Thibodeau 1

Mary Thibodeau
November 30, 2015
English 1010
Professor Celestino
Argument Essay
The War on Drugs
Uhh, uhhh
B.I.G., P-O, P-P-A
No info, for the, DEA
Federal agents mad cause I'm flagrant
Tap my cell, and the phone in the basement
-Notorious B.I.G. lyrics from Mo Money, Mo Problems
In Christopher Wallaces (a.k.a. Notorious BIG) Mo Money, Mo Problems, the late
rapper from Brooklyn mentions his run in with the police earlier in his life. Christopher Wallace
came to be known as arguably the greatest rapper in the world, but before the days as a famous
entertainer Christopher Wallace was an average crack dealer in New York City. Many youths in
the New York area wish to follow his path, and sell drugs in their respective neighborhoods in
order to be able to have street credibility. Some individuals would try to say that the current
system for dealing with drugs works in this country; look what it did for Christopher Wallace
how he straightened up his life after jail. That could be the furthest from the truth, if one were to
look at the rest of Christopher Wallaces songs, one could deduct the violence, and anger that has

Thibodeau 2
built up in him. Christopher Wallaces life would come to an abrupt and violent end, when he
would be shot down in a drive-by in Los Angeles at the age of 24 (Biography.com Editors,
Biggie Smalls Biography). The tragic end of such a talented and troublesome life brings me to
ask the question whether the USs war on drugs is actually accomplishing anything, when drugs
are still easily available in metropolitan cities across the country.
America is wasting its money and resources. Attempting to restrict something on which
restrictions have little to no effect: drugs. The fact that drugs are illegal makes no difference to
those who recreationally use these drugs. Nevertheless, $15,000,000,000 goes directly into drug
prohibition every year with very little to none of its desired effect. Making recreational drugs
legal and regulated makes a lot more sense, instead money is spent to pay police narcotics
officers, fund the D.E.A., and house drug-offenders in prison. The prisons are full of drug-related
criminals, and violent offenders go free earlier because of this. Which would you prefer living
next door to you and your family, a rapist, or a pot smoker?
Legalizing recreational drugs does not mean making them accessible to all people. The
drugs that are legal today, alcohol and tobacco (nicotine) arent available to just everyone; they
are regulated. Only people over a certain age and using them in designated circumstances and
places are allowed to buy them. Since the drug trade is unregulated, drugs are sold anywhere the
can be (e.g. schools), allowing children to have access to them. If these drugs were legal, then
that trade would stagnate, and children wouldnt have such easy access to them. It makes
sense do you ever see people in schools selling beer or cigarettes? Additionally, the usual
cause of drug overdose is because the person taking the illegal drug cannot know the potency of
the drug he or she is taking. There are no standards because the trade of drugs is illegal in the

Thibodeau 3
first place. If drugs were legal, there would be a standard of quality for all drugs, and regulated
by the FDA.
Doing drugs is dangerous, yesbut so is tanning, smoking, drinking, chewing tobacco,
eating fatty foods the list goes on and on. Regardless, Americans are still free to do these
things, notwithstanding the fact that they may be stupid acts. The ratio of deaths from tobacco
verses illegal street drugs is 425:1, and that of alcohol verses drugs is 50:1. Illegal drugs are less
dangerous than both of these legal things, and Americans are still free to do them but not free to
do drugs? Shouldnt American adults be free to do what they want, as long as they arent
harming anyone else directly?
The modern Drug Wars roots can be dated back to US anti-imperialist sentiments
against the British since the 19th century. More recent incarnations of these sentiments are
figures such as Richard Nixon, Harry Anslinger, and George Bush. Drugs, such as heroin,
created by a German pharmaceutical company in an attempt to fight opium addiction, have
always been a hot topic among politicians and the United States has always dived in head first to
lead the way in the fight against drugs, by creating such policies as the Harrison Act and
organizations like the DEA. These attempts by the United States to fight drugs from an
enforcement side have created more problems than they have solved. One needs to only look at
the past decade or so since George Bush declared his own personal war on drugs to see the
damaging effects of the current and old US policy on drugs.
Richard Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973 in attempt to combat
the increasing drug problem in the United States. Nixon saw the need to coordinate the efforts of
the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the US Customs Service so that
there would be a more efficient enforcement of drug laws and regulations. The creation of the

Thibodeau 4
DEA has resulted in an emphasis on the law enforcement aspect of the drug problem. This
strategy can be seen in the time period from the mid-eighties until the present time through an
ever-increasing budget of the DEA and local drug enforcement agencies in each state. The
National Drug Control budget equals $20 million and state expenditures in 2000 are over $20
billion dollars per year, which is dramatically up from a figure of slightly above $2 billion
dollars in 1980 (Alexander, pp. 25-27). The 2000% increase in spending has done little to deter
the amount of heroin that is trafficked into the US annually over the last 10 or so years. The
UNDCP World Report for 2000 shows that the amount of heroin seized by the US from 19931998 is an average of 1423.85 kg per year with a low of 1293.6 kg in 1994 and a high of 1580.7
kg in 1998. Despite a production of opium average of 4701.33 metric tons each year of which an
expected 470.16 metric tons of heroin is produced; the US is the 2nd largest consumer of behind
the European Union (UNDCP 2000).
Currently the largest problem of heroin trafficking into the US comes from Columbia due to the
low shipping costs as opposed to heroin from Asia. As part of its battle against the supply side
of the heroin problem, the US has funded efforts in these countries to stop the influx of heroin
into the States. Their funding has helped militarize these countries in an attempt to battle the
problem. These efforts at improving the law enforcement agencies in other countries have done
little to solve the problem. The main problem with these attempts lies in the fact that the
business is far too profitable and corruption takes place too often. Even though some shipments
of heroin are stopped, in order for a cartel not to turn out a profit the estimated percentage of
heroin would have to be seized would need to be around 75%, when in fact only about 10-15%
of all shipments are ever seized (Youngers, pp. 71-75). Due to the large amount of profits, drug
traffickers in Mexico can afford to pay bribes in an estimated amount of $6 billion dollars

Thibodeau 5
annually. The large amount of profit in the Mexican and Columbian heroin trade not only leads
to government corruption but also to a revolving door of endless suppliers willing to take up the
business if one were to fall into custody.
Strategy. (Jarecki, pp. 5-6)
The low costs of producing heroin and trafficking it into the states creates an economic market in
which the traffickers will continue trafficking a large supply of heroin and the competition
between each trafficker will keep the prices from increasing and reaching the high levels that the
DEA desires in order to discourage drug use in the US. The DEA and the US are fighting a
losing battle with the Colombian and Mexican cartels. This is a recent problem which is due to a
shift from smuggling Asian heroin to Mexican and South American that accounts for around
75% of the USs heroin. The profitability of the business will always appeal to a group willing
to accept the risks for the reward.
US policy has not only failed to curtail the demand side of the drug war, but also the
demand for heroin in the United States. In the attempt to fight the supply of heroin of which
66% of the budget goes towards, the US has actually seen an increase in the availability of
heroin. The best figures that indicate the increasing of availability are the decreasing price of
heroin coinciding with an increase in the purity of heroin available.
In the past twenty years the price of heroin has dropped from $3.90 in 1980 for 0.01 gram to
$0.80 in 1999 while the purity has increased from 3.6% to 38.2%. Not only are these figures
alarming, but in a recent survey done by the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, the
lifetime use of heroin among high school students has increased and the initiation age (the age at
which an individual first tries heroin) for heroin has decreased. In 1991 0.9% of twelfth graders
were reported as users, increasing to 2.0% in 1999. The initiation age for heroin users has

Thibodeau 6
decreased from an average of 26.4 years old to 17.6 in 1997. These figures are alarming
considering that one of the major prevention aspects of the drug war are such programs such as
D.A.R.E., which specifically targets the high school audience. Not only is use up among high
school students, but it is also up among the entire population of the United States. The figures
for the hardcore heroin users in this country have maintained stable from 1988 to 2000, which
has been an average of 849.77 thousand users. The figures for occasional heroin users has
increased from an average of 238.57 thousand from the year 1988 to 1994 to 455.16 thousand
from 1995 to 2000 (Rhodes, 1999). The increases in purity, the decrease in price, and the
increase of overall users all point towards the undeniable fact that there is cheaper and better
heroin in the United States despite all the money that is used to carry out the hardline US Drug
Policy.
The US has always looked at the Drug War as more of a law enforcement issue overlooking
the true issue at hand, which is a medical issue. In doing so the US has wasted a lot of money in
attempting to stop the supply of drugs. The US Drug Policy budget calls for over $40 million
dollars, a good amount of which is used to prosecute and jail criminals all over the country. As
of 1997, 63% of inmates at federal prisons were there on a drug offense, and 21% of prisoners
were also there on drug offenses (Moore, 782-786). These drug offenders make up a large
percentage of the criminals in jail as well as the tax dollars spent. Now while some of these men
and women deserve to be in jail because of violent crimes they have committed that are related
to drugs the government does create a very violent drug culture due to the hardline laws that
have been placed on drugs. Despite the harsh US laws against the distribution of drugs there are
and always will be individuals willing to take up the trade because it is the most profitable
endeavor for many individuals in this country. Among the poorer communities in the US such as

Thibodeau 7
the state created projects of most major cities, drug dealing is the most profitable and accessible
trade for an individual to embark on. Many individuals often find themselves stuck in the trade
mainly because of hardline US laws that prevent an individual who is rehabilitated from living a
normal life once out of prison. The average prison length for a violent offender in the US in
1997 was 34 months while the average for a marijuana offender was 50 months. With such long
prison terms, and once released not allowing financial aid to anyone who has been convicted of a
drug offense, breaking the cycle seems hopeless. With such laws the US is promoting the same
dangerous and violent drug culture as it did a while back with another drug. In the early part of
the 20th century, the US government placed a prohibition on alcohol. This law as some believe
sparked the creation of organized crime to distribute black market alcohol, but when prohibition
was revoked all the violence associated with illegal alcohol distribution faded. The US has not
learned from its own past history, and continues to try to stop the supply end of the problem at
great economic and social costs.
The US government needs to look at other possible alternatives to the escalating drug
problem. Some studies indicate that $34 million spent in treatment programs for cocaine is as
effective as spending $366 million in law enforcement for the drug. These treatment programs
are 10 times more effective and some other countries have realized this fact prompting them to
turn to this alternative. In Switzerland the government over the last few years have turned to a
state sponsored heroin program for addicts. The state has set up clinics that administer heroin
injections for registered addicts. These clinics are clean hospital-type clinics where heroin
addicts can come in twice a day to get their fix. The results have been positive enough that the
state recently agreed to continue the program. Among the users in the program the percentage of
addicts with permanent employment has risen since the programs inception from 14% to

Thibodeau 8
32%. Also the number of crimes committed by those in the program has decreased by 60%
(Martin, 2001). These numbers are quite impressive for a program that has only been in effect
since 1994. Another beneficial side effect of this program is the availability of clean needles,
which has led to a reduction in AIDS among the population. While some would argue that this
trend would lead to the legalization of a drug such as heroin leading to an increase in use, one
rather well known country has had marijuana legalized for a while and their data on usage fairs a
lot better than the USs. The Netherlands have had legalized marijuana for a while now. Many in
the United States would argue that the legalization of marijuana would lead to an actual increase
in the use of many other drugs since it is the so called gateway drug. The data comparing the
United States and the Netherlands actually contradict this belief. In the US use of marijuana
among adolescents was 33% as of 1998 while in the Netherlands it was 15.6%. Also the rate of
heroin use in the US for the same year was 1.1% while in the Netherlands it was only 0.3%.

Social Indicator

Years

USA

Netherlands

Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 1998 vs. 1997 33%1
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+)
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population

1998 vs. 1997 5%3

2.5%4

1998 vs. 1997 1.1%5 0.3%6

1997 vs. 1996 6457

Per capita spending on drug-related law enforcement

Homicide rate per 100,000 population

15.6%2

77.38

1997 vs. 1995 $819

1995 vs. 1995 811

$2710

1.812

The European Unions Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction actually stated in its
1998 report that the problem of drug use was lower than in most of the other countries in the
Union (Reinerman, 2001). The US government needs to look at these other efforts at dealing

Thibodeau 9
with the problem more seriously because it is apparent that its tactics have not worked.
Although the US seems to want to take a very hardline approach on the matter, there are
some rays of light that the government might see the problems created by their policy. Recently,
there have been some signs that suggest that the government is becoming more open to discuss
the issue. Asa Hutchinson, recently appointed head of the DEA, has faced off in two public
debates about drug policy with New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who is in favor of legalizing
marijuana. Hutchinson is very open about his willingness to discuss drug policy despite there are
those in the US government that would prefer him not to. Hutchinson is the first ever head of the
DEA to talk publicly about drug policy in a debate format. Although Hutchinson is talking about
the drug policy, he still firmly believes that the US must fight the supply side of drugs, but that it
needs to improve its treatment aspect. The US Drug War has been failing, and new approaches
need to be considered when dealing with the situation. Now that the country and at least some of
its leaders are listening to the debate the country can truly begin to deal with the situation
looking at the possibilities for a solution from all perspectives.

Thibodeau 10
Works Cited
Alexander, Michelle, "Obama's Drug War." Nation 291.26 (2010): 25-27. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Almeida, Nicholas; Losing the Drug War: The ineffectiveness of the United States supply
side approach.
Biggie Smalls Biography. Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.
Jarecki, Eugene. "Voting Out The Drug War." Nation 295.23 (2012): 5-6. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Martin, Susan Taylor; Heroin for addicts works as a Swiss fix. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg,
FLA. 2001.
Moore, Lisa D., and Amy Elkavich. "Who's Using And Who's Doing Time: Incarceration, The
War On Drugs, And Public Health."American Journal Of Public Health 98.5 (2008):
782-786. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Reinarman, Craig and Cohen, Peter. Is US dutch policy the devil?. Univeristy of Amsterdam
:Amsterdam; 1999.
Rhodes, William et.all; Estimating Heroin Availability. Cambridge, Mass: Abt Associates Inc.;
1999.
United Nations Drug Control Policy, Global Illicit Drug Trends 2000; UNDCP, p.80, 181-187,
2000.
Youngers, Coletta A. "U.S. Elections And The War On Drugs." NACLA Report On The
Americas 45.4 (2012): 71-75. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.