Almost forty years ago, president Nixon declared drugs abuse as a threat to national security or “public enemy number 1,” launching the United States into one of the most costly “wars” its ever fought. The presence and size of federal drug enforcement were increased as long as pushing for mandatory sentencing among other striker jailing laws. When Reagan came into the office, it marked the start of ballooning rates of incarceration and costs due to the expansion of the effort to fight drugs. The publics fear of drug use skyrocketed from single digits to 64% but fell shortly after. After Bill Clinton came into office, he tried to advocate for treatment instead of incarceration but after a few months he found it a lost cause and reverted to the
…show more content…
Although when looking for arguments to back up the war on drugs it’s slim pickings, some cases can be made. When the government says its going to do something it provides a sense of security, albeit false security, to citizens. The government does this for airport security as well. Study after study shows the TSA does not do all that much to prevent terrorist attacks, but travelers feel a sense of safety when they are made to take off their shoes and put there bags in those trays. The same goes for the drug war, even if the current efforts by the government to halt drug abuse have not worked, spending money and putting people in jail may give some people a sense of security. Some other arguments might include the fact that the crime rate in America has gone down in the past 40 years, with rates of homicide, robbery, rape, and assault all decreasing significantly. A plausible and logical argument may be that the crime rate has gone down because of how many people have been incarcerated in the past few decades. These arguments though are invalid, just because something provides a sense of security doesn 't mean that the government should pour millions of dollars into funding. In the case of terrorist prevention, the TSA was not the only thing that had its funding increased. Intelligence was increased to prevent the start of terrorist attacks as well as the increased …show more content…
Outlawing drugs may prevent some people from taking drugs, it causes damage to society as a whole. Many of the issues that come with drug use are actually a direct consequence on the war on drugs itself. Gangs and cartels don 't go to lawyers or the judicial system when a dispute needs to be settled so they are usually ended with violence. Some estimates rate the homicide rate as much as 50 percent higher because of the war on drugs. The huge incarceration the US is also due in part to the harsh laws against non-violent drug offenders. The US has about 5% of the worlds population but somehow has seemed to total to 25% of its prison population (another high monetary cost of the war on drugs). The current system seems to impression minorities at a higher rate than whites with 40% of all prison inmates being African American while white kids are more likely to abuse
Although when looking for arguments to back up the war on drugs it’s slim pickings, some cases can be made. When the government says its going to do something it provides a sense of security, albeit false security, to citizens. The government does this for airport security as well. Study after study shows the TSA does not do all that much to prevent terrorist attacks, but travelers feel a sense of safety when they are made to take off their shoes and put there bags in those trays. The same goes for the drug war, even if the current efforts by the government to halt drug abuse have not worked, spending money and putting people in jail may give some people a sense of security. Some other arguments might include the fact that the crime rate in America has gone down in the past 40 years, with rates of homicide, robbery, rape, and assault all decreasing significantly. A plausible and logical argument may be that the crime rate has gone down because of how many people have been incarcerated in the past few decades. These arguments though are invalid, just because something provides a sense of security doesn 't mean that the government should pour millions of dollars into funding. In the case of terrorist prevention, the TSA was not the only thing that had its funding increased. Intelligence was increased to prevent the start of terrorist attacks as well as the increased …show more content…
Outlawing drugs may prevent some people from taking drugs, it causes damage to society as a whole. Many of the issues that come with drug use are actually a direct consequence on the war on drugs itself. Gangs and cartels don 't go to lawyers or the judicial system when a dispute needs to be settled so they are usually ended with violence. Some estimates rate the homicide rate as much as 50 percent higher because of the war on drugs. The huge incarceration the US is also due in part to the harsh laws against non-violent drug offenders. The US has about 5% of the worlds population but somehow has seemed to total to 25% of its prison population (another high monetary cost of the war on drugs). The current system seems to impression minorities at a higher rate than whites with 40% of all prison inmates being African American while white kids are more likely to abuse