War On Drugs Unraveled

The War on Drugs dates back to the 1960’s when drugs increasing popularity began. In 1969 Dr. Robert DuPont found that 44% of D.C. jail inhabitants tested positive for heroine. This relates to the fact that half a million people are imprisoned today are behind bars for drug related reasons. So, should these people be imprisoned, or institutionalized for treatments and rehab? The Drug Policy Alliance Network argues that our Drug War does not provide adequate help for people enveloped in drug dealing and/or addiction. They argue that 70% of money going toward the Drug War is spent on police and prisons, where as the other 30% goes toward the education and treatment for drugs. Through this statistic it is argued that jailing people with drug problems is not always the answer seeing as how they will need help to overcome that addiction, not merely imprisonment. Another issue with imprisonment is people getting wrongly charged. For instance, an 18 year old girl was convicted of being part of a drug dealing conspiracy simply for answering the phone call meant for her boyfriend ,the actual dealer, and referring them to him. These kind of instances definitely provide skepticism on whether imprisonment is the right answer.

Obama addresses this point in a speech in September on 2007 when he claims that imprisoning drug abusers will do them absolutely no good. He argues that they will return back into the world depressed and more likely to pick up their addiction or drug dealing profession once more. McCain also agrees that treatment should be an option and that too many first time users are put in jail. He also expresses however that penalties for selling drugs should be increased. This assessment ties closely to whether conviction is necessary. The United States has many new developments that are able to contribute to convicting or revealing drug offenders. For instance, the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration and Federal Bureau of Investigation are undercover operations that posses high technology and somewhat privacy invading instruments (such as telephone logs and electronic surveillance), to pinpoint drug dealers. These technologies, however, have only been used in one incident with Los Angeles gang member of operating Pennsylvania. If the government possesses these technologies, shouldn't they be utilized?

There is also much controversy over whether regulation of drug imports should be enforced. In July of 2001 the House passes a measure easing drug imports for individual use rather than wholesale or pharmaceutical use. On the other hand The Department of Health and Human Sciences has asked the Import Task force to consider limiting countries to which imports come from while also limiting shipments to wholesale agencies. Drug Importation is, of course, a necessary thing considering the need for prescriptive drugs to treat many illnesses; at the same time it is very dangerous because of the many illegal drugs that take the place of the legal drugs in this system. Bush has striven to decrease this danger with the passage of the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act which requires a prescription under a legitimate physician in order to receive medication.

Advocates of putting an end to the Drug War argue that legalization would create dealer's inability to compete with lowering of prices due to increased availability. The impossibility to eliminate drugs is not simply revolving around the profession it provides but also the fact that drugs are needed in many other cases besides pleasure. A main argument revolves around chronic pain killers such as marijuana and opiod analgesics. When asked whether he would support the legalization on marijuana for medical treatment, McCain responded that he would leave the decision up to the states. This response is not very reassuring, in that he doesn't provide his opinion and he leaves a serious issue up to individual states. Obama's position on legalization of marijuana is similarly unclear in that it has fluctuated slightly. He generally comes back to the view that marijuana should be decriminalized. Would the decriminalization of marijuana help chronic pain, or simply expand its use in the street and homes of America? For one, marijuana is not the sole drug that can be used to treat chronic pain. The DEA claims that the United States should be satisfied with using controlled drugs that cause no harm or side effects (such as addiction) to patients. Also, House Representative and retired physician, Joseph Miller, argue that marijuana isn't "a real medicine, nor a pure substance," therefore, stating that it is not exactly necessary to use it in the place of other medications out there.

The candidates have portrayed other vague policies for the Drug War. For example, Obama has made it known that he is a firm supporter of The Combat Meth Act while also supporting funding to fight meth through Byrne Justice Assistance Grants. This support shown by Obama shows that he is interested in improving the situation of the growing drug problem. However, regarding the Bryne Justice Assistance Grants Obama may be a little mislead. He frequently speaks of the racial aspect of drug conviction and this organization he supports is known for their "scrutiny for racial disparities, police corruption, and civil rights abuses" (due to lack of oversight). It is essential to make sure the right organizations are in charge of fighting drug addiction and dealing. McCain seems to have less opinions and views on drug policies but does proclaim that their is no similarity between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition, alluding to the fact that drug prohibition does not bring the problems and unreasonableness that alcohol prohibition brought. The candidates unsureness and/or fluctuation regarding such a large crisis leads to the question of... where will the War on Drugs end up after the next election?