Reconsidering the Reconsidering the American Drug WarAmerican Drug War

By Samantha MosierMosier

Why is the Drug War Important?

• Cost– Estimated at $600 Per Second

• Social Consequences– Has Greatest Effect on Lower SES and Minority

Communities.• Strain on Prisons and Judicial System

– Prisons Face Overcrowding and the Large Number of Drug Offenders Backup the Courts.

• Damaging International Relations

Thinking In Time (Neustadt and May)

• Look Towards the Past to Envision Future • For Current Policy, Use of History Can Be

Used as Propaganda• 3 Assumptions

– Particulars Matter– Policy Decisions Come One at a Time– Policy Makers Always Act in Uncertainty

Science of ‘Muddling Through’ (Lindblom)

• Rational-comprehensive: Relies on Theory. Starts From Scratch. Means-End Analysis.

• Incrementalism: Relies on Improving Past Precedents. Means and End Intertwined.– Produces More Realistic/ Obtainable Options.– Criticized for Being Too Slow When Swift

Action Needed.

The Spanish-American War The Spanish-American War until the Harrison until the Harrison

Narcotics ActNarcotics Act

Trends and Events• State and Local Laws Responsible for Narcotic

Control• Narcotics Used for Medical Purposes• Acquisition of the Philippines

– Gradual Prohibition Modeled After Japanese • 1909 International Opium Commission• 1910 Foster Antinarcotics Bill (Failed)

– Ethnic Associations with Cocaine and Heroine • 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act

Historical Significance• Attitudes and Regulations Lay the Foundation

for Future Policy• Narcotics Become an American Enemy• Transfer From State and Local Regulation to

Federal Control• U.S. Makes International Push to Eradicate Drug

Usage• Professional Standards and Regulations Emerge• Foreign Attempt at Prohibition Fails

The 18The 18thth Amendment to Amendment to the Marijuana Tax Actthe Marijuana Tax Act

Trends and Events

• 18th Amendment (1920)• The Volstead Act of 1919

– The Prohibition Unit• Violence and Organized Crime • Narcotic Education Week• Continuing International Crusade

– Second Geneva Convention– Ask Other Nations to Eradicate Narcotic

Cultivation for Sake of Addicts

Trends and Events Cont’d

• Narcotics Limitations Convention– Drugs Divided Into Two Schedules

• Black Thursday/Tuesday (Oct 24 & 29, 1929)

• 21st Amendment (1933)– States Responsible of Own Alcohol Laws

• Marijuana Tax Act of 1937• New Ethnic and Behavioral Associations

with Drug Use

Historical Significance• Domestic Failure of Prohibition

– Organized Crime and Violence • Not All Intoxicating Substances Merit Same

Cohesive Negative Attitudes• International Crusade Continues

– Emphasis on Needing to Solve America Narcotic Dilemma

– Creates Resentment From Other Nations• Adjustment to Indirect Prohibition of Certain

Substances.

Nixon, Reagan, and Nixon, Reagan, and Militarization of Drug EffortsMilitarization of Drug Efforts

Trends and Events: Johnson and Nixon

• Johnson’s Prettyman Commission • Operation Intercept (1969)• Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control

Act (1970)• Nixon 1971- Drug Abuse is No. 1 American

Public Enemy• Reorganization Plan No. 2 and the DEA• Nixon 1974- Turned the Corner on Hard

Drugs

Trends and Events: Ford and Carter

• Gap in Drug War Advocacy• The White Paper on Drug Abuse

– Contradicts Previous Efforts of Drug Policy• “Drugs cannot be forced out of existence; they will be with

us for as long as people find in them the relief or satisfaction they desire. We cannot talk in absolutes- that drug abuse will cease, that no more illegal drugs will cross our borders- because if we are honest with ourselves we know that is beyond our power.” – President Carter

Trends and Events: Reagan and Bush

• Cocaine, Crack, AIDs, a Revived Parents Movement, and 49 States with Minimum Mandatory Sentencing Laws

• Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force– The Medellín Cartel

• National Assets Seizure and Forfeiture Fund (1985)– Money Laundering Control Act of 1986

Reagan and Bush Cont’d

• 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act• Crime Bills Extending Federal Control

– Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 – Crime Control Act of 1990 – Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

• “Just Say No” & Red Ribbon Week• 1988 Anti-Abuse Drug Act

– ONDCP• January 1990- Bush Proposed 50% Increase

in Military Spending and 1.2 Billion for Drug War Aid

Historical Significance

• Same Fear of Addiction Mirrors Early Century/ Always New Drug

• Strict Policy Adaptation Over Tolerance• Growing Link Between

Terrorism/Organized Crime and Narcotics• Escalation of Cost• Continuance of International Crusade• Conflict with Other Nations

Economics and Alternative Economics and Alternative Policy OptionsPolicy Options

Jeffrey Miron• Supply and Demand of Drugs is Constant• Prohibition’s Affect on Demand

– Decrease: Respect for the Law– Increase: Forbidden Fruit– Decrease: Punishment Measures

• Prohibition’s Affect on Supply– Increase Cost of Manufacturing, Transportation, and

Distribution• Other Side Affects

– Increased Corruption, Violent Crime, Income-Generated Crime, Product Quality, Criminal Redistribution, and Higher Cost of Enforcement

Jeffrey Miron Cont’d

• 4 Ways to View Drug Policy– Rational-Consumption – Externalities– Irrational Consumption– Immoral Consumption

• Prohibition: Not the Right Policy Option

The Netherlands (Korf)

• Dutch Policy Base on 3 Principles– Separation of Soft and Hard Drugs– Normalization of Drug Use– Harm Reduction Efforts

• No Single Policy Appropriate For All• Dutch Belief Overly Strict Regulation

Causes Negative Consequences• Severely Punishes Violators• Criticism from Neighboring Countries

Robert Charles

• Terrorism and Narcotics • U.S. Cannot Legalize Narcotics

– Contradiction of Anti-Terrorism Efforts– “As a nation, we must be willing to project

ourselves around the globe diplomatically and militarily, but also to pry ourselves from the sources of terrorist funding we have grown accustomed to overlooking.”

Conclusion

• U.S. Cannot Keep to Current Drug Policy• Suggestions

– Adapt Medical Marijuana Approach– Decriminalize Drug Users– Reallocate Funding Towards Terrorism– Continue Iron Fist to Stop Illegal Drug

Trafficking– Rely More on Negotiation/ Soft Power than

Hard Power When Dealing with Other Nations

References• Charles, Robert B. 2004. Securing the

Nation: Issues in American National Security Since 9/11-Narcotics and Terrorism. Chelsea House: Philadelphia, PA.

• Domestic Council Drug Abuse Task Force. 1975.White Paper on Drug Abuse.

• “Drug War Facts: Crime”. 2007. Common Sense for Drug Policy. \

• Korf, Dirk and Helen Riper, Bruce Burllington. 1999. “Windmills in Their Minds? Drug Policy and Drug Research in the Netherlands”. Journal of Drug Issues. 29(3):451-471.

• Lindblom, Charles. 1959. “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’ “. In Classic Readings in American Politics, ed. Pietro S. Nivola and David H. Rosenbloom. Worth Publishers: New York, New York.

• Miron, Jeffrey. 2001. “The Economics of Drug Prohibition and Drug Legalization”.

• Musto, David, and Pamela Korsmeyer. 2002. The Quest for Drug Control: Politics and Federal Policy in a Period of Increasing Substance Abuse, 1963-1981. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

• Musto, David. 1999. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

• Neustadt, Richard and Ernest May. 1986. Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers. New York, New York: The Free Press.