Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on War on Drugs -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

The War on Drugs is a prohibition campaign undertaken by the United States government with the assistance of participating countries, intended to reduce the illegal drug trade—to curb supply and diminish demand for certain psychoactive substances deemed "harmful or undesirable" by the government. This initiative includes a set of laws and policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of targeted substances. The term was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1971, and his choice of words was probably based on the War on Poverty, announced by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Cost

The U.S. government estimates the cost of the War on Drugs by calculating the funds used in attempting to control the supply of illegal drugs, in paying government employees involved in waging the war on drugs, and to satisfy rehabilitation costs. This total was estimated by the federal U.S. government's cost report on drug control to be roughly $12.1 billion in 2005. Additionally, in a separate report, the U.S. government reports that the cost of incarcerating drug law offenders was $30.1 billion—$9.1 billion for police protection, $4.5 billion for legal adjudication, and $11.0 billion for state and federal corrections. In total, roughly $45.5 billion was spent in 2005 for these factors.^[1] The socioeconomic costs, as well as the individual costs (i.e., the personal disadvantages in income and career), caused by the incarceration of millions of people are not included in this number. Nor are the many real wars fought in the name of the "War on Drugs" included.

In 1998, the total cost of drug abuse in America was estimated at $143.4 billion.^[2] This number, however, includes indirect costs and some costs of drug policy enforcement, so it is not directly comparable.

An international and historic perspective

It is known that waging a "war on drugs" is not limited to actions by law enforcement agencies within the United States. In the broadest sense of the term, modern War on Drugs could be considered to have started in 1880, when the U.S. and Qing China completed an agreement that prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries;^[3] Qing China itself was still reeling from the effects of fighting the Opium War after a failed attempt to stem the British importing of opium into China proper (see Lin Zexu). The United States alcohol prohibition from 1920–1933 is the most widely known historical period of drug prohibition.^[4] The term itself, however, was coined in 1971 by Richard Nixon to describe a new set of initiatives designed to enhance drug prohibition. Test on soldiers returning from Vietnam and people entering the prison system in D.C. showed high use of heroin.^[5]

United States domestic policy

See also: Drug policy of the United States

Operation Mallorca, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 2005 (US Department of Justice press release)

For U.S. public policy purposes, drug abuse is any personal use of a drug contrary to law. The definition includes otherwise-legal pharmaceuticals if they are obtained by illegal means or used for non-medicinal purposes. This differs from what mental health professionals classify as drug abuse per the DSM-IV, which is defined as more problematic drug misuse, both of which are different from drug use.

In 1994, it was reported that the War on Drugs results in the incarceration of one million Americans each year.^[6] Of the related drug arrests, about 225,000 are for simple possession of marijuana, the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States.^[7] In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes was rising 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%.^[8] The United States has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world for which reliable statistics are available, reaching a total of 2.2 million inmates in the U.S. in 2005. The U.S. Dept. of Justice, reporting on the effects of state initiatives, has stated that, from 1990 through 2000, "the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates." In addition, the United States provides for the deportation of many non-citizens convicted of drug offenses.^[9] Federal and state policies also impose collateral consequences on those convicted of drug offenses, such as denial of public benefits or licenses, that that are not applicable to those convicted of other types of crime. ^[10]

Television Propaganda Efforts

The War On Drugs is supported by a substantial television propaganda effort, including anti-drug advertising spots and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign[3]. Writers and producers of popular, prime-time television shows are also paid directly to write-in government-approved anti-drug messages, themes, and occasionally entire episodes.^{[11] [12]}

United States foreign policy

Main article: Foreign policy of the United States

Operation Just Cause involves 25,000 American troops. The U.S.Government alleged that Gen. Manuel Noriega, head of government of Panama, was involved in drug trafficking in Panama. As part of Plan Colombia, the U.S. Government funded coca eradication through private contractors such as DynCorp and helped train the Colombian armed forces to eradicate coca and fight left-wing guerrillas such as the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and right-wing paramilitaries such as the AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia), both of which have been accused of participating in the illegal drug trade in their areas of influence. Private U.S. enterprises have signed contracts to carry out anti-drug activities as part of Plan Colombia. DynCorp, the largest private company involved, was among those contracted by the State Department, while others signed contracts with the Defense Department.^[13]

In 2000, the Clinton administration initially waived all but one of the human rights conditions attached to Plan Colombia, considering such aid as crucial to national security at the time.^[14] Subsequently, the U.S. government certified that the Colombian government had taken steps to improve respect for human rights and to prosecute abusers among its security forces.^[15] The U.S. has later denied aid to individual Colombian military units accused of such abuses, such as the Palanquero Air Force base and the Army's XVII Brigade.^[16][17] Opponents of aid given to the Colombian military as part of the War on Drugs argue that the U.S. and Colombian governments primarily focus on fighting the guerrillas, devoting less attention to the paramilitaries although these have a greater degree of participation in the illicit drug industry. Critics argue that Human Rights Watch, congressional committees and other entities have documented the existence of connections between members of the Colombian military and the AUC, and that Colombian military personnel have committed human rights abuses which would make them ineligible for U.S. aid under current laws.

In January 2007, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met in Mexico with his counterpart Eduardo Medina-Mora Icaza to discuss ways to stem growing drug-related violence in Mexican border towns associated with the illegal drug trade to America. More than 2,000 Mexicans died in gangland-style killings in 2006, prompting a petition by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to open new offices in Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and Nogales. The requested expansion would bring the total number of Mexican offices to 11 and increase the number of DEA agents from 81 to nearly 100.^[18]

Merida Initiative

The Mérida Initiative is a security cooperation approved on June 30, 2008 between the United States and the government of Mexico and the countries of Central America, with the aim of combating the threats of drug trafficking and transnational crime. The Merida Initiative will appropriate $1.4 billion in a three year commitment to the Mexican government for military and law enforcement training and equipment, as well as technical advice and training to strengthen the national justice systems. No weapons are included in the plan.^[19][20]

Possible U.S. government involvement in cocaine trafficking

A lawsuit filed in 1986 by two journalists represented by the Christic Institute alleges that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other parties are engaged in criminal acts, including financing the purchase of arms with the proceeds of cocaine sales.^[21]

Senator John Kerry's 1988 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links, which was released on April 20, 1989, concludes that members of the U.S. State Department "who provided support for the Contras are involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly receive financial and material assistance from drug traffickers."^[22] The report further states that "the Contra drug links include...payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb published reports in the San Jose Mercury News,^[23] and later in his book Dark Alliance,^[24] detailing how Contras have distributed crack cocaine into Los Angeles to fund weapons purchases. These reports were initially attacked by various other newspapers in attempts to debunk the link by citing official reports that apparently had been cleared by the CIA.

In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report^[25] that substantiates many of Webb's claims, and describes how 50 Contras and Contra-related entities involved in the drug trade have been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documents a cover-up of evidence relating to these incidents. The report also shows that the National Security Council was aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General also arrives at similar conclusions.

U.S.-sponsored heroin production and smuggling

In the 1980s, top U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials believed that they would never be able to justify a multibillion-dollar budget from the U.S. government to fund the Afghan radicals, 'The Mujahideen', in their fight against the Soviet army, which has occupied Afghanistan. As a result, the Mujahideen decided to generate funds through the poppy-rich Afghan soil and heroin production and smuggling to finance the Afghan war creating the notorious Pashtun Mafia. Ayub Afridi, a radical Pashtun leader and drug baron, was the kingpin of this plan.^[26]

Criticism

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (October 2007)

Legality

In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution,^[27] Libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the Constitution. Alcohol prohibition required amending the Constitution, because this was not a power granted to the federal government. Hager asserts if this is true, then marijuana prohibition should likewise require a Constitutional amendment.

Federalist argument

In her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that drug prohibition is an improper usurpation of the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the power to prohibit should be reserved by the states. In the same case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a stronger dissent expressing the similar idea.

Substantive due process

Another argument against drug prohibition is based on the notion that its practice violates implicit rights within the substantive due process doctrine. It has been suggested that anti-drug laws do not achieve enough reasonable benefit to State interests to justify arbitrarily restricting basic individual liberties that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.

One proponent of this notion is attorney Warren Redlich.^[28]

The substantive due process argument is sometimes used in medical marijuana cases. NORML once wrote in an amicus brief on United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative that the right to use medical marijuana to save one's life is within the rights established by the substantive due process.^[29] However, the Supreme Court, expressing its verdict through Justice Clarence Thomas, refused to accept the argument, and ruled against the medical marijuana dispensaries.

Some opponents of the substantive due process doctrine who support the War on Drugs have noted that the doctrine could potentially lead to the invalidation of anti-drug laws.^[30]

Racial inequities in prosecution

The social consequences of the drug war have been widely criticized by such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union as being racially biased against minorities and disproportionately responsible for the exploding United States prison population. According to a report commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, and released in March 2006 by the Justice Policy Institute, America's "Drug-Free Zones" are ineffective at keeping youths away from drugs, and instead create strong racial disparities in the judicial system.^[31]

Efficacy

USS Rentz (FFG-46) combats a fire set by drug smugglers trying to escape and destroy evidence.

National Research Council Study

In 2001, the National Research Council Committee on Data and Research for Policy on Illegal Drugs published its findings on the efficacy of the drug war. The NRC Committee found that existing studies on efforts to address drug usage and smuggling, from U.S. military operations to eradicate coca fields in Colombia, to domestic drug treatment centers, have all been inconclusive, if the programs have been evaluated at all: "The existing drug-use monitoring systems are strikingly inadequate to support the full range of policy decisions that the nation must make.... It is unconscionable for this country to continue to carry out a public policy of this magnitude and cost without any way of knowing whether and to what extent it is having the desired effect."^[32] The study, though not ignored by the press, was ignored by top-level policymakers, leading Committee Chair Charles Manski to conclude, as one observer notes, that "the drug war has no interest in its own results." ^[33]

Barriers to scientific research

Some members of the scientific community are concerned that U.S. drug policy hinders and scares away legitimate medical and scientific research efforts.^{[34][35][36][37]}

Dr. Rick Strassman, a researcher into the particular effects of N,N-dimethyltryptamine, writes in his book DMT: The Spirit Molecule:

“ Many of today's most respected North American and European psychiatric researchers, in both academics and industry, now chairmen of major university departments and presidents of national psychiatric organizations, began their professional lives investigating psychedelic drugs. The most powerful members of their profession discovered that science, data, and reason were incapable of defending their research against the enactment of repressive laws fueled by opinion, emotion, and the media. Once these laws passed, government regulators and funding agencies quickly withdrew permits, drugs, and money. The same psychedelic drugs that researchers thought were unique keys to mental illness, and that had launched dozens of careers, became feared and hated.”

Rick Strassman (2001). DMT: The Spirit Molecule, pages 28-29.^[38]

The U.S. government classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug (having no accepted medical use) is contradicted by several scientific studies which suggest that it may in fact have medicinal value as a treatment for ailments such as cancer,^[39] glaucoma, Fibromyalgia,^[40] and neuropathic pain,^[41] among others. In fact, in the abstract for patent number 6630507^[42] filed Feb. 2, 2001 "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants", held by the United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC), they state "Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia."

Assorted arguments against the efficacy of the War on Drugs

Critics often note that during alcohol prohibition, alcohol use initially fell but began to increase as early as 1922. It has been extrapolated that even if prohibition hadn't been repealed in 1933, alcohol consumption would have quickly surpassed pre-prohibition levels ^[43]. They argue that the War on Drugs uses similar measures and is no more effective. In the six years from 2000–2006, the USA spent $4.7 billion on Plan Colombia, an effort to eradicate coca production in Colombia. The main result of this effort was to shift coca production into more remote areas and force other forms of adaptation. The overall acreage cultivated for coca in Colombia at the end of the six years was found to be the same, after the U.S. Drug Czar's office announced a change in measuring methodology in 2005 and included new areas in its surveys.^[44] Cultivation in the neighboring countries of Peru and Bolivia actually increased.^[45]

Similar lack of efficacy is observed in some other countries pursuing similar^{citation needed} policies. In 1994, 28.5% of Canadians reported having consumed illicit drugs in their life; by 2004, that figure had risen to 45%. 73% of the $368 million spent by the Canadian government on targeting illicit drugs in 2004–2005 went toward law enforcement rather than treatment, prevention or harm reduction.^[46]

Outside observers

Richard Davenport-Hines, in his book The Pursuit of Oblivion (W.W. Norton & Company, 2001), criticized the efficacy of the War on Drugs by pointing out that

“

10–15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt.”

Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru from 1990–2000, described U.S. foreign drug policy as "failed" on grounds that "for 10 years, there has been a considerable sum invested by the Peruvian government and another sum on the part of the American government, and this has not led to a reduction in the supply of coca leaf offered for sale. Rather, in the 10 years from 1980 to 1990, it grew 10-fold."^[47]

At least 500 economists, including Milton Friedman^[48], have noted that reducing the supply of drugs without reducing the demand causes the price, and hence the profits of drug sellers, to go up, according to the laws of supply and demand. The increased profits encourage the producers to produce more drugs despite the risks, providing a theoretical explanation for why attacks on drug supply have failed to have any lasting effect.

The declaration from the World Forum Against Drugs, 2008 state that a balanced policy of drug abuse prevention, education, treatment, law enforcement, research, and supply reduction provides the most effective platform to reduce drug abuse and its associated harms and call on governments to consider demand reduction as one of their first priorities in the fight against drug abuse.^[49]

Terminology

War as a propaganda term

The phrase "War on Drugs" has been condemned as being propaganda to justify military or paramilitary operations under the guise of a noble cause. ^[50] Noam Chomsky points out^{citation needed} that the term is an example of synecdoche referring to operations against suspected producers, traders and/or users of certain substances.

This form of language was previously used in Lyndon B. Johnson's "war on poverty", and later by George W. Bush's "War on Terrorism". The word "war" is used to invoke a state of emergency, although the target and methods of the campaign is largely unlike that of a regular war.

War as an accurate description of the government's war against the people

In their book Multitude, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri oppose the view that the use of the term "war" is only metaphorical: they analyse the War on Drugs as part of a global war of a biopolitical nature. Like the War on Terrorism, the War on Drugs is a true war, waged by the US government against its own people.^[51]

Richard Lawrence Miller's Drug Warriors and Their Prey draws detailed comparisons of the War on Drugs in the United States today with events in 1930s Germany that led to Hitler's Third Reich and the attempted destruction of the Jewish people. Miller writes that "authoritarians are manufacturing and manipulating public fears about drug use in order to create a police state where a much broader agenda of social control can be implemented, using government power to determine what movies we may watch, determine who we may love and how we may love them, determine whether we may or must pray to a deity. I believe the war on drug users masks a war on democracy."^[52]

War victims

Innocent victims

Peter Guither in his Drug War Victims blog posted at Salon lists dozens of people who have been killed by law enforcement and the DEA without having been convicted of a crime. Many of them were not suspects, nor had they been using drugs. Cases include a 35-year-old Christian missionary and her seven-month-old daughter, both killed (and her husband and son seriously injured) in April 2001 when the Cessna airplane carrying them and other missionaries was shot down over Peru as a result of incorrect information being provided by the DEA. Other examples include an eleven-year-old boy who was shot by a SWAT team after following their instructions to lie on the ground, and an elderly woman suffering a fatal heart attack after law enforcement officers entered her home during the night and set off flash grenades (they were not at the correct address). Several cases involved residents who were killed while allegedly attacking officers in self-defense, not realizing who was forcefully entering their homes and believing they were in danger.

Children involved in the illegal drug trade

The U.S. government's most recent 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) reported that nationwide over 800,000 adolescents ages 12–17 sold illegal drugs during the 12 months preceding the survey.^[53] The 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that nationwide 25.4% of students had been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug by someone on school property. The prevalence of having been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property ranged from 15.5% to 38.7% across state CDC surveys (median: 26.1%) and from 20.3% to 40.0% across local surveys (median: 29.4%).^[54]

Despite over $7 billion spent annually towards arresting^[55] and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people across the country for marijuana offenses in 2005^{citation needed}(FBI Uniform Crime Reports), the federally-funded Monitoring the Future Survey reports about 85% of high school seniors find marijuana "easy to obtain." That figure has remained virtually unchanged since 1975, never dropping below 82.7% in three decades of national surveys.^[56]

Environmental consequences

Environmental consequences of the drug war, resulting from US-backed aerial fumigation of drug-growing operations in third world countries, have been criticized as detrimental to some of the world's most fragile ecosystems;^[57] the same aerial fumigation practices are further credited with causing health problems in local populations.^[58]

Impact on growers

The US's coca eradication policy has been criticised for its negative impact on the livelihood of coca growers in South America. In many areas of South America the coca leaf has traditionally been chewed and used in tea and for religious, medicinal and nutritional purposes by locals. For this reason many insist that the illegality of traditional coca cultivation is unjust. In many areas the US government and military has forced the eradication of coca without providing for any meaningful alternate crop for farmers. The status of coca and coca growers has become an intense political issue in several countries, including Colombia and particularly Bolivia, where the president, Evo Morales, a former coca growers' union leader, has promised to legalise the traditional cultivation and use of coca.

In Afghanistan, the implementation of costly poppy eradication policies by the international community, and in particular the United States since their military intervention in 2001, have led^{citation needed} to poverty and discontent on the part of the rural community, especially in the south of the country where alternative development policies have not been put in place to replace livelihoods lost through eradication. Furthermore, poppy cultivation has dramatically increased since 2003 as has support for anti-government elements. Although alternative policies such as controlled opium licensing have been suggested and are supported by many in Afghanistan and abroad, government leaders have still to move away from harmful eradication schemes.

War on drugs as cyclic creation of a permanent underclass

Since illegal drug use has been blamed for feeding the growth of the underclass, this has caused prohibitionists^{citation needed} to call for further increases in certain drug-crime penalties, even though some of these disrupt opportunities for drug users to advance in society in socially acceptable ways. It has been argued by Blumenson and Nilsen that this causes a vicious cycle: since penalties for drug crimes among youth almost always involve semi-permanent removal from opportunities for education, and later involve creation of criminal records which make employment far more difficult, that the "war on drugs" has in fact resulted in the creation of a permanent underclass of people who have few education or job opportunities, often as a result of being punished for drug offenses which in turn have resulted from attempts to earn a living in spite of having no education or job opportunities.^[59]

Illegal drugs versus pharmaceuticals

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2008)

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (May 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

In another regard, the war on drugs affects the US in the manner of its impact upon how health care providers employ psychoactive medications already extant in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia (many of which have the potential for abuse, or for use as chemical precursors to substances proscribed by the Controlled Substances Act).

To take as one example, patients with ADHD are commonly prescribed various stimulant medications in maintenance regimens to control the symptoms of the condition. Frequently used drugs are Ritalin (Methylphenidate), Dexedrine (Dextroamphetamine), Adderall (Amphetamine), and Desoxyn (Methamphetamine). All three of these products (and their congeners) are rated as Schedule II drugs which - per CDS-imposed regulations - can only be dispensed in amounts suitable for a month's medication at most, with the requirement that each month's supply can be renewed only with the auhorization of yet another written prescription. Licensed prescribers are not even permitted to telephone or fax an authorization for refill to the patient's pharmacy.

This obliges patients on stable regimens of therapy to visit their health care providers physically for reasons of regulatory compliance rather than medical necessity, adding substantially to the aggregate burden in financial cost accruing nationally due to the incidence of ADHD in the population, and providing no substantive benefit to either the patient or the community.

Another example is found in the 2005 Combat Methamphetamine Act, which seeks to control the volume of retail purchase of pseudoephedrine, a safe and effective over-the-counter systemic decongestant, simply because the methods by which these pseudoephedrine products can be used to extract a chemical base for the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine has become widespread knowledge in the flourishing black market for drugs of abuse.

This latter government grope in the War on Drugs serves to impose a major financial burden on the pharmaceuticals industry (forcing the reformulation of well-established products with the substitution of the demonstrably less effective decongestant phenylephrine) as well as substantially increased costs upon pharmacies and inconveniences upon patients on the dubious grounds that it poses a minor inconvenience to the hardened criminals running meth labs.

Arguments for the Drug War

The United States Drug Enforcement Administration claims to have had "Successes in the Fight Against Drugs".

“ In 2002, the Bush Administration set ambitious goals to reduce drug use. The first was to lower drug use by 10 percent over 2 years. We exceeded that goal: youth drug use dropped by 11 percent over 2 years. The second was to lower drug use by 25 percent over 5 years. We nearly reached that in 2007 by achieving a 24 percent decline since 2001 for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders combined.”

US Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Public Affairs (March 2008). "Successes in the Fight Against Drugs".

Protection of communities

President Bill Clinton asserted that it is necessary to combat drug abuse and trafficking in order to improve the quality of life in neighborhoods:

“ As Americans who care about our future, we can't let drugs and drug-related crimes continue to ruin communities, threaten our children even in schools and fill up our prisons with wrecked and wasted lives. We have to do a better job of preventing drug use and treating those who seek treatment, and we must do more to protect law-abiding citizens from those who victimize them in the pursuit of drugs or profit from drugs.”

President Bill Clinton (April 1993). ^[60]

The U.S. government began the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program in 1987 to collect information on drug use among urban arrestees. In 1997, the National Institute of Justice expanded and reengineered the DUF study and renamed it the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program. ADAM is a network of 34 research sites in select U.S. cities. ^[61] DUF research indicates that:

• Frequent use of hard drugs is one of the strongest indicators of a criminal career.
• Offenders who use drugs are among the most serious and active criminals, engaging in both property and violent crime.

• Early and persistent use of cocaine or heroin in the juvenile years is an indicator of serious, persistent criminal behavior in adulthood.
• Those arrested who are drug users are more likely than those not using drugs to be rearrested on pretrial release or fail to appear at trial.

^{[62] [63]}

Reduction of drug availability

Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has argued that there is a strong correlation between drug availability and drug abuse.

“ Legalization may reduce the profits to organized crime, but it will also increase the damage done to the health of individuals and society. Evidence shows a strong correlation between drug availability and drug abuse. Let us therefore reduce the availability of drugs - through tackling supply and demand - and thereby reduce the risks to health and security [...] drug policy does not have to choose between either protecting health, through drug control, or ensuring law-and-order, by liberalizing drugs. Democratic governments can and must protect health and safety.

Besides, just because something is hard to control doesn't mean that its legalization will solve the problem. For example, it is hard to stop human trafficking - a modern form of slavery. This is a multi-billion dollar business. Because the problem is out of control, would you equally propose that we accept it? ”

UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa (December 2007). "Free Drugs or Drug Free?", New Orleans.

See also

References

External links

• Border Stories profiles a newspaper reporter caught up in the drug war in Mexico
• Cocaine overdose cases quadruple at hospitals Telegraph.co.uk 25 May 2008
• The War on Drugs is the subject of the 2007 documentary film "American Drug War"
• The War on Drugs is covered in the 2006 documentary film "Cocaine Cowboys"
• Students for Sensible Drug Policy An international grassroots network of students working to end the War on Drugs.
• Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy Full text of major government commission reports on the drug laws from around the world over the last 100 years
• Historical Research on the Drug War Full text of numerous full histories of the drug war and thousands of original historical documents
• National Drug Threat Assessment 2006 from the United States Department of Justice
• War On Drugs: Legislation in the 108th Congress and Related Developments, a 2003 report from the Congressional Research Service via the State Department website
• Review of the War on Drugs
• Gabriel Chin, Race, the War on Drugs and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, 6 Journal of Race, Gender & Justice 253 (2002)
• Michael Blanchard & Gabriel J. Chin, Identifying the Enemy in the War on Drugs: A Critique of the Developing Rule Permitting Visual Identification of Indescript White Powders in Narcotics Prosecutions, 47 American University Law Review 557 (1998)
• Drug War Facts
• Drug War Distortions
• November Coalition—Working to end drug war injustice
• The Anti-drugwar Over 100 years of Headlines
• Wasted in the War on Drugs report by Citizens Against Government Waste
• Cato Institute Drug Prohibition Research
• The Media Awareness Project
• Nobel Prize in Economics winner Milton Friedman interviewed about his opposition to the War on Drugs
• Lawful Arrest FAQ
• The Prison Industrial Complex War on Drugs Documentary
• Another documentary film, The Damage Done
• War on Drugs—How government drug war policies promote violence, destroy liberty and actually increase drug abuse.
• How America Lost the War on Drugs—Rolling Stone Magazine, November 27, 2007
• The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs—1972
• Drug War Victims
• (Dutch) War on Drugs

v • d • e United States topics History Timeline Pre-Columbian · Colonial era (Thirteen Colonies) · Declaration of Independence · American Revolution · Westward expansion · Civil War · Reconstruction · World War I · Great Depression · World War II · Cold War · Korean War · Civil rights movement · Vietnam War · War on Terrorism By topic Demographic · Industrial · Military ·