War On Drugs

Through my research I have found our involvement in the drug world follows the same theme that seems to recur with our government and their policies. We talk a good game that formulates a structure and a well-worded policy that appears to be in the best interest of American citizens and foreigners alike. However we also aid these countries. The problem doesn’t lie within our policies or the simple compassion from our government that drugs hurt our society. The problems occur with those that implement and enforce these policies. Cocaine and its market cannot be eradicated. The efforts of many of our political leaders have been futile because of the supply and demand of the product. In 1989, President Bush had a plan that he called, “The cheapest and safest way to eradicate narcotics” (Menzel pg.43). The result was the following,

The Drug War has been a policy and a battle to stop drug flow into the U.S, cease drug production and to completely illuminate drugs entirely but results have shown otherwise. In 1971, President Richard Nixon first declared the Drug war and classified drugs as a number one public enemy shortly after drug use hit its peak in the 1960’s. The U.S previously had anti-drug laws but the laws were light and directed mainly to minorities. The following President Jimmy Carter believed in decriminalizing Marijuana and certain portions of Marijuana were legal to possess during his term but the legalization was shortly lived. A new attempted solution was a program Nancy Reagan, President

Nixon’s drug war, however, was a mere skirmish in comparison to the colossal efforts launched by the Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980s. Formally announced by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, the War on Drugs was marked by deep public concern, bordering on hysteria,, towards the nation’s drug problem. Under the leadership of President Reagan, the nation focused unprecedented energy and resources towards eliminating illicit drug use and trafficking.” (pp.

The issue of legalization of drugs is among the most polarizing debates in modern history. It is commonplace to use the term ‘epidemic’ for the level of drug abuse prevalent in the country today. Yet, the proponents and opponents of legalization of drugs passionately defend their arguments and find logical fallacies with the arguments of the opposing camps. Both sides, however, generally agree that the current ‘war on drugs’ is not working as expected and there is significant room for improvement because the cost of such a war often exceeds its benefits.

. The Australian government is increasingly acknowledging the negative consequences of illegal drugs on the Australian economy and in turn spending billions of dollars each year to reduce the flow of drugs into the country. This essay will examine possible outcomes on the illegal drugs market if the Australian government were to increase the enforcement devoted to preventing the import of drugs.

In the past forty years, the United States has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars funding enforcement and prevention in the fight against drug use in America (Suddath). Despite the efforts made towards cracking down on drug smugglers, growers, and suppliers, statistics show that addiction rates have remained unchanged and the number of people using illegal drugs is increasing daily (Sledge). Regardless of attempts to stem the supply of drugs, the measure and quality of drugs goes up while the price goes down (Koebler). Now with the world’s highest incarceration rates and greatest illegal drug consumption (Sledge), the United States proves that the “war on drugs” is a war that is not being won.

            The militarization and criminalization of drugs in Latin America has led to a precipitous increase in violence, killing thousands of people and injuring many more. Economist Jeffrey Miron of CNN writes, “Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers

2001 - Joaquin “Shorty” Guzman Mexico’s most wanted drug lord escapes from a Mexican prison.

The United States is the world’s number one consumer of narcotics and thus 90% of cocaine seized in the U.S. comes from Mexico due to the close geographical boundaries it is easy to smuggle illegal drugs into the U.S. from Mexico. The U.S.’s demand for narcotics and other drugs creates an 18-39 billion dollar market each year, all coming solely from drug sales. Drug violence is a direct result of protecting each business 's product. Cartels like the Zetas use violence to create a “brand” for their franchise. The violent cartels create a sense of fear so no one gets in their way and so others will comply with their wishes and demands.

Ever since the war on drugs was started, most of the battle has been concentrated in Latin America, leaving trails of devastation from deep within Latin America up to the largest consumer of those substances. After years of fighting, and series’ of more and more aggressive policies put into place by the United States, drugs are just as prevalent if not more so than when the war began. Illegal drugs are still easy to obtain, demand for such substances has skyrocketed and cartels are becoming increasingly affluent. Drug violence since 2006 has resulted in the death of more than 60,000 people. Clearly, our current policies in waging this war are not effective, we have spent over 35 billion dollars over the course of 2013 to attempt to combat

According to Johnson (1999) one of the reasons that there is such a profound war on drugs is the U.S. antidrug policy. Ever since this policy has been in effect it has contributed to the growth of the problem. The trafficking of drugs into the United States of America has corrupted officials everywhere. It had an effect on the economy and democracies creating violence and terrorism. It has had the ability to control major parts of the economy. (Bruce, 199) An example would be the Medellin cartel, led by Pablo Escobar; he killed a presidential candidate, judges, and hundreds of Colombian citizens to force then Colombian society to accept his drug business. In order for his business to run effectively he

The most important factor for the spread of crack and heroin is that when opiates and cocaine are illegal, low potency versions of these drugs become extensively expensive. Thus, consumers are induced to switch to more intensive and more harmful drug forms and delivery systems. Absent the incentives created by current policy, consumers will revert to the modes of consumption that are less damaging.

The production of narcotics is illegal in the United States, however there is still a large and inelastic demand for them due to the fact that are addictive and unsubstitutable. This dissonance between natural incentives and policies causes a very resilient black market that is prevalent in virtually every corner of the globe that can support a population large enough. The most common strategy to combat this black market is a straight forward use of police action to both take drugs out of the system using raids and seizures and to intimidate anyone planning on using or distributing them. The drug supply and demand curves attempt to determine an equilibrium price, however a seizure of drugs creates a quick leftward shift in the supply curve.

Thus, no matter what quantity (usage of drugs) will go down (Q2). The direction in which the price moves depends on which shift is larger. It has been shown that price will most likely go up; the reason for this is because law enforcement often goes after the suppliers with more effort than they go after the buyers because it has a greater deterrent effect because it is harder to sell than buy (Hellman and Alper). Also the punishments for sellers are much worse than for buyers. Therefore, the leftward shift of the supply schedule (S2), caused by the decrease in supply, is much larger than the shift in the demand schedule (D2); this causes a larger decrease in supply than in demand (area between S1 and S2 is larger) which then causes the increase in price from P1 to P2 (Graph A) (Miller). The increase in helps explain why drug offenders commit more property crime when drugs are illegal. Most property crimes are committed for financial motives; it is then safe to assume that drug offenders steal the property for money to buy drugs and to pay off all of the costs mentioned above. Violent crime can be explained through the use of drug selling gangs. The gangs fight over selling territory. The gang leaders can be seen as entrepreneurs and it is in their best interest to maximize profit. To do this they must lower competition and fight rival gangs to drive them out of their

An elasticity estimate shows the percentage change in quantity consumed resulting from a 1% change in price. When rising prices reduce consumption, the estimate has a negative sign, and thus an elasticity of −1 means that a 1% increase in price results in a 1% reduction in quantity demanded. Conventional wisdom has it that the “demand” for addictive goods will not be responsive to price as the addiction itself would force addicts to regularly consume a certain amount of the drug in question regardless of price (Koch and Grupp, 1971, 1973; Rottenberg, 1968). This argument suggests that the elasticity of demand for an addictive good should be close to