Has the “War on Drugs” in the United States Been Successful?

Introduction

The US launched the “War on Drugs” in the 1980s to curb drug production, distribution, and consumption via strict law enforcement. If we presume that the war on drugs has failed, the technique has had many unforeseen and negative repercussions on many social groups. These organizations include law enforcement, drug traffickers, and legal and illicit drug users. The strategy has also hurt society (Cohen et al., 2022). The plan has also investigated legalization, medical and public health strategies, and drug policy metrics reevaluation.

Impact on Different Groups:

• Society as a Whole:

The war on drugs has unknowingly exacerbated social inequality, especially among disadvantaged groups. This is particularly true in poor neighborhoods. Drug-related arrests and convictions have disproportionately affected racial minorities, perpetuating poverty and incarceration (Eremin & Petrovich-Belkin, 2019). This has caused a significant racial gap in incarceration rates, eroding community faith in law enforcement. Trust loss reduces social cohesion, crime prevention cooperation, and disenfranchisement in these people. All of these issues stem from trust failure.

• Law enforcement:

The war on drugs was meant to weaken drug trafficking groups and reduce drug-related crime, but it has had unintended repercussions for law enforcement. The overemphasis on drug arrests has diverted resources from more serious and violent crimes. Because of this, communities have accused law enforcement of disregarding their safety concerns to concentrate on drug enforcement (Hapsari et al., 2021). This strained relationship has grown the gap between law enforcement and the communities they serve. The lucrative drug trade has also led to law enforcement corruption. This is because drug demand allows unethical behavior.

• Drug Dealers:

Contrary to common assumption, the drug war has not failed drug traffickers. The perils of drug trafficking and government enforcement have raised the price of illegal substances. People willing to take risks now have access to a more profitable market (Cohen et al., 2022). The increased prices increase drug traffickers’ earnings and create a vicious cycle in which financial gain outweighs legal risk. This means that significant financial gains exceed enormous economic benefits.

• Legal and Illegal Drug Users:

The war on drugs has been harsh on drug users, whether legal or illicit. The underlying issues contributing to drug dependency are not addressed when drug use is criminalized and managed only by law enforcement. Instead of treating addicts, this method has imprisoned them. This criminalization makes it harder for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society and perpetuates addiction and legal issues (Eremin & Petrovich-Belkin, 2019). Drug stigma discourages people from seeking help, which leads to relapse and recidivism.

• Legalization of Drugs:

As an alternative to the “War on Drugs,” legalizing narcotics has recently gained popularity. Various feel that legalizing and regulating narcotics will reduce criminal organizations, increase government revenue, and simplify treating addiction holistically. Portugal’s pioneering work in this area has proven that damage reduction and therapy may be better than criminalization (Cohen et al., 2022). Portugal’s pioneering efforts have emphasized this approach. The impact of drug legalization on criminal organizations is a crucial consideration. According to Eremin and Petrovich-Belkin (2019), the “war on drugs” approach often targets criminal networks, yet its effectiveness has been questioned due to unintended consequences. Legalization could undermine the power of these organizations by diverting demand toward legal channels, effectively dismantling their revenue streams. As Cohen et al. (2022) elaborate, legalizing drugs could “diminish the influence of criminal actors” and alleviate the violence associated with the illicit drug trade.

Moreover, the prospect of generating tax revenue from legalized drugs is appealing. As Eremin and Petrovich-Belkin (2019) point out, legalizing drugs could create a new revenue source to reinvest in public health initiatives, education, and addiction treatment programs. Such an approach would allow governments to address the root causes of drug addiction and minimize the negative societal impact of drug use. This aligns with Muggah and Aguirre’s (2021) call for rethinking drug policy metrics to encompass broader social outcomes beyond traditional enforcement metrics. Portugal’s approach is a real-world example of drug decriminalization and harm reduction benefits. As highlighted in Hapsari et al. (2021), Portugal’s decision to decriminalize the possession of small quantities of drugs reduced drug-related deaths, HIV infections, and problematic drug use. By focusing on a medical and public health framework, Portugal redirected resources from criminal prosecution to treatment and prevention efforts, illustrating the effectiveness of this approach in reducing drug-related harm.

Medical/Public Health vs. Public Safety/Criminalization Approach:

The medical and public health approaches and the public safety and criminalization approach to drug policy are fundamentally different. The medical and public health approach emphasizes treatment, counseling, and support for drug addiction as a health issue. However, the public safety and criminalization approach considers drug use as a crime and believes punishment deters. Pedersen et al. (2021) state that the medical and public health approach recognizes drug addiction’s complexity and treats its causes—the method’s objective. By viewing addiction as a health issue, this approach prioritizes early intervention, prevention, and treatment. This resonates with the argument made by Cohen et al. (2022) that the war on drugs often exacerbates social determinants of health, particularly within marginalized communities, where addiction is intertwined with broader systemic issues.

Research consistently underscores the efficacy of the medical approach in reducing drug-related harm and supporting long-term recovery. As Pedersen et al. (2021) highlight, countries that adopt harm-reduction strategies and prioritize treatment over punishment tend to experience lower rates of drug-related deaths and diseases. The criminalization approach, on the other hand, perpetuates a cycle of incarceration, stigma, and relapse, as noted by Muggah and Aguirre (2021). The case of Portugal provides a tangible illustration of the medical/public health approach’s success. Hapsari et al. (2021) detail how Portugal’s shift from criminalization to harm reduction significantly reduced drug-related deaths and HIV infections. By treating addiction as a health issue, Portugal effectively tackled the root causes of drug-related problems and provided individuals with the necessary support to overcome their dependency.

Rethinking Drug Policy Metrics:

Conventional measurements like arrest rates and drug seizures only provide a restricted view of drug usage and its effects. Therefore, they cannot be used to evaluate drug policy. This requires a departure from traditional measures (Cohen et al., 2022). These measurements cannot capture the more enormous socioeconomic and public health ramifications. Hence a reevaluation with other indicators is needed. Drug seizures and arrests are used to evaluate the “War on Drugs”‘ efficacy. Despite providing some insight into law enforcement, they do not offer a complete picture of drug regulatory effectiveness (Eremin & Petrovich-Belkin, 2019). The ramifications of drug usage extend beyond arrests and seizures to public health, community well-being, and society. A more credible drug policy evaluation requires indicators that provide a more complete picture. The number of fatal overdoses directly relates to drug riskiness and harm reduction initiatives. The prevalence of drug-related illnesses like HIV and hepatitis also highlights the health risks of drug use and the efficacy of prevention strategies.

Regional health and happiness are also important, although typical assessments occasionally overlook them. Drug laws affect people, families, neighborhoods, and communities. Drug policy’ broader impacts on society may be gathered through community well-being indices, including crime, economic stability, and social cohesion. A more comprehensive metrics framework would allow politicians to make educated decisions prioritizing public health and well-being above punishment. Customizing drug policy to account for overdose mortality, sickness prevalence, and community health may treat addiction, reduce harm, and build healthier communities. This approach supports Muggah and Aguirre’s (2021) call to redefine drug policy indicators to reflect the complexity of drug issues.

Recommendations for a Comprehensive Drug Policy Overhaul

The inadequacies of the “War on Drugs” necessitate a profound shift in approach, acknowledging the complexity of drug-related challenges and prioritizing holistic solutions over punitive measures. To address these shortcomings, several crucial recommendations emerge, each focusing on different aspects of drug policy reform (Hapsari et al., 2021). These recommendations aim to promote compassion, public health, and community well-being while rectifying the current system’s failures.

1. Focus on Decriminalization and Rehabilitation: Drug addiction is a health issue, not a crime. Hence it should be decriminalized. This technique, advocated by Pedersen et al. (2021), replaces incarceration with comprehensive rehabilitation programs. Mental health treatments, addiction treatment clinics, and counseling facilities will help individuals overcome drug addiction by addressing its root causes. Society can break the cycle of crime and enhance reintegration by addressing drug misuse as a medical problem.
2. Embrace Harm Reduction Strategies: Harm reduction strategies are vital to a reformed drug policy. Implementing safe injection sites and needle exchange programs, as endorsed by Eremin and Petrovich-Belkin (2019), reduces the spread of diseases like HIV and hepatitis among drug users. These initiatives also offer a bridge to addiction treatment and support services, acknowledging that recovery is a multifaceted journey. By prioritizing harm reduction, society can prevent further health crises and provide individuals with pathways to healthier lives.
3. Legalize and Regulate: Exploring the legalization and regulation of certain drugs, as advocated by Hapsari et al. (2021), presents an opportunity to undermine the black market, reduce violence associated with drug trafficking, and generate revenue for public health and education. This approach aligns with Muggah and Aguirre’s (2021) call for redefining drug policy metrics to encompass broader social outcomes. By legalizing and regulating drugs, society can channel resources away from criminal organizations and redirect them toward fostering safer communities and supporting individuals struggling with addiction.
4. Community Policing and Trust Building: To rebuild confidence in communities, law enforcement must adopt community policing practices. According to Pedersen et al. (2021), mental health professionals, social workers, and addiction counselors must work together to address drug problems. Law enforcement can better connect individuals with access, assistance, and treatment by hiring addiction experts. This will reduce recidivism and increase communal well-being.
5. Education and Prevention: Prioritizing education and prevention programs is essential to addressing the root causes of drug addiction. By providing information and resources to at-risk individuals, society can reduce the demand for drugs in the first place (Hapsari et al., 2021). This approach aligns with the medical/public health model, focusing on early intervention and harm prevention. Education campaigns emphasizing the risks of drug use and providing alternatives can empower individuals to make informed decisions, thereby mitigating the allure of drugs and curbing their consumption.

References

Cohen, A., Vakharia, S. P., Netherland, J., & Frederique, K. (2022). How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system. Annals of Medicine, 54(1), 2024–2038. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2022.2100926

Eremin, A. A., & Petrovich-Belkin, O. K. (2019). The ‘war on drugs’ concept is the basis for combating drugs in the Western hemisphere. Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, 13(2), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.51870/cejiss.a130204

Hapsari, R. D., Ramadhanti, H. N. A., & Putri, K. M. (2021). Comparative analysis of the united states war on drugs policy in Mexico and Colombia: Failure and success factors. WIMAYA, 2(01), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.33005/wimaya.v2i01.49

Muggah, R., & Aguirre, K. (2021). Rethinking drug policy metrics to move beyond the war on drugs. In Transforming the War on Drugs (pp. 377–402). Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197604359.003.0015

Pedersen, W., Holst, C., & Fjell, L. K. (2021). Warriors against the ‘War on Drugs’: Lay experts in Norwegian drug policy. Current Sociology, 70(7), 1013–1030. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921211056056