and organize around an agenda towards the deracialization, decriminalization, and demilitarization of drug commercialization and consumption. [23]

Alexander, Michelle. 2012.  The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

Aspe, Pedro and George P. Shultz. 2017. “The Failed War on Drugs.”  New York Times , December 31, 2017.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/opinion/failed-war-on-drugs.html

Astorga, Luís. 2004. “Mexico: Drugs and Politics.” In  The Political Economy of the Drug Industry: Latin America and the International System . Edited by Menno Vellinga, 85-102. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Bailey, John. 20 11 . “Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative: Policy Twins or Distant Cousins?” In  National Solutions to Trans-Border Problems?   Edited by Isidro Morales,  167-178. Farnham, United Kingdom: Ashgate.

Betancourt, Darío, and Martha Luz García Bustos. 1994.  Contrabandistas, marimberos y mafiosos: historia social de la mafia colombiana , 1965-1992. Bogotá: Tercer Mundo Editores.

Bigwood, Jeremy. “Toxic Drift: Monsanto and the Drug War in Colombia.” Corpowatch: Holding Corporations Accountable. Accessed June 21, 2001.  https://corpwatch.org/article/toxic-drift-monsanto-and-drug-war-colombia

Boullosa, Carmen, and Mike Wallace. 2016.  A Narco History: How the United States and Mexico Jointly Created the Mexican Drug War . New York: OR Books.

Brochu, Serge, Natacha Brunelle, Chantal Plourde, and Julie Da Silva. 2018. “Treating Addicts in the Criminal Justice System.” In  Drugs and Crime: A Complex Relationship . E dited by Serge Brochu, Natacha Brunelle, Chantal Plourde , 139-70. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. 

Brodzinsky, Sibylla. “After 30 years on the frontline, Colombia Looks Beyond the Failed War On Drugs.”  The Guardian ,  April  18 , 2016.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/18/colombia-united-nations-assembly-war-on-drugs

Buddenberg, Doris, and William A. Byrd. 2006.  Afghanistan's Drug Industry: Structure, Functioning, Dynamics, and Implications for Counter-Narcotics Policy . The World Bank . http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/151161467996726308/Afghanistans-drug-industry-structure-functioning-dynamics-and-implications-for-counter-narcotics-policy

Carpenter, Ted Galen. 2014.  Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington’s Futile War on Drugs in Latin America. New York: St. Martin's Press. 

Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica. 2015.  Buenaventura: Un puerto sin comunidad . Bogotá, CNMH.   http://www.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/descargas/informes2015/buenaventura PuebloSinComunidad/buenaventura-un-puerto-sin-comunidad.pdf

___. 2018.  Paramilitarismo: Balance de la contribución del CNMH al esclarecimiento histórico . Bogotá, CNMH.  http://www.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/informes/informes-2018/paramilitarismo-balance-de-la-contribucion-del-cnmh-al-esclarecimiento-historico

Chin, K.L. 2016.  The Golden Triangle: Inside Southeast Asia ’ s Drug Trade . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Conyers, John. 2013. “The Incarceration Explosion.”  Yale Law & Policy Review  31, no. 2: 377-87. 

Cooper, Hannah LF. 2015. “War on Drugs Policing and Police Brutality.”  Substance Use & Misuse  50, no. 8-9: 1188-1194.

Delgado-Ramos, Gian Carlo, and Silvina María Romano. 2011. “Political-Economic Factors in US Foreign Policy: The Colombia Plan, the Mérida Initiative, and the Obama Administration.”  Latin American Perspectives  38, no. 4: 93-108 .

Drug Policy Alliance. “Experts React to Trump’s Plan to Escalate Drug War and Impose Death Penalty for Drug Offenses.”  Accessed  March 19 , 2018. http://www.drugpolicy.org/press-release/2018/03/experts-react-trumps-plan-escalate-drug-war-and-impose-death-penalty-drug

DuVernay, Ava. 2016.  13th . Netflix documentary. September 30  (USA).

Elkins, Jeremy. 2010. “The Model of War.”  Political Theory  38, no. 2: 214-42. 

García Pinzón, Viviana. 2015.  Cooperación y seguridad en la guerra contra las drogas: El Plan Colombia y la Iniciativa Mérida . Bogotá: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. 

Gill, Lesley. 2007. “Right There with You’ Coca-Cola, Labor Restructuring and Political Violence in Colombia.”  Critique of Anthropology  27, no. 3: 235-260.

Gray, James. 2010.  Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed: A Judicial Indictment of War on Drugs . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

Grosse, Robert E. 2001.  Drugs and Money: Laundering Latin America’s Cocaine Dollars . Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. 

Higham, Scott, and Lenny Bernstein.“The Drug Industry’s Triumph over the DEA.”  The Washington Post . Accessed October 15, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/investigations/dea-drug-industry-congress/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c972d62aa053

Joseph, Gilbert M., and Emily S. Rosenberg. 2006.  From  S ilver to  C ocaine: Latin American  C ommodity  C hains and the  B uilding of the  W orld  E conomy, 1500–2000 . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Koram, Kojo. 2019.  The War on Drugs and the Global Colour Line . London:  Pluto Press.

Krauthausen, Ciro, and Luis Fernando Sarmiento. 1991.  Cocaína & Co. Un mercado ilegal por dentro . Bogotá: Tercer Mundo.

Luciano, Lilia and Carlos Moreno. 2016.  Guerras Ajenas . HBO Latin America. 13 June (USA).  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Jsr-UytWo

Nixon, Richard. 1971. “Remarks About an Intensified Program for Drug Abuse Prevention and Control.” June 17.  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3047 .

Mbembé, J-A., and Libby Meintjes. 2003. “Necropolitics.”  Public Culture  15, no. 1: 11-40.

McCoy, Alfred W. 2003.  The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Central America . Chicago: Chicago Review Press. 

Meehan, Patrick. 2011. “Drugs, Insurgency and State-building in Burma: Why the Drugs Trade  i s Central to Burma ’ s Changing Political Order.”  Journal of Southeast Asian Studies  42, no. 3: 376-404. 

Mercille, Julien. 2011. “Violent Narco-Cartels or US Hegemony? The Political Economy of the ‘War on Drugs’ in Mexico.”  Third World Quarterly  32, no. 9: 1637-1653.

Molano, Alfredo. 1997.  Rebusque mayor: relatos de mulas, traquetos y embarques . Bogotá: Ancora Editores Ltda, Banco de la República.

Paley, Dawn. 2014.  Drug War Capitalism . Oakland: AK Press.

Reagan, Ronald. 1986. “Address to the Nation on the Campaign Against Drug Abuse.” 14 September.  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=36414

Rhodan, Maya. “President Trump  i s Officially Proposing  t hat We Give Drug Traffickers the Death Penalty.”  Time ,  March  19,  2018. http://time.com/5205467/donald-trump-death-penalty-drug-traffickers-opioid/

Rincón-Ruiz, Alexander, and Giorgos Kallis. 2013. “Caught in the Middle, Colombia’s War on Drugs and its Effects on Forest and People.”  Geoforum  46: 60-78.

Rosen, Jonathan D. 2014.  The Losing War: Plan Colombia and Beyond . New York: SUNY Press.

Schotter, Andreas, and Mary Teagarden. 2010.  Blood Bananas: Chiquita in Colombia . Arizona: Thunderbird School of Global Management. 

Scott, Peter. 2004.  Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Shepard, Mathilda. 2017. "Privatized Military Industry."  August 17.  Global South Studies: A Collective Publication with The Global South. 

Singer, P.W. 2003.  Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry . Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Storrs,  K. Larry . 2003. “Drug Certification/Designation Procedures for Illicit Narcotics Producing and Transit Countries.” CRS Report for Congress. 22 September. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20050920_RL32038_z b83f08de8e317e709242c9941 aa6b64aa5e26502.pdf

Syal, Rajeev. “Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor.”  The Guardian . Accessed December 12, 2009.  https://www.theguardian.com/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

Thoumi, Francisco E. 2003.  Illegal Drugs, Economy, and Society in the Andes. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press. 

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). “Afghanistan Opium Survey. Cultivation and Production. Executive Summary.” Accessed October 1, 2016. https://www.unodc.org/documents/crop- monitoring /Afghanistan/AfghanistanOpiumSurvey2016_ExSum.pdf

Valencia, Sayak. 2016.  Capitalismo gore . Mexico: Paidos 

Van Gundy, Alana. 2016. “American Prisons: Consequences of Mass Incarceration.” In  Agenda for Social Justice: Solutions for 2016 . E dited by Muschert Glenn W., Klocke Brian V., Perrucci Robert, and Shefner Jon, 103-112. Bristol: Policy Press at the University of Bristol. 

Villar, Oliver, and Drew Cottle.2011.  Cocaine, Death Squads, and the War on Terror: US Imperialism and Class Struggle in Colombia . New York: NYU Press.

Webb, Gary. 2011.  Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Cocaine Explosion . New York: Seven Stories Press.

Whitaker, Bill. “Ex-DEA Agent: Opioid Crisis Fueled by Drug Industry and Congress.”  60 Minutes . Accessed  October 15,  2017.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-dea-agent-opioid-crisis-fueled-by-drug-industry-and-congress/

Wilson, Suzanne, and Marta Zambrano. 1994. “Cocaine, Commodity Chains, and Drug Politics: A Transnational Approach.”  Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism . E dited by Gary Gereffi and Miguel Korzeniewicz, 297-316. London: Greenwood Press.

Woodiwiss, Michael. 2017.  Double Crossed: The Failure of Organized Crime Control. London: Pluto Press.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1rfsnbn .

[1] Signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1970, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 includes the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a list of regulated substances classified into five schedules based upon their medical use, potential for abuse, and dependence liability. For more see:  https://www.dea.gov/pr/multimedia-library/publications/drug_of_abuse.pdf

[2] On drug addiction as a public health issue see  Brochu, et. al 2018, Jenner 2011.

[3] On the failure of the WoD see for journalistic investigation Aspe and Schultz 2017, Brodzinsky  2016 ; for academic sources and reports, Woodwiss 2017, Carpenter 2014, Gray 2010. 

[4]   In the United States, the prohibition of certain substances was a reaction to early 20th century changing economic and political forces, but it has also been argued that it responded to many white Americans’ fears of people of color. The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act (1909) and the Harry Anslinger’s campaign for the criminalization of marijuana in the 1930s associated black Americans and immigrant populations from China and Mexico to crime, violence, and sexual predation. For more on the connection between racism and the prohibition of certain substances see Boullosa and Wallace  2016.

[5] In 1973 Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) by Executive Order. This organization was assigned the mission to “establish a single unified command to combat an all-out global war on the drug menace.” In its outset, the DEA had 1,470 special agents and an annual budget of less than $75 million. Today, it has 5,235 special agents, 227 domestic field offices, foreign offices in 62 countries, and a budget of roughly $2.5 billion (Boullosa and Wallace, 2016 , 28).

[6] In their eponymous essay (2003), Achille Mbembe and Libby Meintjes define “Necropolitics” as the expression of sovereignty that resides “in the power and the capacity to dictate who may live and who must die. Hence, to kill or to allow to live constitute the limits of sovereignty, its fundamental attributes. To exercise sovereignty is to exercise control over mortality and to define life as the deployment and manifestation of power” (11). 

[7] O n the impact of the war rhetoric see Elkins 2010.  O n WoD legislation and Civil Rights see Cooper  2015.  O n foreign policy and the WoD see Storrs 2003 .

[8] O n cocaine as a commodity see  Wilson and Zambrano 1994, Joseph and Rosenberg 2006. 

[9] O n the privatized military industrial complex see  Shepard 2017 , Singer 2003.

[10] On the links between Colombia’s military and paramilitary groups see Centro Nacional de Memoria Hist órica 2018,  Scott  200 4 . On the relationship between Colombian paramilitary groups and U.S. corporations see Schotter and Teagarden 2010, Gill  2010. 

[11] Th e forthcoming volume entitled The War on Drugs and the Global Colour Line (2019), edited by Kojo Koram, addresses the racist impact of the drug war throughout the Global South.

[12] On mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex in the United States see Van Gundy 2016, DuVernay 2016, Conyers 2013.

[13] On the Iran-Contra Affair and the so-called crack epidemic see Alexander 2012, Boullosa and Wallace 2016, Villar and Cottle 2011, Webb 2011.

[14] O n the formation of the Golden Triangle see Chin  2016 ,  Meehan  2011 ,  McCoy  2003.

[15] According to the 2016 Opium Survey by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),  starting in  2002, poppy crops tripled in Afghanistan from 76,000 to 209,000 hectares.

[16] O n journalistic investigation of the current opioid crisis see Higham and  Bernstein  2017, Whitaker 2017.

[17] O n the beginnings of Colombia’s cocaine trafficking networks see Betancourt and García Bustos 1994 ,  Molano 1997 ,  Krauthausen and Sarmiento  1991 .  

[18] The neoliberal expansion embodied in NAFTA demanded that Mexico undo the communal-land based agrarian reform embedded in the Constitution by the 1910 Revolution. Tariffs and quotas were removed enabling U.S. subsidized agricultural industry to import below cost. Unable to sustain themselves, farmers found in the burgeoning market for marijuana and poppies their only avenue to surviving on the land (Boullosa and Wallace, 2016, 52-4).

[19] O n the relationship between local elites and drug cartels see Astorga  2004 ,  Grosse  2001 , Thoumi  2003.

[20] O n Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative see  Woodiwiss  2017 ,  García Pinzón 2015, Rosen 2014, Bailey 2010,  Mercille  2011 ,  Delgado-Ramos and Romano  2011 .

[21] On the Trump administration and the WoD  see Rhodan  2018,  Drug Policy Alliance 2018 .

[22] During its previous use from 1978 to 2015, aerial fumigation with glyphosate was responsible for the physical harm to those exposed, ecological devastation, and the displacement of thousands of Colombian families who left their lands to avoid these consequences.  O n the use of glyphosate in the WoD and its effects on people and the environment see Rincón-Ruiz and Kallis  2013 ,  Mugge 2004 ,  Luciano  2010 , Bigwood 2002.

[23] Many of these communities already belong to emerging digital diasporas: the residents of Buenaventura repudiated the police killings of Eric Garner and the many other African-American victims of police brutality by posting on Twitter a picture of a local activist holding a sign reading “Buenaventura=Ferguson=NYC” and using the hashtag #Blacklivesmatter. In a powerful gesture, journalist, advocates, and activists across the diaspora placed the assassination of Afro-Brazilian councilwoman Marielle Franco on the forefront of the news cycle forcing international pressure on Brazil’s government and law enforcement. 

Published: August 23, 2018.

Esquivel-Suárez, Fernando. August 23, 2018. "The Global War on Drugs." Global South Studies: A Collective Publication with The Global South . Accessed date.

The human rights consequences of the war on drugs in the Philippines

Subscribe to this week in foreign policy, vanda felbab-brown vanda felbab-brown director - initiative on nonstate armed actors , co-director - africa security initiative , senior fellow - foreign policy , strobe talbott center for security, strategy, and technology.

August 8, 2017

• 18 min read

On August 2, 2017, Vanda Felbab-Brown submitted a statement for the record for the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the human rights consequences of the war on drugs in the Philippines. Read her full statement below.

I am a Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution.  However, as an independent think tank, the Brookings Institution does not take institutional positions on any issue.  Therefore, my testimony represents my personal views and does not reflect the views of Brookings, its other scholars, employees, officers, and/or trustees.

President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines is morally and legally unjustifiable. Resulting in egregious and large-scale violations of human rights, it amounts to state-sanctioned murder. It is also counterproductive for countering the threats and harms that the illegal drug trade and use pose to society — exacerbating both problems while profoundly shredding the social fabric and rule of law in the Philippines. The United States and the international community must condemn and sanction the government of the Philippines for its conduct of the war on drugs.

THE SLAUGHTER SO FAR

On September 2, 2016 after a bomb went off in Davao where Duterte had been  mayor for 22 years, the Philippine president declared a “state of lawlessness” 1 in the country. That is indeed what he unleashed in the name of fighting crime and drugs since he became the country’s president on June 30, 2016. With his explicit calls for police to kill drug users and dealers 2 and the vigilante purges Duterte ordered of neighborhoods, 3 almost 9000 people accused of drug dealing or drug use were killed in the Philippines in the first year of his government – about one third by police in anti-drug operations. 4 Although portrayed as self-defense shootings, these acknowledged police killings are widely believed to be planned and staged, with security cameras and street lights unplugged, and drugs and guns planted on the victim after the shooting. 5 According to the interviews and an unpublished report an intelligence officer shared with Reuters , the police are paid about 10,000 pesos ($200) for each killing of a drug suspect as well as other accused criminals. The monetary awards for each killing are alleged to rise to 20,000 pesos ($400) for a street pusher, 50,000 pesos ($990) for a member of a neighborhood council, one million pesos ($20,000) for distributors, retailers, and wholesalers, and five million ($100,000) for “drug lords.” Under pressure from higher-up authorities and top officials, local police officers and members of neighborhood councils draw up lists of drug suspects. Lacking any kind transparency, accountability, and vetting, these so-called “watch lists” end up as de facto hit lists. A Reuters investigation revealed that police officers were killing some 97 percent of drug suspects during police raids, 6 an extraordinarily high number and one that many times surpasses accountable police practices. That is hardly surprising, as police officers are not paid any cash rewards for merely arresting suspects. Both police officers and members of neighborhood councils are afraid not to participate in the killing policies, fearing that if they fail to comply they will be put on the kill lists themselves.

Similarly, there is widespread suspicion among human rights groups and monitors, 7 reported in regularly in the international press, that the police back and encourage the other extrajudicial killings — with police officers paying assassins or posing as vigilante groups. 8 A Reuters interview with a retired Filipino police intelligence officer and another active-duty police commander reported both officers describing in granular detail how under instructions from top-level authorities and local commanders, police units mastermind the killings. 9 No systematic investigations and prosecutions of these murders have taken place, with top police officials suggesting that they are killings among drug dealers themselves. 10

Such illegal vigilante justice, with some 1,400 extrajudicial killings, 11 was also the hallmark of Duterte’s tenure as Davao’s mayor, earning him the nickname Duterte Harry. And yet, far from being an exemplar of public safety and crime-free city, Davao remains the murder capital of the Philippines. 12 The current police chief of the Philippine National Police Ronald Dela Rosa and President Duterte’s principal executor of the war on drugs previously served as the police chief in Davao between 2010 and 2016 when Duterte was the town’s mayor.

In addition to the killings, mass incarceration of alleged drug users is also under way in the Philippines. The government claims that more than a million users and street-level dealers have voluntarily “surrendered” to the police. Many do so out of fear of being killed otherwise. However, in interviews with Reuters , a Philippine police commander alleged that the police are given quotas of “surrenders,” filling them by arresting anyone on trivial violations (such as being shirtless or drunk). 13 Once again, the rule of law is fundamentally perverted to serve a deeply misguided and reprehensible state policy.

Related Content

Vanda Felbab-Brown

September 6, 2016

Angelica Mangahas, Luke Lischin

August 18, 2016

Joseph Chinyong Liow

May 13, 2016

SMART DESIGN OF DRUG POLICIES VERSUS THE PHILIPPINES REALITY

Smart policies for addressing drug retail markets look very different than the violence and state-sponsored crime President Duterte has thrust upon the Philippines. Rather than state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings and mass incarceration, policing retail markets should have several objectives: The first, and most important, is to make drug retail markets as non-violent as possible. Duterte’s policy does just the opposite: in slaughtering people, it is making a drug-distribution market that was initially rather peaceful (certainly compared to Latin America, 14 such as in Brazil 15 ) very violent – this largely the result of the state actions, extrajudicial killings, and vigilante killings he has ordered. Worse yet, the police and extrajudicial killings hide other murders, as neighbors and neighborhood committees put on the list of drug suspects their rivals and people whose land or property they want to steal; thus, anyone can be killed by anyone and then labeled a pusher.

The unaccountable en masse prosecution of anyone accused of drug trade involvement or drug use also serves as a mechanism to squash political pluralism and eliminate political opposition. Those who dare challenge President Duterte and his reprehensible policies are accused of drug trafficking charges and arrested themselves. The most prominent case is that of Senator Leila de Lima. But it includes many other lower-level politicians. Without disclosing credible evidence or convening a fair trial, President Duterte has ordered the arrest of scores of politicians accused of drug-trade links; three such accused mayors have died during police arrests, often with many other individuals dying in the shoot-outs. The latest such incident occurred on July 30, 2017 when Reynaldo Parojinog, mayor of Ozamiz in the southern Philippines, was killed during a police raid on his house, along with Parojinog’s wife and at least five other people.

Another crucial goal of drug policy should be to enhance public health and limit the spread of diseases linked to drug use. The worst possible policy is to push addicts into the shadows, ostracize them, and increase the chance of overdoses as well as a rapid spread of HIV/AIDS, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and hepatitis. In prisons, users will not get adequate treatment for either their addiction or their communicable disease. That is the reason why other countries that initially adopted similar draconian wars on drugs (such as Thailand in 2001 16 and Vietnam in the same decade 17 ) eventually tried to backpedal from them, despite the initial popularity of such policies with publics in East Asia. Even though throughout East Asia, tough drug policies toward drug use and the illegal drug trade remain government default policies and often receive widespread support, countries, such as Thailand, Vietnam, and even Myanmar have gradually begun to experiment with or are exploring HARM reduction approaches, such as safe needle exchange programs and methadone maintenance, as the ineffective and counterproductive nature and human rights costs of the harsh war on drugs campaign become evident.

Moreover, frightening and stigmatizing drug users and pushing use deeper underground will only exacerbate the spread of infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and tuberculosis. Even prior to the Duterte’s brutal war on drugs, the rate of HIV infections in the Philippines has been soaring due to inadequate awareness and failure to support safe sex practices, such as access to condoms. Along with Afghanistan, the Philippine HIV infection rate is the highest in Asia, increasing 50 percent between 2010 and 2015. 18 Among high-risk groups, including injection- drug users, gay men, transgender women, and female prostitutes, the rate of new infections jumped by 230 percent between 2011and 2015. Duterte’s war on drugs will only intensify these worrisome trends among drug users.

Further, as Central America has painfully learned in its struggles against street gangs, mass incarceration policies turn prisons into recruiting grounds for organized crime. Given persisting jihadi terrorism in the Philippines, mass imprisonment of low-level dealers and drug traffickers which mix them with terrorists in prisons can result in the establishment of dangerous alliances between terrorists and criminals, as has happened in Indonesia.

The mass killings and imprisonment in the Philippines will not dry up demand for drugs: the many people who will end up in overcrowded prisons and poorly-designed treatment centers (as is already happening) will likely remain addicted to drugs, or become addicts. There is always drug smuggling into prisons and many prisons are major drug distribution and consumption spots.

Even when those who surrendered are placed into so-called treatment centers, instead of outright prisons, large problems remain. Many who surrendered do not necessarily have a drug abuse problem as they surrendered preemptively to avoid being killed if they for whatever reason ended up on the watch list. Those who do have a drug addiction problem mostly do not receive adequate care. Treatment for drug addiction is highly underdeveloped and underprovided in the Philippines, and China’s rushing in to build larger treatment facilities is unlikely to resolve this problem. In China itself, many so-called treatment centers often amounted to de facto prisons or force-labor detention centers, with highly questionable methods of treatment and very high relapse rates.

As long as there is demand, supply and retailing will persist, simply taking another form. Indeed, there is a high chance that Duterte’s hunting down of low-level pushers (and those accused of being pushers) will significantly increase organized crime in the Philippines and intensify corruption. The dealers and traffickers who will remain on the streets will only be those who can either violently oppose law enforcement and vigilante groups or bribe their way to the highest positions of power. By eliminating low-level, mostly non-violent dealers, Duterte is paradoxically and counterproductively setting up a situation where more organized and powerful drug traffickers and distribution will emerge.

Related Books

November 1, 2017

November 24, 2009

Michael H. Glantz

May 1, 2002

Inducing police to engage in de facto shoot-to-kill policies is enormously corrosive of law enforcement, not to mention the rule of law. There is a high chance that the policy will more than ever institutionalize top-level corruption, as only powerful drug traffickers will be able to bribe their way into upper-levels of the Philippine law enforcement system, and the government will stay in business. Moreover, corrupt top-level cops and government officials tasked with such witch-hunts will have the perfect opportunity to direct law enforcement against their drug business rivals as well as political enemies, and themselves become the top drug capos. Unaccountable police officers officially induced to engage in extrajudicial killings easily succumb to engaging in all kinds of criminality, being uniquely privileged to take over criminal markets. Those who should protect public safety and the rule of law themselves become criminals.

Such corrosion of the law enforcement agencies is well under way in the Philippines as a result of President Duterte’s war on drugs. Corruption and the lack of accountability in the Philippine police l preceded Duterte’s presidency, but have become exacerbated since, with the war on drugs blatant violations of rule of law and basic legal and human rights principles a direct driver. The issue surfaced visibly and in a way that the government of the Philippines could not simply ignore in January 2017 when Philippine drug squad police officers kidnapped a South Korean businessman Jee Ick-joo and extorted his family for money. Jee was ultimately killed inside the police headquarters. President Duterte expressed outrage and for a month suspended the national police from participating in the war on drugs while some police purges took places. Rather than a serious effort to root out corruption, those purges served principally to tighten control over the police. The wrong-headed illegal policies of Duterte’s war on drugs were not examined or corrected. Nor were other accountability and rule of law practices reinforced. Thus when after a month the national police were was asked to resume their role in the war on the drugs, the perverted system slid back into the same human rights violations and other highly detrimental processes and outcomes.

WHAT COUNTERNARCOTICS POLICIES THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD ADOPT

The Philippines should adopt radically different approaches: The shoot-to-kill directives to police and calls for extrajudicial killings should stop immediately, as should dragnets against low-level pushers and users. If such orders are  issued, prosecutions of any new extrajudicial killings and investigations of encounter killings must follow. In the short term, the existence of pervasive culpability may prevent the adoption of any policy that would seek to investigate and prosecute police and government officials and members of neighborhood councils who have been involved in the state-sanctioned slaughter. If political leadership in the Philippines changes, however, standing up a truth commission will be paramount. In the meantime, however, all existing arrested drug suspects need to be given fair trials or released.

Law-enforcement and rule of law components of drug policy designs need to make reducing criminal violence and violent militancy among their highest objectives. The Philippines should build up real intelligence on the drug trafficking networks that President Duterte alleges exist in the Philippines and target their middle operational layers, rather than low-level dealers, as well as their corruption networks in the government and law enforcement. However, the latter must not be used to cover up eliminating rival politicians and independent political voices.

To deal with addiction, the Philippines should adopt enlightened harm-reduction measures, including methadone maintenance, safe-needle exchange, and access to effective treatment. No doubt, these are difficult and elusive for methamphetamines, the drug of choice in the Philippines. Meth addiction is very difficult to treat and is associated with high morbidity levels. Instead of turning his country into a lawless Wild East, President Duterte should make the Philippines the center of collaborative East Asian research on how to develop effective public health approaches to methamphetamine addiction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. POLICY

It is imperative that the United States strongly and unequivocally condemns the war on drugs in the Philippines and deploys sanctions until state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings and other state-authorized rule of law violations are ended. The United States should adopt such a position even if President Duterte again threatens the U.S.-Philippines naval bases agreements meant to provide the Philippines and other countries with protection against China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea. President Duterte’s pro-China preferences will not be moderated by the United States being cowed into condoning egregious violations of human rights. In fact, a healthy U.S.-Philippine long-term relationship will be undermined by U.S. silence on state-sanctioned murder.

However, the United States must recognize that drug use in the Philippines and East Asia more broadly constitute serious threats to society. Although internationally condemned for the war on drugs, President Duterte remains highly popular in the Philippines, with 80 percent of Filipinos still expressing “much trust” for him after a year of his war on drugs and 9,000 people dead. 19 Unlike in Latin America, throughout East Asia, drug use is highly disapproved of, with little empathy for users and only very weak support for drug policy reform. Throughout the region, as well as in the Philippines, tough-on-drugs approaches, despite their ineffective outcomes and human rights violations, often remain popular. Fostering an honest and complete public discussion about the pros and cons of various drug policy approaches is a necessary element in creating public demand for accountability of drug policy in the Philippines.

Equally important is to develop better public health approaches to dealing with methamphetamine addiction. It is devastating throughout East Asia as well as in the United States, though opiate abuse mortality rates now eclipse methamphetamine drug abuse problems. Meth addiction is very hard to treat and often results in severe morbidity. Yet harm reduction approaches have been predominately geared toward opiate and heroin addictions, with substitution treatments, such as methadone, not easily available for meth and other harm reduction approaches also not directly applicable.

What has been happening in the Philippines is tragic and unconscionable. But if the United States can at least take a leading role in developing harm reduction and effective treatment approaches toward methamphetamine abuse, its condemnation of unjustifiable and reprehensible policies, such as President Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines, will far more soundly resonate in East Asia, better stimulating local publics to demand accountability and respect for rule of law from their leaders.

• Neil Jerome Morales, “Philippines Blames IS-linked Abu Sayyaf for Bomb in Duterte’s Davao,” Reuters , September 2, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-blast-idUSKCN11824W?il=0.
• Rishi Iyengar, “The Killing Time: Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s War on Drugs,” Time , August 24, 2016, http://time.com/4462352/rodrigo-duterte-drug-war-drugs-philippines-killing/.
• Jim Gomez, “Philippine President-Elect Urges Public to Kill Drug Dealers,” The Associated Press, June 5, 2016, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/58fc2315d488426ca2512fc9fc8d6427/philippine-president-elect-urges-public-kill-drug-dealers.
• Manuel Mogato and Clare Baldwin, “Special Report: Police Describe Kill Rewards, Staged Crime Scenes in Duterte’s Drug War,” Reuters , April 18, 2017, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-duterte-police-specialrep-idUSKBN17K1F4.
• Clare Baldwin , Andrew R.C. Marshall and Damir Sagolj , “Police Rack Up an Almost Perfectly Deadly Record in Philippine Drug War,” Reuters , http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/philippines-duterte-police/.
• See, for example, Human Rights Watch, “Philippines: Police Deceit in ‘Drug War’ Killings,” March 2, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/02/philippines-police-deceit-drug-war-killings ; and Amnesty International, “Philippines: The Police’s Murderous War on the Poor,” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/01/philippines-the-police-murderous-war-on-the-poor/.
• Reuters , April 18, 2017.
• Aurora Almendral, “The General Running Duterte’s Antidrug War,” The New York Times , June 2, 2017.
• “A Harvest of Lead,” The Economist , August 13, 2016, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21704793-rodrigo-duterte-living-up-his-promise-fight-crime-shooting-first-and-asking-questions.
• Reuters, April 18, 2017.
• Vanda Felbab-Brown and Harold Trinkunas, “UNGASS 2016 in Comparative Perspective: Improving the Prospects for Success,” The Brookings Institution, April 29, 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/FelbabBrown-TrinkunasUNGASS-2016-final-2.pdf?la=en.
• See, for example, Paula Miraglia, “Drugs and Drug Trafficking in Brazil: Trends and Policies,” The Brookings Institution, April 29, 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Miraglia–Brazil-final.pdf?la=en .
• James Windle, “Drugs and Drug Policy in Thailand,” Improving Global Drug Policy: Comparative Perspectives and UNGASS 2016, The Brookings Institution, April 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/WindleThailand-final.pdf?la=en .
• James Windle, “Drugs and Drug Policy in Vietnam,” Improving Global Drug Policy: Comparative Perspectives and UNGASS 2016, The Brookings Institution, April 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/WindleVietnam-final.pdf.
• Aurora Almendral, “As H.I.V. Soars in the Philippines, Conservatives Kill School Condom Plan,” The New York Times , February 28, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/world/asia/as-hiv-soars-in-philippines-conservatives-kill-school-condom-plan.html?_r=0.
• Nicole Curato, “In the Philippines, All the President’s People,” The New York Times , May 31, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/opinion/philippines-rodrigo-duterte.html.

Foreign Policy

Southeast Asia

Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology

Isabel V. Sawhill, Kai Smith

July 30, 2024

August 27, 2021

March 26, 2019

102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best war on drugs topic ideas & essay examples, 🎓 good research topics about war on drugs, ⭐ simple & easy war on drugs essay titles, ❓ war on drugs research questions.

• Drug Issue in “America’s Unjust Drug War” by Michael Huemer In a report on the unjust drug war in America, the author proposes that legislation on the use of recreational drugs is improper.
• War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay This has led to the formation of laws to govern drug trafficking and drug use in most countries that are determined to eradicate this problem.
• The House I Live In: War on Drugs and Mass Incarceration Yet the way in which the comparison between the Holocaust and the War on Drugs makes the most sense is the fact that mass incarceration for drug-related offenses disproportionally targets one group of population.
• War on Drugs in the Sicario Film First, the use of factual information in work increases confidence in the film’s authors and convinces the viewer of the truthfulness and accuracy of the narrative.
• War on Drugs in “Sicario” (2015) Film On the positive side of things, the depiction of the War on Drugs in the movie is built around violence associated with it and the corruption of federal agents involved in the operations.
• The War on Drugs Is Lost: In Search of a New Method After forty years and a trillion dollars, the volume of drugs in the United States has remained relatively the same. In 2000, Portugal decriminalized all hard and soft drugs at the recommendation of a panel […]
• Literature Review: The War on Drugs However, the misguided notion that anything with the potential to cause harm is immoral has led to the limited effectiveness of punitive policies with regard to the reduction of the negative impacts of drug use.
• The America’s Unjust Drug War In addition, the thought experiment shows the ethical inadmissibility of such a prohibition from the point of view of moral philosophy.
• War on Drugs and Prison Overcrowding Analysis In this way, it is possible to reduce the number of inmates in state prisons because studies have shown that low-level offenders make more than 55% of the total number of inmates in American prisons.
• The Failure of the Drug War The threat of imprisonment is not sufficient to keep citizens from partaking in the drug, nor is it effective in ensuring the drug is not available on the street.
• War on Drugs in the United States Satisfaction of rehabilitation costs, salaries, and payment of the government officials and employees involved in the operations and activities related to the war on drugs have been included in the estimation of the cost of […]
• War on Drugs and Terror and American Promise As a result, the people of the US have a reason to doubt that the war on terror is concerned with the safety of the world or even the safety of the American people.
• American Drug War from the Economic Perspective On the basis of this information, it can be presupposed that the reduction of demand is the best way to overcome the drug issue.
• Drug War Policies and Freiberg & Carson’s Models War on Drugs was a set of policies adopted by the Nixon administration in 1971, following a tremendous growth of the local illegal drug market in the 1960s, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.
• Drug War in “Baltimore: Anatomy of an American City” The “strengths of this theory make it effective towards describing the behaviors of many individuals in the society”. Many individuals engage in criminal activities due to lack of the required resources.
• Ineffectiveness of the “War on Drugs” Campaign The American government has been using powerful measures and laws to deal with the problem. The main area of concern therefore focuses on the effectiveness of this fight against illicit drugs in the United States.
• Health Law: The Never-Ending War on Drugs The failure of the efforts to curb the trafficking and use of illicit drugs may be a new experience for many countries across the world, but not for the US.
• War on Drugs in Mexico The war on drugs is the most significant occurrence in Mexico in the last decade. These factors have led to the president to declare war on the drug use in order to improve the country’s […]
• The War on Drugs and the Incarceration of Black Women Considering the plight of black women in the war on drugs, this paper discusses the concept of war on drugs as the war against black women.
• The War on Drugs in the US In the US, the negative impacts of drug use became evident in the society at the end of the 19th century, when it was observed that psychotropic drugs such as cocaine and morphine led to […]
• Mexican Drug Cartels and the War on Drugs The examination of the current research on Mexican drug cartels and the War on Drugs helps to understand the causes of the outburst of violence, define the major tendencies of the Mexican War on Drugs […]
• Mexican Drug War: Political, Social, and Economy Damages The cartels use the law enforcement agents against rival cartels through bribes and leaking information on their activities to the police Origin of the Escalating Violence The violence in the county is as a result […]
• American Government’s War on Drugs Analyzing the success of the war on drugs in the society, it is important to understand the drug control rhetoric, which is aimed at realizing a drug-free society.
• Successes and the Failures of the “Drug War” In the past century, the use of illicit drugs reduced drastically owing to the drug war. The growing of the illicit drugs like Cannabis in the US has drastically reduced due to the drug war.
• Prohibition: War on Drugs American Labor Leader Andrew Furuseth spoke before Congress in 1926 and noted that just after prohibition began, there was a large change in the working population, but he also added: “Two years afterwards I came […]
• Drug War in Afghanistan Over the last three decades, the NATO has been making various strategies to end the war and the drug business in Afghanistan because of the negative activities that the Taliban carries out not only in […]
• Mexican Politics, Culture and Drug Wars The 10-year civil war of Mexico that lasted from 1910 to 1920 is believed to be the key that opened up the doors to the new constitution of 1917.
• America’s War on Drugs At the time, Nixon was concerned by the sudden surge of drug related arrests among young people and the relation that the trend had on the high rate of street crime at the time.
• American Foreign Policy and the War on Drugs
• The Right Way of Handling the War on Drugs
• America Will Never Win the War on Drugs
• Underdeveloped Countries and the War on Drugs
• African Americans, Poverty, and the War on Drugs
• The Political and Economic Factors of the War on Drugs
• Crime and the War on Drugs
• Economics Theory and Crime: Why Is Law Enforcement Failing in the War on Drugs
• Choosing the Right Battlefield for the War on Drugs
• Legalize Marijuana: End the War on Drugs
• Criminology: Drug Policies and the War on Drugs
• Addiction and the War on Drugs
• Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington’s Futile War on Drugs in Latin America
• Drug Policies and the War on Drugs
• Joint Interagency Task Force and the War on Drugs
• Propaganda, Stereotypes, and the War on Drugs
• Overcrowded Prisons and the War on Drugs
• America Should End Its War on Drugs
• Drug Legalization and the War on Drugs
• Organized Crime and War on Drugs
• Favela Lives Matter: Youth From Urban Peripheries, Political Engagement and Alternatives to the War on Drugs
• Legalization and the War on Drugs
• Racial Bias and the Civil War on Drugs
• Criminal Justice Enforcement and the United War on Drugs
• America and the War on Drugs
• Budgetary Politics and the War on Drugs
• Ethics and the War on Drugs
• Heroin Crisis, White Families Seek Gentler War on Drugs
• End the Bogus War on Drugs
• Parents: First Line Defense in War on Drugs
• Functionalist and Interactionist Views on the War on Drugs
• High Crime Rates and War on Drugs
• Cannabis and the War on Drugs
• Mexican Drug Cartels and the War on Drugs
• Drug Use and Abuse During the War on Drugs
• Criminal Law and the War on Drugs
• The Market for Illegal Drugs and the War on Drugs
• Cocaine, Race, and the War on Drugs
• Ethnocentrism, Class Discrimination, and the Historical Shortcomings of America’s War on Drugs
• Colombia and the War on Drugs: How Short Is the Short Run
• Has the War on Drugs Been a Failure?
• Are You in Favor of War on Drug?
• What Can We Do to Stop the War on Drugs?
• What Is the Point of the War on Drugs?
• Is the War on Drugs Immoral?
• Has the War on Drugs Had Any Positive Effects?
• Is the War on Drugs Working?
• What Are Your Thoughts About the War on Drugs?
• Who Has Benefited From the Us Government’s “War on Drugs”?
• What Are the Negative Effects of War on Drugs?
• Why Did Ronald Reagan Declare War on Drugs?
• Is the “War on Drugs” Futile and a Waste of Resources?
• What Are the Strongest Arguments for and Against the War on Drugs?
• Why Did War on Drugs Fail?
• What Are Some Facts About the War on Drugs?
• Has the United States Lost the “War on Drugs?”
• Do You Think the War on Drugs Is a Joke?
• What Can You Say About War on Drugs?
• Why Do You Agree With the War on Drugs?
• Who Is Winning the War on Drugs?
• What Are the Good Effects of War on Drugs in the Philippines?
• Why Did Richard Nixon Begin the War on Drugs?
• What Is the Relationship Between the War on Drugs and Race?
• What War Will Replace the War on Drugs?
• What Are the Advantages of War on Drugs?
• What Is Hillary Clinton’s Stance on the “War on Drugs”?
• Is War on Drugs Justifiable?
• How Are We Doing on the War on Drugs?
• What Is the Disadvantage and Advantage on War on Drugs?
• What Is the Purpose of the Endless War on Drugs?
• Prison Paper Topics
• Organized Crime Titles
• Prostitution Topics
• Racial Profiling Essay Topics
• Youth Violence Research Topics
• Alcohol Abuse Paper Topics
• Alcohol Essay Titles
• Police Questions
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 27). 102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/

"102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "102 War on Drugs Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/war-on-drugs-essay-topics/.

The War on Drugs and its Impact on the United States

How it works

Illegal drugs have been a very prevalent issue in the United States for decades, with almost no clear solution to stop the spreading and use of them. With the epidemic of opium currently ravaging the U.S, it all stemmed from a colossal failure in the 1980s: The War on Drugs. While the intent of the War on Drugs was to stop the spreading of illegal drugs, it managed to become more negative for America than it was originally intended. The War on Drugs was one of the most influential but detrimental movements for modern America on an economic, societal, and political level.

There were several instances of combating the use of drugs throughout history before the start of the drug wars within the United States.

A few of the bigger examples were the Opium wars in China where Britain forced their opium onto the Chinese population, the Harrison Narcotics Act which made the dealing of cocaine illegal in America and directly targeting the Southern black population, and the first anti marijuana laws which aimed specifically Hispanics in the southwest (Drug Policy Alliance). Drugs were also used to manipulate certain groups within the United States by the CIA, which the allegations towards them weren’t addressed until much later. However, in those situations, these laws or actions were made to either manipulate a body of people or were due to the lack of urgency in researching these drugs. Soon after these events, there was a rapid increase in drug use within the United States rapidly increased, which resulted in the United States started to take the drug epidemic seriously in the form of the War on Drugs.

Concerning the politics of the Drug Wars, there were many Presidential administrations and policies enacted that all combated the use of drugs, but most of the attempts were lackluster. The first president to address the issue of drugs in America was the Richard Nixon, who was credited with starting the War on Drugs. During the press conference to which he addressed the issue, he proclaimed that all illegal drugs and the abuse of them were “public enemy number one” and that “it was necessary to wage a new, all out offensive,” leading to the start of the War on Drugs (Nixon, 1971). To continue the political wave against drug abuse, President Reagan also addressed the rising use of drugs and America as a whole, stating “Drug abuse is a repudiation of everything America is. The destructiveness and human wreckage mock our heritage’ (Reagan, 1986).

However, this mentality did not last, as both Presidents failed to enforce their initial stances towards drugs. There were also some policies enacted for drug reform, the most drastic being the Three Strikes Rule in California. The Three Strikes Law was simple, as it was a mandatory sentencing law if one has committed more than three felonies. Unfortunately, since the use of recreational drugs were treated as such, there were a surplus of people incarcerated for upwards of a life sentence for minor drug offences (United States Justice Department). Many of these political attempts to counter drug use were failures and ended up hurting the United States in the long run, which help establish the War on Drugs as a failure itself. In addition to the political fumbles in dealing with drug use, the economic repercussions in dealing with drug use were substantial. Because of the way drugs were smuggled into the U.S, it took an immense amount of money and resources to try to stop the spreading of drugs.

However, it is difficult to stop the many cartels and drug hustles going on, so a lot of what was put in to stop them was wasted. There were also many healthcare costs for using drugs, as if physicians prescribed certain drugs to their patients, they could become convicted drug traffickers if “prosecutors decided that their prescription practices were not appropriate,” which led to them facing prison time (McNamara, 2011). Even the people using drugs would have to pay for their choice drug, which all varied in price over the course of the 80s-90s period but were all costly. Whoever used most illegal drugs back then almost certainly get themselves injured due to lack of knowledge and awareness, so they had to pay medical bills for rehabilitation and other injury costs, especially if one was an addict. For an example of how much money illegal drugs have costed the us, drug abuse cost the US economy around $180 billion in 2002 (ONDCP 2004). All of this money could have gone towards to more beneficial areas, like funding for schools, construction, or medical facilities. Because of these immense expenses of the War on Drugs, it would have been more profitable if it did not occur. Finally, American society was greatly affected by the War on Drugs, as more people were using illegal drugs than ever before. In order to combat the rising use of drugs, a new organization was formed that specifically targeted younger demographics of people to teach them about the horrors of drugs, called D.A.R.E.

The D.A.R.E campaign’s main goal was to spread awareness of illegal drugs and the effects of those drugs so children and adolescents wouldn’t be tempted to use them. They even had celebrities star in some drugs PSAs, one of the more popular ones being Mr. T’s ad, where he used his persona to “shake some sense into [the] kids” and scare them out of using drugs (Mr. T, 1984). However, these attempts backfired, as drug use continued to rise well into the 2000s and to the present day. While D.A.R.E was trying to oppose the use of drugs, the movement ignored the injustices of those who have already been convicted. For the incarcerations from cocaine-use, 84.7% of cases were brought onto African Americans while only 5.7% of cases were brought onto Whites, even though the amount of white crack users vastly outnumbers black crack users (ACLU). These proportions stay consistent with the use of other drugs as well, exhibiting signs of racial biasing when it came to the strictness of drug sentencing. Because of this, many black people were jailed for minor offences, and with the overflow of prisons happening due to increased sentencing overall, prisons didn’t have enough resources to feasibly handle the new prisoners.

The drug problem was and still is difficult for American society even with the existence of D.A.R.E and with the racial profiling that comes with drug incarcerations, resulting in the War on Drugs not being worthwhile foe America. Because of all the controversies and policies resulting from the War on Drugs, it became one of the main contributors to the development of current America. While there are some who think that the War on Drugs was beneficial to the country overall, there were too many faults with the way it was handled to truly call it a success, with statistics also supporting the negative impact of the movement.

Works Cited

• Barber, Chris. “Public Enemy Number One: A Pragmatic Approach to America’s Drug Problem » Richard Nixon Foundation.”
• Richard Nixon Foundation, Richard Nixon Foundation, 20 Oct. 2016, www.nixonfoundation.org/2016/06/26404/.
• Bush, George. The National Drug Control Strategy: 2004.
• White House, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, 1997.
• McNamara, Joseph D. “The Hidden Costs of America’s War on Drugs.” Journal of Private Enterprise, vol. 26, no. 2, Spring 2011, pp. 97–115.
• EBSCOhost, doi:http://journal.apee.org/index.php/Category:Issues. ‘Editorial Opinion: Reagan Declares War on Drugs.’ World News Digest, Infobase Learning, 1986,
• http://wnd.infobaselearning.com.eznvcc.vccs.edu:2048/recordurl.aspx?wid=98275&nid=471325&umbtype=0. Accessed 4 Jan. 2019.

Cite this page

The War on Drugs and its Impact on the United States. (2021, Oct 19). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-war-on-drugs-and-its-impact-on-the-united-states/

"The War on Drugs and its Impact on the United States." PapersOwl.com , 19 Oct 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-war-on-drugs-and-its-impact-on-the-united-states/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). The War on Drugs and its Impact on the United States . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-war-on-drugs-and-its-impact-on-the-united-states/ [Accessed: 22 Aug. 2024]

"The War on Drugs and its Impact on the United States." PapersOwl.com, Oct 19, 2021. Accessed August 22, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-war-on-drugs-and-its-impact-on-the-united-states/

"The War on Drugs and its Impact on the United States," PapersOwl.com , 19-Oct-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-war-on-drugs-and-its-impact-on-the-united-states/. [Accessed: 22-Aug-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). The War on Drugs and its Impact on the United States . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-war-on-drugs-and-its-impact-on-the-united-states/ [Accessed: 22-Aug-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Drugs — The Effects of Drugs on Our Society

The Effects of Drugs on Society: Health Problems

• Categories: Drugs Society

About this sample

Words: 1471 |

Published: Dec 3, 2020

Words: 1471 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, drugs in history, effects of drugs on society: health issues, works cited.

• Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2006). Substance abuse treatment for persons with co-occurring disorders. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
• Drug Enforcement Administration. (2019). Drugs of abuse: a DEA resource guide. US Department of Justice.
• Green, L. W., Kreuter, M. W., Deeds, S. G., & Partridge, K. B. (1980). Health education planning: A diagnostic approach. Mayfield.
• National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2021). Commonly abused drugs. National Institutes of Health.
• National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2021). DrugFacts: Understanding drug use and addiction. National Institutes of Health.
• Pinto, F. A., & Pinto, M. A. (2019). Health risks of addiction to illicit drugs. Advances in preventive medicine, 2019.
• Reuter, P., & Pollack, H. A. (2006). Drug war heresies: Learning from other vices, times, and places. Cambridge University Press.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. US Department of Health and Human Services.
• The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (2010). Addiction medicine: Closing the gap between science and practice. Columbia University.
• World Health Organization. (2019). Substance abuse: Key facts. WHO.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2474 words

2 pages / 1080 words

1 pages / 1025 words

2 pages / 759 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Drugs

At the mention of drug and substance abusers, one might not expect to find highly respectable figures in the society. However, a quick scan of the background of numerous public figures and you will realize their secret or [...]

Parenteral Nutrition also known as intravenous feeding is a method of feeding that bypasses the gastrointestinal tract. Fluids are given into a vein to provide most of the nutrients the body needs. The method is used when a [...]

America is obsessed with drugs. Prescription Drug companies are legal drug dealers, while those marketing illegal recreational drug of a lesser degree like marijuana are persecuted. However, the true criminals are the [...]

“Compassion in its fullest sense is not a standing apart from the one in need; it is a sharing in the pain and suffering of a need unfulfilled, an injury not healed, an injustice not rectified.” (Farley, 65) Compassion is an [...]

Ionising radiation is a method of treatment that commonly used to treat cancer. Radiation therapy uses high-energy particles or waves, such as x-rays, gamma rays, electron beams, or protons, to destroy or damage cancer cells. [...]

In our research, we will talk about Plastic surgery; it is a surgical trial for remedying or enhancing body defects. These might be intrinsic, because of disease, or because of awful accidents. Plastic surgery additionally [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free