Amos Lee

Terrorism Essay

INTRODUCTION

The chances of meeting someone on the street with an intimate knowledge and

familiarity of illicit substances is very high these days, is much higher than at any time in

the past. National surveys shows that drug substances are used among high school

students and that they accept it as part of the social life.  From college social gatherings to

nightclubs, drugs are undeniably large source of unofficial commerce. The problem is not

new, and programs to combat the drug trade have become increasingly more prevalent

and aggressive since they first went underway four decades ago.

In 1972, President Nixon declared the “war on drugs” that would determine the

future course of governmental programs committed to suppressing American’s use of

recreational drugs.  Through the use of propaganda tactics, the Nixon administration

kindly requested Elvis Presley to inform his young fans that drug abuse is bad. When

utilizing celebrities was not enough, Nixon addressed the public with aggressive criminal

justice policies through the creation of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in

1973. It acted as the stepping power in the direction of criminal and drugs enforcement

and how the United States extensively planned to allocate drug related criminals out of

the public’s reach. In the late 1980’s, the president of Ronald Reagan came forth a high

number of incarceration rates. The number of people behind bars in drug related offenses

increased from 50,000 in 1980 to 400,000 to 1997. His lovely wife, Nancy Reagan,

publicized her campaign underscoring the idea of “Just say no”. To an extreme extent, the

War on Drugs also ultimately reached its greatest political hysteria when drug- related

offenses were charged with execution conviction as equivalent to a murder or treason

case. This is due to Senator Joe Biden’s 1994 Omnibus Crime bill. By the end of the

George W. Bush’s term, the notion to supposedly apprehend drug cartel allowed 40,000

parliamentary SWAT raids to take place each year.

Ultimately, it can be noted that Nixon’s motto became part of a national security

strategy that every subsequent president would adhere to. Even with five decades, drug

prohibition has not only failed its mission to end this war but has made the war

impossible to abort. The war has cost nearly a trillion of dollars worth of tax money while

producing little to no effect on the demand or supply of drugs. Over the years, strict drug

laws have incarcerated more people into prisons and disrupted the civil rights in the lives

of Americans. So why does the government orchestrate an inefficacious policy that can

be replaced by a policy that provides systematic treatment resources to those who suffer

from addiction? Despite the moral and physical treatments it can provide for drug addicts,

the nation is undeniably still afraid that abandoning the fight on drugs could produce an

illicit economic trade economy and problems in public health, stability, and the national

security. In this paper, we will discuss the flaws and strengths of this policy and the

potential policy option that could efficiently amend the issue on drugs. It is not a war on

drugs. It is war on drug dealers and users.

POLICY AS A MISTAKE

        The current War on Drugs is a destructive domestic policy that strips the citizens

of the United States of essential privacy rights and fails to increase homeland security.

To fully grasp the severity of the loss of liberty involved, one must first understand why

privacy is so essential to the individual.  Though the constitution does not specifically

guarantee a right to privacy, privacy is a fundamental part of all democratic governments.

Without privacy, there is no individuality and there is no freedom.  The right to privacy

allows one to have a sense of individuality and possess the knowledge that he or she can

regulate what other of his or her peers know about his or her personality or lifestyle. In

the world of the Internet and social media, society is connected now more than ever.  As

a result, the idea of privacy is quickly diminishing but it is important that we respect the

individual’s right to protect his or her personal information.  The most common argument

against the need for privacy is, “I have nothing to hide.”  However, such a claim is simply

invalid.  Even the most patriotic, law-abiding citizen has something to hide—some secret

that he or she does not want the world to know.  If you wear clothing, have blinds on

your windows, or wish to protect your personal information, then you consequently have

something to hide.

        When President Nixon declared the War on Drugs, he initiated a domestic war

that began the alienation of civil liberties.  The post-Vietnam era was defined by civil

unrest and distrust in the federal government.  From Nixon’s point of view, drug

addiction was clearly a national health crisis, drugs were connected to many of the rising

social movements, and the President was in desperate need to garner public support.  The

solution was simple: start a new war.  The “war” on drugs resulted in the “rally-round-

the-flag” effect, meaning the public blindly supported any effort to prevent a security

crisis.  While drug addiction was a legitimate health issue at the time, the propaganda

machine of the federal government purely fueled much of the fear and anxiety associated

with drugs.  Nixon declared illicit drugs as “public enemy number one” and began

spreading fictionalized information.  Overnight, it became household knowledge that

drugs were poisoning the youth, destroying families, and threatened the stability of the

country.  The federal government fully utilized the neuroscience findings that fear is a

powerful weapon that can be used to manipulate the public.  Much like the propaganda of

the Red Scare era instilled fear and panic over the spread of communism, the propaganda

of the War on Drugs era similarly created a culture of fear over the spread of drugs.  In

1990, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates declared that even casual drug users that

occasionally use drugs should be “taken out and shot” (Casual Drug Users Should Be

Shot)..  Gates continued, “we’re in a war” and even casual drug use is likened to

“treason.”  With the public fully behind the President, Nixon was free to do as he pleased.

        The consequence of more than four decades of the War on Drugs has taken its toll

on the country socially, economically, and politically.  The United States, with a mere 5%

of the world’s population, makes up more than 25% of the world’s prison population

(The War on Drugs and Surveillance Society).  While the war is supposed to increase

security and make our lives more secure, it has failed to do so and at an extraordinary

cost to liberty.  The PATRIOT Act was created in response to the post-9/l1 hysteria and

is used to justify “sneak and peek” searches in order to protect the nation against the

threat of terrorism.  What is surprising is that an anti-terrorism bill is being used to

alienate the American public.  The Washington Post has revealed that in 2013, nearly

90% of all federal wiretaps were used for drug investigations—not homeland security

(The Shared Roots of the War on Drugs).  Essentially the public has sacrificed vital

rights, and in return the country is no more secure than it was ten years ago.  The “sneak

and peek” searches of the PATRIOT Act are not being used to protect national security

interests, they are being used to further the imprisonment of United States citizens for

mostly petty drug crimes.  The militarization of the police force is another unforeseen

consequence of the War on Drugs.  The Posse Comitatus Act was intended to place

restrictions on the use of military forces in domestic law enforcement, but recently the

discrepancy between law enforcement and military is disappearing.  Local police forces

now have access to weapons of war and are using military tactics against the very people

that they are meant to protect.  On a regular basis, the National Guard conducts sweeping

flyovers to search for fields of marijuana, and military forces assist police departments in

drug raids.  In a world where racial profiling is used as an instrument of the War on

Drugs, the police kill more Americans than terrorists do every year in our country, and

the prisons are filling up, one has to ask, is this really a war on drugs or is it a war on us?

As the War on Drugs progresses, it becomes more and more evident that

American citizens are the victims of a borderless, lawless campaign.  According to

Avaaz.org, African Americans are “2.8 to 5.5 times” more likely to be arrested for drug

crimes, despite having similar levels of drug usage from other races.  The truth is in the

data.  The claim that the War on Drugs is non-discriminatory is an attempt to look past

the simple truth: the drug war perpetuates discrimination.  The primary objectives of the

outdated drug policies are to eradicate the drug supply and eliminate illicit drug usage.

Unfortunately, neither objective has been achieved. High school students state that it is

easier to buy illicit drugs than it is to purchase alcohol while underage, and drug usage

has not diminished--if anything it has increased.  A system that is devoid of

accountability and transparency is bound for failure.  It is evident that the transnational

drug trade does threaten our national security interests; the caveat is that our current

policies allow black markets to flourish.  Drug addiction is a serious health crisis and the

drug trade is a major source of income for criminal organizations, including terrorist

organizations.  Without a major change, the War on Drugs will continue to strip the

American people of their fundamental rights and fail to protect national security.

Policy as Positive

The US has a long history of coercing its citizens into an obligatory moral code of

conduct. The US most notably displayed this willingness of coercion in the Eighteenth

Amendment which prohibited alcohol. The US had also previously shown its unilateral

presumptions of morality with the Comstack Act of 1873, which forbade sending sexual

information through the mail and the Mann Act of 1911 which forbid taking women

across state lines for immoral purposes (Higgs). During the Red Scare, the US took on a

strong condemnation of Communism proclaiming its immorality. In 1950, McCarthy

preached that,

The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic

Communist world is not political, gentlemen, it is moral… This religion of

immoralism, if the Red half of the world triumphs—and well it may, gentlemen—

this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than

any conceivable economic or political system” (Enemies from Within).

Presumptions of morality are even seen as the rhetoric and justification for the

invasion and occupation of Iraq, claiming that it is the US’s duty to spread its ideals

of liberty and freedom to foreign countries. Some parts of the US public also share this

idea of shaping public morality reflected by many arguments against same-sex marriage

and abortion that are rooted in religious conduct or personal morals.

        Therefore, when the US counterculture was on the rise in the 1960’s as a rebellion

against the establishment, the Vietnam War, and the status quo, the US government felt a

need to quell this explosion of misconduct. The counterculture of “hippies” famously

experimented with drugs, especially hallucinogens such as mushrooms and LSD. More

seriously though, the US did perceive an endemic problem of addiction to more lethal

drugs like heroin, as “studies do show that the annual production of barbiturate drugs

exceeded one million pounds, the equivalent of twenty-four one-and one-half grain doses

for every man, woman and child in the nation, or enough to kill each person twice” (The

History of Drug Abuse...).  The mainstream silent majority that condemned these actions

of the counter culture disseminated fake stories like LSD had caused people to “blow

their minds…[and] one story told of two teenagers who were “tripping” on LSD and

stared directly into the sun until they were permanently blinded” (“The History of Drug

Abuse…”).  These types of stories instilled a fear of drugs that would drive much of the

propaganda against drugs in subsequent years. In addition to the counter culture, “many

soldiers returned from the Vietnam War with marijuana and heroin habits.  In short, the

demand for drugs in America skyrocketed in the 1960’s” (“The United States War on

Drugs”). The public’s negative perception of drug use continued into subsequent decades,

“for instance, in 1969, 48% of Americans told Gallup that drug use was a serious

problem in their community. In 1986, a majority of Americans, 56%, said that the

government spent "too little" money fighting drugs” (Gallup).

In order to pacify the mainstream majority’s disapproval as well as combat the

fear of rising rates of abuse and addiction, the US had to take major actions quickly. A

long history of enacting laws to forbid certain behavior or to harshly denounce such

actions (like taking on Communist ideology) created a precedent of doing the same for

any problem that arose, even if it wasn’t the best policy. Path dependence and a mounting

pressure to “solve” the drug problem gave way to declaring the war on drugs with many

acts that increased the incarceration rate and more harshly criminalized its use. While in

hindsight this policy has proven ineffective and the war on drugs is a failure, taking into

context the time and manner of the situation creates an understandable scope and

perspective of implementing this policy. However, this policy cannot continue after the

US has learned the lessons of its repercussions and must take action to reform.

                               

Policy Choices and Suggestions

The general consensus among the group following a review of the evidence is a

recommendation against continuing the War on Drugs in the current fashion.  There is

obviously a drug problem that needs to be addressed, but current measures seem to be

exacerbating rather than helping solve the issue.  Legalization of drugs is an often

suggested alternative to the current prohibitive drug policy.  The concept behind

legalization is an idea to lower crime rates, controlling the potency of powerful drugs,

and to eliminate illicit drug trade with other countries.  The end of drug related crime

would ideally lower crime rates and drug-related deaths (Kleiman).

However, there are several issues..  Outright legalization of all drugs would create

market that is driven chiefly by competition, which would drive down the prices of more

dangerous drugs relative to what they are now, and make them generally more accessible

to vulnerable groups, like minors (Drug Free Australia).  Moreover, legalization

experiments have not had the most promising results in many cases.  For example in

1998, the drug policy of the Netherlands was soft on cannabis dealers, in order to achieve

a "separation of markets" from hard drug dealers.  The policy was meant to reduce

people’s initiation to harder drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines.

According to Drug Free Australia, the Netherlands still had the third highest cannabis and

cocaine use in Europe.  As such, they argue that the “soft” Dutch approach failed to

achieve its aim.  Furthermore, in Alaska, a stint of marijuana legalization in Alaska in

1970s, resulted in a vociferous criminalization in 1990 after reports showed that teen

marijuana use had jumped to twice the national average (DEA).  On the other hand,

recent marijuana legalization in Colorado appears to be quite successful at the moment,

though more time must elapse before making definitive judgment.  Either way, legalizing

drugs may not be the best alternative, as it does not solve the issue of drug dependence.

To find alternate solutions, we look to the example of other countries that have

implemented radically different drug policies that seem to be very effective.

        An example of a country with a very different, yet also quite successful drug

policy from the United States, is Portugal.  In 2001, Portugal changed its philosophy from

labeling drug users as criminals to labeling them as people affected by a disease.

Statistics have shown that over ten years Portugal was able to cut the country’s rate of

drug addiction in half, now giving it one of the lowest addiction rate in the European

Union and dramatically cut down on drug related diseases.  The Portuguese focus has

been on decriminalization, which is why it is so successful.  Decriminalization is not

legalization.  It is the abolition of criminal penalties in relation to drugs, while drug

possession, distribution, and use is still illegal. While distribution and trafficking is still a

criminal offense in Portugal, possession and use is moved out of criminal courts and into

a special court where each offender's unique situation is judged by legal experts,

psychologists, and social workers.

Decriminalization seems the most appropriate response to the threat of illicit

drugs as serious public health vulnerability, which is the current view of the Obama

Administration.  This provides a much more cost-effective and perhaps less invasive

solution to the current crisis for American citizens.  It would relieve a large portion of the

current prison population and cut down on the vast majority of the government’s invasion

of citizen’s privacy.    Therefore, the recommendation is a gradual decriminalization of

various illicit drugs, starting with marijuana, replacing drug offenses with fines and

mandatory treatment and therapy.  Also realizing that these measures would not prevent

the continued illegal trafficking from beyond our borders, this policy would free up more

resources to shut down transnational drug networks from outside the United States, better

preserving the liberty and security of American citizens.

Conclusion

Despite its initially good intentions, The War on Drugs is now a deeply

entrenched and highly controversial campaign of prohibition with decades of momentum

behind it.  In fact, current drug policies do far more harm than good in many cases.

Citizens are losing a certain amount of liberty in order to provide for their personal safety

and health, but are actually being failed in both regards.  Moreover, it stems from a

seemingly misinformed notion of the threat, which only seems to have exacerbated the

issue on several orders of magnitude. This is not to say that there is no merit in

combatting illicit drug trade in the United States, but it is quite clear that current tactics

have not made much progress.  By following the recommended policy prescriptions, it

gives the country the best current solution to the problem with a minimal intrusion on the

rights and privileges of the average citizen.  

Works Cited

"A Brief History of the Drug War." A Brief History of the Drug War. N.p., n.d.

Web. 04 May 2015

"Casual Drug Users Should Be Shot, Gates Says." Los Angeles Times. Los

Angeles Times, 6 Sept. 1990. Web.

"Decades of Drug Use: Data From the '60s and '70s." Gallup. 2 July 2002.

Web. 4 May 2015.

."Enemies from Within": Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Accusations of

Disloyalty. Web. 4 May 2015.

Greenwald, Glenn. “Drug Decriminalization in Portugal”.  The Cato Institute.

2009. pp.4-12

Kleiman, Mark A.R., Jonathan P. Caulkins and Angela Hawken. “Rethinking The

War on Drugs”. The Wall Street Journal. 22 April 2012.

"Puritanism, Paternalism, and Power by Robert Higgs." The Independent

Institute. Web. 4 May 2015.

“Speaking Out: Against Drug Drug Legalization”. Drug Enforcement Agency.

2010. pp. 5-65.

"The History of Drug Abuse and Addiction in America and the Origins of Drug

Treatment Part 4." Narconon News. 15 July 2009. Web. 4 May 2015.

"The United States War on Drugs." The United States War on Drugs. Stanford.

Web. 4 May 2015.

"The Shared Roots of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, in One Chart."

Washington Post. The Washington Post. Web. 4 May 2015. Web.

"The War on Drugs and the Surveillance Society." American Civil Liberties

Union. Web. 4 May 2015. Web