Giáo Dục

The War on Drugs Is a Failure



The War on Drugs is a campaign of prohibition and foreign military aid and military intervention being undertaken by the United States government, with the assistance of participating countries, intended to both define and reduce the illegal drug trade. More on this topic:

This initiative includes a set of drug policies of the United States that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal psychoactive drugs. The term “War on Drugs” was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1971.

On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), signaled that although it did not plan to significantly alter drug enforcement policy, the Obama administration would not use the term “War on Drugs,” as he claims it is “counter-productive”. ONDCP’s view is that “drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated… making drugs more available will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe.”(2011) One of the alternatives that Mr Kerlikowske has showcased is Sweden’s Drug Control Policies that combine balanced public health approach and opposition to drug legalization. The prevalence rates for cocaine use in Sweden are barely one-fifth of European neighbors such as the United Kingdom and Spain.

In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the War on Drugs, declaring “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.” The report was immediately criticized by organizations that oppose a general legalization of drugs.

In 1986, the US Defense Department funded a two-year study by the RAND Corporation, which found that the use of the armed forces to interdict drugs coming into the United States would have little or no effect on cocaine traffic and might, in fact, raise the profits of cocaine cartels and manufacturers. The 175-page study, “Sealing the Borders: The Effects of Increased Military Participation in Drug Interdiction,” was prepared by seven researchers, mathematicians and economists at the National Defense Research Institute, a branch of the RAND, and was released in 1988. The study noted that seven prior studies in the past nine years, including one by the Center for Naval Research and the Office of Technology Assessment, had come to similar conclusions. Interdiction efforts, using current armed forces resources, would have almost no effect on cocaine importation into the United States, the report concluded.

During the early-to-mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered and funded a major cocaine policy study, again by RAND. The Rand Drug Policy Research Center study concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment. The report said that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, stating that drug treatment is twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side “war on drugs”.

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.” 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.”

During alcohol prohibition, the period from 1920 to 1933, alcohol use initially fell but began to increase as early as 1922. It has been extrapolated that even if prohibition had not been repealed in 1933, alcohol consumption would have quickly surpassed pre-prohibition levels. One argument against the War on Drugs is that it uses similar measures as Prohibition and is no more effective.

Nguồn: https://ibusiness.vn

Xem thêm bài viết khác: https://ibusiness.vn/giao-duc/

20 Comments
  1. K 8 months ago
    Reply

    Boringggggg!!

  2. K 8 months ago
    Reply

    "I've been watching you guys age. The RAVAGES of time and Haagen Daas."
    Wow!?
    Seriously dude?!
    You're not Mr USA you know. 😂

  3. EARTH LAKE MAJAPAHIT PHILIPS 8 months ago
    Reply

    Second…view the video first before setting the thumbs down.

  4. EARTH LAKE MAJAPAHIT PHILIPS 8 months ago
    Reply

    First Drug is a medicine…..illegal use of drug maybe?

  5. EARTH LAKE MAJAPAHIT PHILIPS 8 months ago
    Reply

    Its a failure. The title isnt appropriate and logically WROGN!!!

  6. i d 8 months ago
    Reply

    the war on drugs was the greatest success in the history of the planet

  7. Scott Nowell 8 months ago
    Reply

    there was a war on drugs. Drugs won.

  8. Jake Sa 8 months ago
    Reply

    How the hell did I get here?

  9. Rogan Torment Equinsu Ocha 8 months ago
    Reply

    If the cops and feds wouldn't have let blacks infiltrate & corrupt their departments and unions it wouldn't have been.

  10. c. j. macq 8 months ago
    Reply

    this was EXCELLENT! but a bit too long. they covered all the addictions known. many, many destructive addictions that people turn to that the elite don't want mentioned; work, shopping, materialism, greed, sex. these are all addictions that do more harm to society than the illegal drugs that the elite destroy people's lives over. you have to stop and ask yourselves – why is pot, gambling and even prostitution becoming legal; why now? pot, though, IS NOT physically addictive. but people can become psychologically dependent on it. but NO ONE ever died from an overdose of pot! but one negative effect pot does have is it can make people apathetic and compliant. smoking pot EVERYDAY has a horrible effect on you. so question why pot is becoming legal – NOW! one mistake though. cigarettes FON'T cause cancer. its time this insane belief perpetrated by the fascist anti-smoking lobby be exposed and thrown on the trash heap where it belongs!

  11. 곧 플레갈사람곧 플레갈사람 8 months ago
    Reply

    한국인 없음?

  12. Baiju Kumar 8 months ago
    Reply

    Baiju kumar

  13. Arthur Fiorillo 8 months ago
    Reply

    War on drugs the politicians are making to much money off the war a Vietnam war outcome. I, refer this to the opium wars in China but to destroy the fiber of the country.

  14. Rafał Grondek 8 months ago
    Reply

    bu

  15. Marleen Wehl 8 months ago
    Reply

    one Nat sex only

  16. borla exhaust 8 months ago
    Reply

    Че это вообще за хуйня

  17. Falah Diki 8 months ago
    Reply

    nguomong opo jare?😆😆😆

  18. Sandra Pisu-Jocic 8 months ago
    Reply

    Heike eier christiane F3, senner parkthe drogs way. Way ?????? Meine Familie stierbt wegen euch. mob for the flauerpauer luckis heike wuddo nutte. christohfer lee.mak in afganustan drogs, amsterdam in amerika. the leive is the monopolie drogs akt. Supper
    Grandmam kill, Grandpa kill , Baby kill an, and
    What is gut whis this internationaler deals. Will mony from workers also familie.
    Sche kill this welt 196O boom. Sche kill this,welt on amerika flouerpouer . Sche kill baby an mother. Sche cry sche is psychoparts whis the internationalen drogen. Peopols whis the dogs has not Persoenlichkeit. This Welt hat not Soul and not lowe. Klons have not soul and not love. i have an seeing hi ist 80 jears old. Has not lowe kill woerker in the woerk, in the school and and in acaunt. Hi is not one Mamuschka kill faemilies newe york acaunts Na.

  19. ProFF S.K. 8 months ago
    Reply

    Что за херня!?

  20. Antonio Nistor 8 months ago
    Reply

    urîți.dreavu.bagameadi.pula.voastra

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You may also like