The War On Drugs : The World 's Largest Farming Area

Portugal's success would be the ideal model for Canada to base decriminalization of illicit drugs. Although Canada does not have as much of a drug epidemic that Portugal had before decriminalization, statistics show the country has rising rates of both heroin and meth use. Treating this evident problem with a different approach has been gathering heavy support over the years. Support behind this legal movement in Canada includes the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and the Green Party of Canada. Not only were drugs decriminalized in Portugal, the entire system was reconstructed to aid those addicted. Both the reduce in law enforcement towards illicit drugs and the increase in funding towards treatment paid off greatly for Portugal. Overdose death went down by 72% while the spread of HIV went down by 94%. Canada has prioritized the war on drugs, although the method being followed does not prove effective. It might prove better to abandon this current war in favour for public health, following Portugal's lead in providing harm reduction treatment and treating the addiction as the public health crisis that it

For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.

“Drug policy regarding the control of the traditional illicit substances (opiates, cocaine, cannabis) is currently moving through upbeat times in almost all Western countries. Prohibition on the basis of repressive law enforcement not only seems to fail on a large scale, but also to create vast additional costs, problems, and harm for drug consumers, who often find themselves in extreme social, economic, and health conditions” (Fischer 1995: 389).

When concerned with the ethics of development in a global environment, the issue of drug abuse is of particular importance. All of the different aspects of the drug trade impact a nation, and specifically the development of a nation within a global environment. Within the United States, drug abuse has been prevalent among specific populations in society for almost a half of a century now. Historically speaking, drug abuse has erupted in many directions; new drugs have offered new markets, new trends have developed new habits. These patterns have become societal concerns on many levels. The creation of new drugs has added another dimension to prescriptive drug abuse. Though science is making

The political background leading to decriminalization was the sense that drug abuse had become an uncontrollable social problem and the main barriers to effectively manage the problem were lack of adequate treatment resources and the financial drain of the criminal justice approach.4 In other words, decriminalization was precipitated by the consensus perception that it was a huge problem, criminalization was making it worse, and decriminalization could enable an effective government response. An extensive study by an elite commission, Comissão para a Estratégia Nacional de Combate à Droga (Commission for a National Anti-Drug Strategy), was created “in response to a rapidly rising drug problem in the 1990s, principally, but not exclusively, involving heroin use.”5

Social conflicts and struggles are an inevitable part of any society in any country. These struggles can include an increased rate in crime, unemployment, domestic/general violence, and overall civilian depression. When governments cannot seem to find a means to an end, they often turn and look for something to blame for their struggles, and that thing is more often than not, drugs. For many years, several opiates and drugs were primarily used for medicinal purposes, were seen to have an abundance of health benefits and was widely accepted among communities. Although, with the increasing social conflicts and economic conditions, authorities turned to and targeted many different forms of once accepted drugs, and made them the scapegoat for the problems they were facing.

In order to find an alternative to the United States current drug policy, it is helpful to look at the current options. Governments typically take three broad approaches toward drugs. The first is legalization, in which possession and sale are lawful but still subject to regulation and taxation. The second is criminalization, which consists of the banning of possession and sale with criminal punishment (i.e incarceration). Lastly, there is the combination of the two—where sale and possession are prohibited, yet possession is punishable only by sanctions, such as fines or abuse treatment but not jail time.

The drug war in the U.S. has been waged on civil fronts for over four decades and has not only proven to be not only futile but at times even more damaging to society than the drugs themselves. The once virtuous intent of this ‘war’ has been corrupted by police unions and dirty politicians who have turned it into a carefully crafted system of capitalistic enterprise, designed push their political agenda by perpetuating the myth that drugs are the primary threat to our nation. Zero tolerance laws and strict prohibition have failed to achieve their goal of eliminating the supply and demand for drugs. In contrast, legalization in the Netherlands and Europe has already been in place for several years now, and with great success. Portugal has lived with 14 years of full legalization after their government admitted to both the futility, and counter-productive failure of their drug war. Income that was used to imprison part of the population is now being used to educate, counsel, and rehabilitate those who are caught in possession of substances. The U.S. government must also come to realize that their efforts to fight this invisible war have in reducing drug use, while at the same time, escalating violence, intensifying racism, and creating broken homes and families. The best way to demolish this corrupt system is through the legalization of all class B drugs along with the use, but not the production, or trafficking of all Class A drugs.

Despite the great investments in the War on Drugs, such efforts can be seen to be causing more harm than good. These attempts have further failed to meet its objectives, given that the drug menace continues to persist. The efforts are characterized by federal and local law enforcement agencies constantly engaged in implementation activities such as cracking down on traffickers, dealers and users of the drugs, in the endeavor to stem the movement of the narcotics.

Portugal is the perfect example of why the drug war should end, in 2001 Portugal was a country with a drug problem in Europe with over 1% of its population having a heroin addiction (Zeeshan, 2015) and the president decided to take action by decriminalizing all drugs. How Portugal handles its citizens with drug problems is very interesting and thought out. If you are caught with a small supply of drugs you are sent to a commission for the Dissuasion of Drug addiction. Here social workers, lawyers, and medical professionals will help you with treatment rather than jail time. Before taking action Portugal had over 40 HIV

It goes without saying that the influx of drugs in America has resulted in legislative actions to halt the consumption, possession, and sales of most drugs. The extent to these measures are better known as “The War on Drugs;” a term coined in June of 1971 by former President Richard Nixon. The war on drugs is indeed a war; it induces biased, civil attacks on minority groups in America, executed by law enforcement officials through criminal racism. In the course of my paper, I will explain the facts and details that prove the war on drugs is nothing but merely scapegoating minorities on American soil.

Drug crises have regularly taken center stage in American politics and crime control policies beginning with the heroin epidemic of the 1960’s. The main doctrine in the United States drug policy has been “legalism” since the 1980’s. Penalties toward criminals have emphasized the drug policies and deterrence over prevention and treatment as control mechanisms. This in turn causes a pop-up effect, meaning new problems are more likely to arise elsewhere. For example, resources have shifted from the treatment of users who are susceptible for HIV transmission through high-risk sexual activity, to criminal punishments for low-level crack users. The deterrence strategies have not been successful in reducing drug use from the decades of legalistic

1188). Per Hart and Ksir (2015) the government drug control efforts have made no change on drug use during the last decade. “The supplies of cocaine, heroin and marijuana have not dried up; in fact, they have increased” (Hart & Ksir, 2015, p. 71). Becker and Murphy (2013), University of Chicago economics professors, refer to the “War on Drugs” as a long and enormously destructive policy experiment that we all should push to an end. For a possible end to the “War on Drugs,” they suggest to decriminalize all drug possession like Portugal since 2001. Likewise, Hart and Ksir (2015) refers to Portugal to point out how other groups have suggested that the approach may work for the United states focusing on providing money for prevention and treatment instead on for more prisons. This has led states such as Colorado and Washington to turn against the “War on Drugs” decriminalizing marijuana making it legal not only for medical but also for recreational use.

The war on drugs has mainly been led by the national drug control whose; strategies have not been changed significantly since 1989, when it issued its initial annual strategy volume. The initial strategies of the NDC were aimed at controlling the overall usage of drugs and initiating reduction and management at every level, including casual users and addicts. In addition, the agency aimed at the reduction of hospital admissions by addressing import availability and local production of drugs.

Drug use has been problematized since the early 1900s through the Shanghai International Opium Commission; however in 1961 the United Nations was the one that established the need for drug control internationally through the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs. The phenomenon surround intravenous drug use and addiction are problematized in way that leads to a strategy of social control of supervised injection sites (SIS) because the government cannot get rid of drug users from the city, as “previous efforts to tackle “the drug problem” by way of repression had not only proven ineffective, but were increasingly perceived to worsen these negative consequence” (Fischer, et al., 2004, p. 363). Supervised injection sites may also be well described as a ““late 20th century postmodern form of social control that targets categories of people using actuarial techniques... and develops specific locales for prevention rather