No Bank Is Too Big For Jail, But None Of The Executives Faced Any Prison Time

In the past forty years, the United States has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars funding enforcement and prevention in the fight against drug use in America (Suddath). Despite the efforts made towards cracking down on drug smugglers, growers, and suppliers, statistics show that addiction rates have remained unchanged and the number of people using illegal drugs is increasing daily (Sledge). Regardless of attempts to stem the supply of drugs, the measure and quality of drugs goes up while the price goes down (Koebler). Now with the world’s highest incarceration rates and greatest illegal drug consumption (Sledge), the United States proves that the “war on drugs” is a war that is not being won.

Through my research I have found our involvement in the drug world follows the same theme that seems to recur with our government and their policies. We talk a good game that formulates a structure and a well-worded policy that appears to be in the best interest of American citizens and foreigners alike. However we also aid these countries. The problem doesn’t lie within our policies or the simple compassion from our government that drugs hurt our society. The problems occur with those that implement and enforce these policies. Cocaine and its market cannot be eradicated. The efforts of many of our political leaders have been futile because of the supply and demand of the product. In 1989, President Bush had a plan that he called, “The cheapest and safest way to eradicate narcotics” (Menzel pg.43). The result was the following,

The United States of America has been more or less victorious in every war this nation has been involved in since the beginning of modern American history except one, the war on drugs. What makes this war uniquely terrifying is the fact that this is the first modern age war to be fought on American soil. Just in the year 2014 the war on drugs claimed a little over seven times as many American lives as pearl harbor and 9/11 combined. However, the death toll isn’t the only thing that’s rising. Each year the cost of waging this war climbs higher and higher. Over the past four decades the United States as poured over one trillion dollars into fighting drugs inside our own boarders, relying on taxpayers to supply the capital. While the Obama administration assured Americans the border was

The current way the government handles the war on drugs is ineffective and costs America so much(becker and murphy C.1).

In the past 40 years, the American government has spent more than $2.5 trillion dollars on the war against drugs. The huge expenditure has been coupled by numerous the ad campaigns, clean-up on smuggling, and increase in illicit drug users and incarceration rates. Actually, the increase in illicit drug users currently stands at 19.9 million in the United States with huge supplies from Mexico. With the increase in both the expenditure and number of illegal drug users, there have been huge concerns regarding the country's war on drugs. The main question is why the United States can continue spending much money on this war while it can legalize and tax the supply of drugs. The most appropriate and effective measure for tackling the problem of drugs is through legalizing and collecting taxes than spending huge amounts in stopping the flow of the commodities to America.

In 1971 Nixon declared his “War on Drugs”, stating that drugs are “America’s public enemy number one.” Although drugs were illegal long before Nixon, his war on drugs was the beginning of the Unites State’s drug policy as it exists today. In 1973, Nixon went on to create the Drug Enforcement Agency, otherwise known as the DEA, in order to rage “an all-out global war on the drug menace” (Suddath, “Brief History: The War on Drugs.”). This set the stage for what is now nearly 45 years of this “war” in an attempt to stop both the use of drugs and the harms they cause to the country. As such, the aim of this policy, as with most political policies, was to improve the United States, and create a

Among highly developed nations, the United States is known for its stringent illegal drug use policy and the high percentages of its population that have consumed illegal substances. The United States has issued a drug war against millions of Americans who use and sell illegal substances. This war has cost taxpayers billions annually and continues to contribute to an incarceration rate that surpasses any other country (Walmsley 2009). Although, stringent policies have lowered the decline in U.S drug consumption since the 1970’s, the war on drugs in the United States has not succeeded in changing America from being the world leaders in use rates for illegal drugs.

Before reading this, I had no idea that the drug war started because of such blatant politics. I originally thought it was conceived out of mistaken altruism and as a response to increased drug traffic from the South Americas. This made me a little bit more cynical when it came to policy, as literally anything politically related probably has less to do with helping the average citizen, but instead helping a politician stay in power and grow wealth.

The prohibition of drugs fails to create the greatest maximum amount of happiness for the greatest number of individuals. Many issues arise with the prohibition of drugs such as, black markets, and unnecessary imprisonments. Black Markets create a rise in crime because buyers, and sellers can’t solve their disputes in court, or with lawyers. The buyer, or seller then turns to violence to solve their disputes. Milton Friedman paper Its “Time to End the War on Drugs” mentions that informants are required for drug crimes, because neither the buyer or seller will be willing to, or have the “incentive to report a violation of the law”. He also mentions in the paper that the use of informants is costly, and the chance of corruption rises. Informants,

In 1971, Richard Nixon declared a war against drugs. Today, it still continues to be a huge failure, leading to mass incarceration in the U.S., corruption, violence and human rights abuses across the world. The DEA, or Drug Enforcement Administration, focuses on eliminating the supply of drugs and incarcerating drug traffickers. This strategy is inefficient because of supply and demand. If one attempts to eliminate the supply, then new ways will be found or new producers will produce due to demand. An example would be crystal meth. the U.S. government tried to stop crystal meth’s production by outlawing or regulating the sales of chemicals required to make it (“Controlled Substances Act”). In response, thousands of small-scale meth production labs popped up using unregulated chemicals. The U.S. then regulated those chemicals, which then only let the cartel, of whom have more experience and skill, to take over. With a less than 1% success rate, the DEA is still being funded around 30 billion dollars (Performance Budget). The reason most of the drugs in the U.S. are illegal are due to racist ties, this includes heroin (opium), marijuana, and cocaine. The U.S. should end the war on drugs and instead focus on the rehabilitation and discharge of drug abusers, users and dealers.

Some of the arguments for legalizing the sale and possession of drugs have been made on purely economic grounds. Staggeringly large sums of money are being generated through the illegal drug trade. All of this money escapes direct taxation. If an excise tax, like those placed on alcohol and cigarettes, billions of dollars would become available for public projects. The U.S. department of Health and Human Services’ agency SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Reagan administration spent 1.65 billion, and in 2000 the Clinton administration spent more than 17.4 billion dollars in the War on Drugs.(17) Despite all this spending, drugs still flow freely in our society. America has always had a tremendous demand for illegal drugs. Simple economic principals show that when there is a demand for a product, somebody will supply it; even if that means that there is a chance he will be incarcerated. Many people do go to jail, approximately 236,800 people are expected to be incarcerated for drug law violations in 2001, however history has shown us that in the War on Drugs there is always somebody willing to take the place of

The global War on Drugs has existed for four decades as a movement of prohibition of drugs with military intervention with the aim to decrease the illegal drug trade. Nevertheless, instead of avoiding growing of drug supply and demand, the war brings about many unintentional consequences that include the creation of a profitable illicit market and mass incarceration. This criminal market caused variety of negative impacts on the economy. In this paper, I will argue that the War on Drugs is costing billions of tax dollars and a misuse of government budget.

According to Michelle Alexander, why and how has the “war on drugs” developed over the last 40 years? What are the main political and economic factors that led to the war on drugs, and what are the main political and economic factors that shaped it as it developed over the last four decades? Draw on material from the Foner textbook chapters 25 through 28 to supplement Alexander’s discussion of the political and economic context.

The “War on Drugs” is the name given to the battle of prohibition that the United States has been fighting for over forty years. And it has been America’s longest war. The “war” was officially declared by President Richard Nixon in the 1970’s due to the abuse of illegitimate drugs. Nixon claimed it as “public enemy number one” and enacted laws to fight the importation of narcotics. The United States’ War on Drugs began in response to cocaine trafficking in the late 1980’s. As the war continues to go on, winning it hardly seems feasible. As stated by NewsHour, the National Office of Drug Control Policy spends approximately nineteen billion dollars a year trying to stop the drug trade. The expenses shoot up, indirectly, through crime,