The United States War on Drugs America is at war.ï¿½ We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century.ï¿½ Four Presidents have personally waged war on drugs.ï¿½ Unfortunately, it is a war that we are losing.ï¿½ Drug abusers continue to fill our courts, hospitals, and prisons.ï¿½ The drug trade causes violent crime that ravages our neighborhoods.ï¿½ Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned.ï¿½ The only beneficiaries of this war are organized crime members and drug dealers. The United States has focused its efforts on the criminalization of drug use.ï¿½ The government has, to no avail, spent countless billions of dollars in efforts to eradicate the supply of drugs.ï¿½ Efforts of interdiction and law enforcement have not been met with decreases in the availability of drugs in America.ï¿½ Apart from being highly costly, drug law enforcement has been counterproductive.ï¿½ Current drug laws need to be relaxed.ï¿½ The United States needs to shift spending from law enforcement and penalization to education, treatment, and prevention.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ History of U S Drug Policy ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Drugs first surfaced in the United States in the 1800ï¿½s.ï¿½ Opium became very popular after the American Civil War.ï¿½ Cocaine followed in the 1880ï¿½s.ï¿½ Coca was popularly used in health drinks and remedies.ï¿½ Morphine was discovered in 1906 and used for medicinal purposes.ï¿½ Heroin was used to treat respiratory illness, cocaine was used in Coca-Cola, and morphine was regularly prescribed by doctors as a pain reliever.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The turn of the century witnessed a heightened awareness that psychotropic drugs have a great potential for causing addiction.ï¿½ The abuse of opium and cocaine at the end of the 19th century reached epidemic proportions.ï¿½ Local governments began prohibiting opium dens and opium importation.ï¿½ In 1906 the Pure Food and Drug Act required all physicians to accurately label their medicines.ï¿½ Drugs were no longer seen as harmless remedies for aches and pains.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The Harrison Narcotics Act, passed in 1914, was the United Statesï¿½ first federal drug policy.ï¿½ The act restricted the manufacture and sale of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and morphine.ï¿½ The act was aggressively enforced.ï¿½ Physicians, who were prescribing drugs to addicts on ï¿½maintenanceï¿½ programs were harshly punished.ï¿½ Between 1915 and 1938, more than 5,000 physicians were convicted and fined or jailed (Trebach, 1982, p. 125.)ï¿½ In 1919, The Supreme Court ruled against the maintenance of addicts as a legitimate form of treatment in Webb et al. v. United States.ï¿½ Americaï¿½s first federal drug policy targeted physicians and pharmacists.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ In 1930, the Treasury Department created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.ï¿½ Harry J. Anslinger headed the agency until 1962 and molded Americaï¿½s drug policy.ï¿½ Under his tenure, drugs were increasingly criminalized.ï¿½ The Boggs Act of 1951 drastically increased the penalties for marijuana use.ï¿½ The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 created ï¿½the most punitive and repressive anti-narcotics legislation ever adopted by Congress.ï¿½ All discretion to suspend sentences or permit probation was eliminated.ï¿½ Parole was allowed only for first offenders convicted of possession, and the death penalty could be invoked for anyone who sold heroin to a minor (McWilliams, 1990, p.116).ï¿½ï¿½ Anslinger was critical of judges for being too easy on drug dealers and called for longer minimum sentences.ï¿½ He established a punitive drug policy with a focus on drug law enforcement.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The Federal Bureau of Narcotics also used propaganda as a preventative measure.ï¿½ They created myths and horror stories about drugs.ï¿½ Marijuana was blamed for bizarre cases of insanity, murder, and sex crimes.ï¿½ Anslinger said that marijuana caused some people to ï¿½fly into a delirious rage and many commit violent crimes (McWilliams, 1990, P. 70).ï¿½ï¿½ It is puzzling that Anslinger and the FBN fabricated such tales, while there existed less dramatic, but true horror stories connected to drug abuse.ï¿½ The propaganda of the 1940ï¿½s and 1950ï¿½s was often so far fetched that people simply didnï¿½t believe the governmentï¿½s warnings about drugs.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The 1960ï¿½s gave birth to a rebellious movement that popularized drug use.ï¿½ The counterculture made marijuana fashionable on college campuses.ï¿½ Other ï¿½hippiesï¿½ sought to expand their minds with the use of hallucinogens like LSD.ï¿½ Many soldiers returned from the Vietnam War with marijuana and heroin habits.ï¿½ In short, the demand for drugs in America skyrocketed in the 1960ï¿½s.

The Johnson Administration, in reaction to a sharp rise in drug abuse, passed the Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966.ï¿½ The act specified that ï¿½narcotic addictionï¿½ was a mental illness.ï¿½ The law recognized that the disease concept of alcoholism also applied to drug addiction.ï¿½ Drug use, however, was still considered a crime.ï¿½ The act did not have a major impact because the small amount of funding that was appropriated for treatment couldnï¿½t meet the increasing demand for drugs in the late 1960ï¿½s and early 1970ï¿½s.ï¿½ The act did pave the road for federal expenditures on drug abuse treatment.

The Modern Drug War In 1971 President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs.ï¿½ He proclaimed, ï¿½Americaï¿½s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse.ï¿½ In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive(Sharp, 1994, p.1).ï¿½ï¿½ Nixon fought drug abuse on both the supply and demand fronts.ï¿½ Nixonï¿½s drug policies reflect both the temperance view and disease view of addiction. Nixon initiated the first significant federal funding of treatment programs in.ï¿½ In 1971, the government funded the then experimental and enormously controversial methadone maintenance program.ï¿½ In June 1971, Nixon addressed Congress and declared, ï¿½as long as there is a demand, there will be those willing to take the risks of meeting the demand (Sharp, 1994, p.27).ï¿½ï¿½ In this statement he publicly proclaimed that all efforts of interdiction and eradication are destined to fail.

Unfortunately, Nixon failed to listen to his own advice.ï¿½ Nixon launched a massive interdiction effort in Mexico.ï¿½ The Drug Enforcement Agency was created in 1973.ï¿½ They initiated Operation Intercept, which pressured Mexico to regulate its marijuana growers.ï¿½ The U S government spent hundreds of millions of dollars closing up the border.ï¿½ Trade between Mexico and the U S came to a virtual standstill.ï¿½ Mass amounts of Mexican crops headed for the U S rotted, while waiting in line at the border.ï¿½ In the end, Nixon achieved his goal of curtailing the supply of Mexican marijuana in America.ï¿½ Columbia, however, was quick to replace Mexico as Americaï¿½s marijuana supplier.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The interdiction of Mexican marijuana was the governmentï¿½s first lesson in the ï¿½iron law of drug economics (Rosenberger, 1996, p.22).ï¿½ï¿½ Every effort the U S government has made at interdiction since Operation Intercept has at most resulted in a reorganization of the international drug trade.ï¿½ Heavily monitored drug routes have been rerouted.ï¿½ Drugs enter the United States through land, sea, and air.ï¿½ Closing our borders to drug smugglers is an impossibility as long as the demand exists.

In 1977 President Carter called for the decriminalization of marijuana.ï¿½ In a speech to Congress he said, ï¿½penalties against possession of the drug should not be more damaging than the drug itself (Rosenberger, 1996, p25).ï¿½ï¿½ Although Carter endorsed lenient laws towards marijuana use, he was against legalization.ï¿½ Carterï¿½s drug policy was focused on the supply front, with most funding going to interdiction and eradication programs.ï¿½ Marijuana decriminalization did not fail, but failed to be realized.ï¿½ Carterï¿½s presidency witnessed a sharp increase in cocaine use.ï¿½ From 1978 to 1984, cocaine consumption in America increased from between 19 and 25 tons to between 71 and 137 tons.ï¿½ The demand for cocaine increased as much as 700 percent in just six years (Collett, 1989, p.

35).ï¿½ Marijuana was widely connected to cocaine as a feeder drug.ï¿½ Thus, the federal and state governments moved away from marijuana decriminalization. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ In 1981, President Reagan gave a speech mirroring Nixonï¿½s admission that fighting the supply side of the drug war was a losing proposition.ï¿½ He said, ï¿½Itï¿½s far more effective if you take the customers away than if you try to take the drugs away from those who want to be customers.ï¿½ï¿½ Reagan, like Nixon did not heed is own advice. The average annual amount of funding for eradication and interdiction programs increased from an annual average of $437 million during Carterï¿½s presidency to $1.4 billion during Reaganï¿½s first term.ï¿½ The funding for programs of education, prevention, and rehabilitation were cut from an annual average of $386 million to $362 million (Rosenberger, 1996, p. 26).

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Reaganï¿½s demand side initiatives focused on ï¿½getting toughï¿½ on drugs.ï¿½ The program became known as the ï¿½zero toleranceï¿½ program, where punitive measures against users were emphasized.ï¿½ The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse gave the drug user full accountability.ï¿½ Drug users were to be prosecuted for possession and accordingly penalized.ï¿½ Although some block grants were given for drug treatment, the rehabilitative efforts were insufficient to meet the overwhelming amount of drug abuse.ï¿½ Reaganï¿½s demand side drug policy largely reflects the colonial, or moralist view of addiction.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Despite headlining innovative drug policies, Clinton has largely continued the Republicanï¿½s supply sided drug policy.ï¿½ In the 1995 budget, Clinton earmarked an extra $1 billion for both the demand and supply fronts of the governmentï¿½s drug policy.ï¿½ Clinton attracted the mediaï¿½s attention when he doubled the spending for rehabilitation and prevention programs.ï¿½ However, more substantial increases were made for eradication programs and law enforcement.ï¿½ The 1995 budget included $13.2 billion for drug policy.ï¿½ $7.8 billion was spent on supply sided efforts, while only $5.4 billion was spent on education, prevention, and rehabilitation.ï¿½ Although Clinton did increase the percentage spent on the demand front of the drug war, his policy clearly reflects supply sided tactics (Rosenberger, 1996, p. 51).

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ It is important to note that Congress has a significant influence on shaping Americaï¿½s drug policy.ï¿½ The Republican 104th Congress successfully killed many of Clintonï¿½s attempts to spend more on the demand side.ï¿½ Even the Democratic 103rd Congress of the early 1990ï¿½s fought shifting the drug policy towards prevention and rehabilitation.ï¿½ Both Democratic and Republic Congresses overwhelmingly favored continuing with supply sided efforts.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Although Clinton didnï¿½t significantly change the direction of U S drug policy he presented some innovative proposals.ï¿½ Clinton encouraged Community Action Programs and grass roots organizations to participate in the demand side of the drug war.ï¿½ However, of the $1 billion given to the Community Empowerment Program only $50 million was allocated to drug education, prevention, and treatment (Rosenberger, 1

996, p.

63).ï¿½ Thus, the potential of the programs was never realized.ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The Drug Debate ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The proponents of drug policy canï¿½t be classified as Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right, Democratic, or Republican.ï¿½ Many Liberals and Democrats, such as the 103rd Congress favor drug criminalization and supply sided efforts, while some Conservatives, such as Milton Friedman and William Buckley favor drug legalization.ï¿½ There are, however, three prevailing views on addiction in America, which have derived from Americaï¿½s views of alcoholism.ï¿

½ The Colonial or Moralist view considers the drug user to be sinful and morally defective.ï¿½ The drug itself is not the problem.ï¿½ The moralistï¿½s drug policy entails punitive measures for users.ï¿½ Drug use is a crime.ï¿½ Reaganï¿½s ï¿½zero toleranceï¿½ policy on drug use is an excellent example of a moralist drug policy.

Second, the Temperance view considers the drug itself, as an addictive substance and the cause of addiction.ï¿½ The supply of drugs is a public hazard.ï¿½ According to the temperance view, drug policy should focus on drug smugglers and drug dealers as the root of drug addiction.ï¿½ U S drug policy has largely been influenced by the temperance view of addiction.

Third, the disease concept views addiction as being a treatable disease.ï¿½ Neither the drug user, nor the drug supplier is responsible drug addiction.ï¿½ The disease concept calls for a drug policy that focuses on drug treatment and rehabilitation.ï¿½ Clinton, for example embraced the disease concept and increased funding for treatment programs.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ There has been continuous and widespread debate about drug policy since Nixon waged Americaï¿½s first war on drugs.ï¿½ Remarkably, the issues have changed very little.ï¿½ In fact,ï¿½ U S drug policy hasnï¿½t had many significant changes over the last 30 years.ï¿½ The U S has long endorsed a supply sided drug policy.ï¿½ Most of the funding has gone to interdiction and eradication efforts.ï¿½ These measures have failed and continue to fail.ï¿½ The United States needs to significantly shift its funding towards education, prevention, and treatment.ï¿½ Thus, America needs to decriminalize drug use.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Firstly, decriminalization does not imply drug legalization.ï¿½ Drug trafficking and drug dealing need to remain criminal activities.ï¿½ Punitive drug laws on drug users need to be relaxed.ï¿½ Of the 750,000 drug law offenses in 1995, 75% of them were merely for use (Nadelmann, 1991, p. 20).ï¿½ Habitual drug use offenders, who are usually addicts face heavy fines and long prison sentences.ï¿½ Drug law enforcement and incarceration are extremely costly and counterproductive.ï¿½ Addicts have the potential to be treated.ï¿½ The appropriate response is rehabilitation.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that in 1993 as many as 2.5 million drug-users could have benefited from treatment.ï¿½ Only about 1.4 million users were treated in 1993.ï¿½ Almost half of the nationï¿½s addicts were ignored.ï¿½ The government spent only $2.5 billion on treatment programs compared to $7.8 billion on drug law enforcement.ï¿½ The government needs to shift its funding from costly, unproductive drug eradication programs to meet treatment demands.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Decriminalization does not imply opening up our borders to drug suppliers and tolerating violent drug syndicates.ï¿½ The supply side of the drug war should be reduced, not ignored.ï¿½ Violent drug gangs and large-scale drug suppliers should be targeted instead of the drug user and the small time dealer.ï¿½ Although spending less on interdiction will inevitably make it easier to smuggle drugs into the U S, there is no evidence that the demand for drugs will significantly rise.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ There have been some victories in the drug war.ï¿½ Every addict who through federally funded treatment programs and rehabilitation becomes sober is a victory.ï¿½ The benefits are endless.ï¿½ Addicts, who treat their disease often reenter society and become productive workers.ï¿½ Recovering addicts are able to parent their children and are positive and powerful examples in their community.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ In order to decriminalize drugs, society has to abandon the puritanical idea that drug users are morally defective.ï¿½ The government, which has already publicly acknowledged the disease concept of addiction, needs to focus its drug policies on the demand side.ï¿½ The U S government can only relieve drug abuse by treating our addicts through rehabilitation and preventing the use of drugs through education.ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ Losing Effort: The United States' War on Drugs - CreditLoan.com® Losing Effort: The United States' War on Drugs Daniel Wesley Which country do you think is most to blame for illegal drug use across the globe? Is it Columbia, which is a major producer of cocaine? How about Afghanistan, the world’s largest producer of opium? Or maybe it’s the Netherlands, a leading producer of such synthetic drugs as ecstasy?

Try the United States. If consumers in the United States didn’t have such an appetite for cocaine, heroin and marijuana, the globe's major drug-producing countries wouldn’t have such financially stirring reasons for producing these illegal substances. In fact, residents of the United States like more than just their apple pie. They are the world’s largest consumers of cocaine, Colombian heroin, Mexican heroin and marijuana. So if you want to point a finger at the causes of the global drug trade, look no further than the United States. A Costly, and Losing, Effort You can blame Richard Nixon for the United States’ long and costly war on drugs. The former president was the first to utter the infamous words “war on drugs.” Of course, Nixon didn't spend all that much on fighting drug use in the United States. His initial drug-fighting budget weighed in at just $100 million. That may seem like a lot of money. But compared to the tons of money the United States now spends in its war on drugs, $100 million is practically chicken feed. If you want to see just how much money the country spends on this un-winnable war, click here for the infographic .

You might be surprised at how much the country is paying to make it harder for criminals to smuggle drugs past the United States’ borders. The projected budget for the war on drugs in fiscal year 2011, approved by the Obama Administration, stands at a whopping $15.6 billion. And that’s just the beginning of how much fighting drugs costs the country. Four Decades, Billions of Dollars The United States openly declared a war on drugs about 40 years ago. Since that time, the country has spent a rather staggering $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million non-violent drug offenders. There’s a lot of debate about whether arresting these people actually does any good. Many would argue that these folks need rehabilitation more than incarceration. But what no one can dismiss is that jailing these offenders sure is costly. It has cost the United States, over the last four decades, more than $450 billion to lock these nonviolent offenders in federal prisons. And here’s another shocking fact: More than half of the country’s federal prisoners today are serving sentences for drug offenses. This puts an incredible strain on the country’s prison systems and on taxpayers. But few people seem to care. How about you?

Are you happy to be paying taxes so privately run prisons can make money incarcerating your neighbors for using drugs? Are Times Changing? The truth is, few politicians will ever push for spending less on this failing war on drugs. That’s a bit like committing political suicide. Their opponents in upcoming election campaigns would tag them as being soft on crime. They might even say that they’re not concerned about young people experimenting with dangerous drugs. But shouldn’t more of the United States’ money be spent on rehabilitating drug offenders? Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to provide drug offenders with therapy and counseling? These approaches certainly would cost less than incarceration. But, then again, the U.S. voters like to see their drug users thrown behind bars. And until this changes, don’t expect many, if any, politicians to suddenly develop a backbone and call for reworking the costly and failing war on drugs. There are elections to win, after all. Sources: Learn More About Consumer Finance Get help navigating complicated consumer finance issues Increase your credit level Sorry about that. We'd love to hear from you. Help us improve. Give us your feedback: Tell us what you think Thank you for your feedback. We're glad you liked it. Be sure to share below!

Enjoyed This Article? Share it with your friends! 5 Shares Since 1998, we've been helping to educate millions of consumers on financial issues while providing the tools and solutions they need to effectively manage these issues. ©2017 Credit Loan, LLC Consumer Alerts • Sitemap • Copyright • Email opt-out THE OPERATOR OF THIS WEBSITE IS NOT A LENDER, does not broker loans to lenders and does not make/fund any product offerings, loans or credit decisions. This Website does not constitute an offer or solicitation to lend. This site will securely submit the information you provide to a lender. Providing your information on this Website does not guarantee approval for a product offering. CreditLoan.com may change from time to time without notice. For details, questions or concerns regarding your application, please contact your lender directly. Lenders will at their discretion perform credit checks with the three credit reporting bureaus: Experian, Equifax or Trans Union. The informational content contained on or linked to this site is for convenience only and CreditLoan.com does not guarantee the accuracy of such information. Because all financial decisions must be fact dependent and based on your individual circumstances, you should consult with a financial professional before making any financial decisions.

CreditLoan.com shall not be responsible for any financial actions taken by you in response to the content of this site. Credit Loan, LLC 235 Apollo Beach Blvd, STE 218 Apollo Beach, FL 33572 Infelicitous 40: The Anniversary of the U.S.’s War on Drugs – COHA COHA 13125 9 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2F Infelicitous 40: The Anniversary of the U.S.’s War on Drugs Since its inception in 1971, the U.S.’s war on drugs has cost more than USD one trillion, [1] yet it has failed to rein in the drug epidemic. The war on drugs has dramatically overcrowded prisons in the U.S., which now has a higher incarceration rate than any other country in the world. [2] The U.S.’s rabid demand for drugs and Mexican cartels’ demand for U.S. weapons have exacerbated drug-related violence and corruption in Mexico and Central America. Despite exhortations from academics and politicians, the current administration refuses to allow any intellectual space for debate on U.S. drug policy.

June 17, 2011 marked a little-known, yet significant, anniversary in U.S. history – the U.S.’s war on drugs turned an infelicitous 40. Four decades, one trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives later, we must pause and reevaluate not only whether this war’s costly means justify its ends, but if its methods actually work. The Ill-Fated Origins of the War on Drugs President Richard Nixon initiated the “war on drugs” in June 1971, when he denounced drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” [3] With this pronouncement, he catapulted the country into a decades-long stalemate founded largely on fallacious data, virulent prejudices and ill-calibrated policies. Despite personally appointing the members of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, President Nixon refused to read the 1972 report in which the authors advocated decriminalizing marijuana for personal use.

[4] , [5] Instead, he categorized marijuana as a Schedule I substance, an official classification for narcotics with “high potential for abuse [and] no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” [6] Shortly thereafter, in July 1973, President Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to consolidate government agencies and coordinate the war on drugs. [7] Throughout the remainder of the ‘70s and into the ‘80s, U.S. drug policy vacillated with changes in national leadership and societal mindsets. In the 1970s, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession. [8] Notably, President Jimmy Carter’s 1977 election platform included a proposal to decriminalize marijuana and channel residual anti-drug hysteria toward creating addiction treatment programs. [9] Conversely, from 1981 to 1989, President Ronald Reagan intensified the war on drugs through measures such as the 1984 “Just Say No” campaign, spearheaded by First Lady Nancy Reagan, and the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which appropriated USD 1.7 billion to the anti-drug war.

[10] The attention and resources that the Reagan administration devoted to the war on drugs caused incarceration rates to skyrocket. A Pricey Policy Flop Since 1971, this forgotten war has glutted itself on over USD one trillion. In 2010 alone, Washington spent over USD 51 billion fighting the war on drugs. [11] The federal and state governments have thrown billions of dollars at prosecuting young, first time, or non-violent drug policy offenders, rather than devoting these resources to rooting out the true sources of drug addiction. For example, New York City is the marijuana arrest capital of the world, and the state’s taxpayers spent USD 75 million [12] on the 50,383 marijuana possession arrests made in 2010. Yet, the Marijuana Reform Act of 1977 decriminalized possession in New York. [13] Even the most staunch anti-drug advocates must acknowledge that it is more economically sound to fine non-violent offenders for mere possession of marijuana, thereby at least bringing in some revenue, rather than wasting public funds on thousands of unnecessary arrests and court cases.

Despite its astronomical price tag, the war on drugs has not significantly mitigated drug abuse in the United States. Prohibition has not decreased the ubiquity of drugs, as 42% of the country’s adults have tried marijuana at least once. [14] Actually, drug abuse has increased in the past decade. From 1998 to 2008, opiate use in the U.S. rose by 34.5%, cocaine use rose by 27% and cannabis use rose by 8.5%. [15] And, lamentably, as of 2008 drug overdoses comprised the second leading cause of accidental death in the United States. [16] These collected statistics reveal that as long as demand remains, traffickers will manage to smuggle drugs into the country. The War on Drugs’ Domestic Repercussions The most blatant indicator of the war on drugs’ failure has been the deterioration of U.S. prisons, which are often horrifically overcrowded and devastatingly expensive to maintain. Although the U.S. is home to less than 5% of the total world population, its jails hold almost 25% of the planet’s inmates.

[17] In 1980, approximately 50,000 U.S. citizens were placed behind bars for drug-related offenses. This figure has risen by an alarming 1,100%, as now over half a million U.S. citizens are incarcerated for drug-related crimes. [18] Furthermore, 46% of all of the drug arrests made in the U.S. in 2009 were for charges of marijuana possession. [19] The overflowing correctional system bleeds state and national budgets dry. In New York State, it costs USD 45,000 to incarcerate a drug offender for one year. However, one year of treatment costs only USD 15,000, [20] making this option more economical and humane. Similarly, while the average annual cost of incarceration is USD 29,000, the average annual cost of public college is only USD 12,113. [21] The U.S. now spends so much money on jailing drug “criminals” that it forces itself to neglect its educational system.

For example, in the past decade Arizona’s spending on prisons has increased from 8% to 12%, while it has decreased funding for state universities from 12% to 8%. [22] Comparably, from 1980 to 2010, California’s spending on prisons increased from 3% to nearly 11%, while funding for higher education decreased from 10% to 7.5%. [23] These disparities reveal gross misallocations of both resources and priorities. Rather than pouring money into floundering penal systems, states would be prudent to invest in drug education programs, counseling services and after-school activities. Latin America feels the Reverberations of Failed U.S. Policy The U.S.’s drug addiction and its range of prohibitive policies have been detrimental to its standing abroad. Statistics on firearm and narcotics trafficking between the U.S. and Mexico are themselves highly politicized, and therefore unreliable. However, incontestably, the U.S. does provide many of the weapons that fuel Mexico’s drug wars, and U.S. drug consumption earns Mexican drug cartels between USD 18 and 39 billion annually.

[24] As Mexico’s death toll swells higher and higher, we must recognize that our bad habits breed mortal consequences. Since Mexican President Felipe Calderón cracked down on drug-related crime in 2006, body counts have risen dramatically and consistently. The violence in 2007 culminated with a toll of 4,300 dead, increasing to 15,273 casualties in 2010. Tragically, the hemispheric drug trade has claimed approximately 38,000 deaths in total, and 2011 may prove to be the bloodiest year of all. [25] The war on drugs has inimically nurtured the narcotics trade and spread its inherent brutality and disorder to Central America. During the heyday of notorious Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar in the early 1980s, much of the cocaine reaching the U.S. traveled through the Caribbean to enter the country in Miami. [26] In the mid-‘80s, the United States Coast Guard shut down this route, and today the hemisphere’s drug traffic runs primarily through Central America and Mexico before crossing the U.S.’s southwestern border.

[27] Crackdowns on illicit narcotics in the U.S. and Mexico have put pressure on the drug trade, causing it to expand in the south. Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are now among the most violent countries on earth, with homicide rates of approximately 68, 61 and 46 murders per 100,000 people, respectively. [28] This instability tears at the threads of society in these nations, which are much smaller and weaker than Mexico. For instance, Guatemala’s judicial system cannot handle the recent upsurge in violence, and as a result punishes only one out of every 20 murders. [29] The growing violence in Central America provides further evidence that U.S. drug policies do nothing to diminish the demand for, or production of, illicit narcotics. Legalize It? Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Since 1971, the United States has pushed and repeated the same ill-founded, expensive and ineffective drug strategy. Forty years later, we must reevaluate the antiquated strategy of marginalizing and criminalizing all drug users.

It is time for the federal government to remove marijuana from its list of Schedule I substances and acknowledge, once and for all, that it has medical value. While the immediate legalization of marijuana might not be prudent, Washington must at least decriminalize the substance and begin to debate the possibility of legalization. Truthfully, the war on drugs has emptied the U.S.’s coffers while filling its prisons, exacerbated brutal drug wars in Latin America, and even aggravated the U.S.’s HIV/AIDS epidemic. [30] In the past month, political luminaries including former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and former Presidents Jimmy Carter (U.S.), César Gaviria (Colombia), Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil) and Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico) have labeled the war on drugs an outright failure, and called for its end. [31] , [32] Yet Washington has blithely ignored these recommendations, most notably disregarding the June 2 Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Ironically, in 2008 then-Senator Barack Obama uttered a very succinct call for the paradigm shift U.S.

drug policy so desperately needs, when he stated, “Anybody who has seen the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem. I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model so that we can focus more on a public health approach.” [33] Yet what has President Obama done thus far to fix the broken U.S. drug policy? Very little. Until Washington creates the intellectual space necessary to debate and reform drug policy, society will continue to throw funds at an unwinnable war that locks up non-violent offenders at home and feeds a monolithic consortium of ruthless cartels abroad, all at a prohibitive cost. The references for this article can be found here . A Brief History of the Drug War | Drug Policy Alliance View all resources. A Brief History of the Drug War This video from hip hop legend Shawn “Jay Z” Carter and acclaimed artist Molly Crabapple depicts the drug war’s devastating impact on the Black community from decades of biased law enforcement.

The video traces the drug war from President Nixon to the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws to the emerging aboveground marijuana market that is poised to make legal millions for wealthy investors doing the same thing that generations of people of color have been arrested and locked up for. The Early Stages of Drug Prohibition Many currently illegal drugs, such as marijuana, opium, coca, and psychedelics have been used for thousands of years for both medical and spiritual purposes. So why are some drugs legal and other drugs illegal today? It's not based on any scientific assessment of the relative risks of these drugs – but it has everything to do with who is associated with these drugs. The first anti-opium laws in the 1870s were directed at Chinese immigrants. The first anti-cocaine laws, in the South in the early 1900s, were directed at black men. The first anti-marijuana laws, in the Midwest and the Southwest in the 1910s and 20s, were directed at Mexican migrants and Mexican Americans. Today, Latino and especially black communities are still subject to wildly disproportionate drug enforcement and sentencing practices.

Nixon and the Generation Gap In the 1960s, as drugs became symbols of youthful rebellion, social upheaval, and political dissent, the government halted scientific research to evaluate their medical safety and efficacy. In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs, pending review by a commission he appointed led by Republican Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer. In 1972, the commission unanimously recommended decriminalizing the possession and distribution of marijuana for personal use. Nixon ignored the report and rejected its recommendations. Between 1973 and 1977, however, eleven states decriminalized marijuana possession. In January 1977, President Jimmy Carter was inaugurated on a campaign platform that included marijuana decriminalization. In October 1977, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use. Within just a few years, though, the tide had shifted.

Proposals to decriminalize marijuana were abandoned as parents became increasingly concerned about high rates of teen marijuana use. Marijuana was ultimately caught up in a broader cultural backlash against the perceived permissiveness of the 1970s. The 1980s and 90s: Drug Hysteria and Skyrocketing Incarceration Rates The presidency of Ronald Reagan marked the start of a long period of skyrocketing rates of incarceration, largely thanks to his unprecedented expansion of the drug war. The number of people behind bars for nonviolent drug law offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997. Public concern about illicit drug use built throughout the 1980s, largely due to media portrayals of people addicted to the smokeable form of cocaine dubbed “crack.” Soon after Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, his wife, Nancy Reagan, began a highly-publicized anti-drug campaign, coining the slogan "Just Say No." This set the stage for the zero tolerance policies implemented in the mid-to-late 1980s.

Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, who believed that “casual drug users should be taken out and shot,” founded the DARE drug education program, which was quickly adopted nationwide despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness. The increasingly harsh drug policies also blocked the expansion of syringe access programs and other harm reduction policies to reduce the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS. In the late 1980s, a political hysteria about drugs led to the passage of draconian penalties in Congress and state legislatures that rapidly increased the prison population. In 1985, the proportion of Americans polled who saw drug abuse as the nation's "number one problem" was just 2-6 percent. The figure grew through the remainder of the 1980s until, in September 1989, it reached a remarkable 64 percent – one of the most intense fixations by the American public on any issue in polling history. Within less than a year, however, the figure plummeted to less than 10 percent, as the media lost interest. The draconian policies enacted during the hysteria remained, however, and continued to result in escalating levels of arrests and incarceration.

Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. He also rejected, with the encouragement of drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, health secretary Donna Shalala’s advice to end the federal ban on funding for syringe access programs. Yet, a month before leaving office, Clinton asserted in a Rolling Stone interview that "we really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment" of people who use drugs, and said that marijuana use "should be decriminalized." At the height of the drug war hysteria in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a movement emerged seeking a new approach to drug policy.

In 1987, Arnold Trebach and Kevin Zeese founded the Drug Policy Foundation – describing it as the “loyal opposition to the war on drugs.” Prominent conservatives such as William Buckley and Milton Friedman had long advocated for ending drug prohibition, as had civil libertarians such as longtime ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. In the late 1980s they were joined by Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, Federal Judge Robert Sweet, Princeton professor Ethan Nadelmann, and other activists, scholars and policymakers. In 1994, Nadelmann founded The Lindesmith Center as the first U.S. project of George Soros’ Open Society Institute. In 2000, the growing Center merged with the Drug Policy Foundation to create the Drug Policy Alliance. The New Millenium: The Pendulum Shifts – Slowly – Toward Sensible Drug Policy George W. Bush arrived in the White House as the drug war was running out of steam – yet he allocated more money than ever to it. His drug czar, John Walters, zealously focused on marijuana and launched a major campaign to promote student drug testing. While rates of illicit drug use remained constant, overdose fatalities rose rapidly. The era of George W.

Bush also witnessed the rapid escalation of the militarization of domestic drug law enforcement. By the end of Bush's term, there were about 40,000 paramilitary-style SWAT raids on Americans every year – mostly for nonviolent drug law offenses, often misdemeanors. While federal reform mostly stalled under Bush, state-level reforms finally began to slow the growth of the drug war. Politicians now routinely admit to having used marijuana, and even cocaine, when they were younger. When Michael Bloomberg was questioned during his 2001 mayoral campaign about whether he had ever used marijuana, he said, "You bet I did – and I enjoyed it." Barack Obama also candidly discussed his prior cocaine and marijuana use: "When I was a kid, I inhaled frequently – that was the point." The assault on American citizens, however, has persisted. President Obama, despite advocating for reforms – such as reducing the crack/powder sentencing disparity, ending the ban on federal funding for syringe access programs, and supporting state medical marijuana laws – has yet to shift the majority of drug control funding to a health-based approach. Marijuana reform has gained unprecedented momentum throughout the Americas. Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington D.C.

have legalized marijuana for adults. In December 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legally regulate marijuana. In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to legalize marijuana . Public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of sensible reforms that expand health-based approaches while reducing the role of criminalization in drug policy. Yet the assault on American citizens and others continues, with 700,000 people still arrested for marijuana offenses each year and almost 500,000 people still behind bars for nothing more than a drug law violation. Progress is inevitably slow but there is unprecedented momentum behind drug policy reform right now. We look forward to a future where drug policies are shaped by science and compassion rather than political hysteria. Share: Nixon's 'war on drugs' began 40 years ago, and the battle is still raging | Society | The Guardian The Observer Nixon's 'war on drugs' began 40 years ago, and the battle is still raging Despite decades of battling against narcotics, the levels of addiction, trafficking and violence continue to rise. The war on drugs has failed.

Now, politicians in Latin America are calling to review all options – from full legalisation to a new war Saturday 23 July 2011 19.07 EDT First published on Saturday 23 July 2011 19.07 EDT Share on Messenger Close Four decades ago, on 17 July 1971, President Richard Nixon declared what has come to be called the "war on drugs". Nixon told Congress that drug addiction had "assumed the dimensions of a national emergency", and asked Capitol Hill for an initial $84m (£52m) for "emergency measures". Drug abuse, said the president, was "public enemy number one". But as reported the following morning in our sister newspaper, the Guardian, the president's initiative appears to have been primarily motivated not by considerations of the ghettoes or Woodstock festival, but by addiction among soldiers fighting in Vietnam: the first and immediate measure in the "war on drugs", implemented 40 years ago this weekend, was the institution of urine testing for all US troops in Indochina.

The Guardian's "sidebar" story to the news bulletin was not from Chicago or Los Angeles but the Mekong Delta, with soldiers laughing: "You can go anywhere, ask anyone, they'll get it for you. It won't take but a few seconds." Nixon signed his war on drugs into law on 28 January 1972, Adam Raphael quoting him in this newspaper as saying: "I am convinced that the only way to fight this menace is by attacking it on many fronts." The catchphrase "war on drugs" mimicked that of Nixon's predecessor Lyndon B Johnson, who had declared a "war on poverty" during his state of the union address in 1964. Four decades on, in a world (and an America) accursed by poverty and drugs, there is almost universal agreement that the war on drugs has failed as thoroughly as that on poverty. In the US and Europe, the war has been fought on the streets, in the courts and through the jail system, to no apparent avail. In the world that has "developed" since 1971, it has been fought in the barrios; it has defoliated land and driven peasants into even worse poverty.

The war in the so-called "producing" countries has ravaged Colombia , is currently tearing Mexico apart, and again threatens Afghanistan, Central America, Bolivia, Peru and Venezuela. In places such as west Africa, the war is creating "narco states" that have become effective puppets of the mafia cartels the war has spawned. The drugs themselves have wrought misery and havoc across the planet, and continue to do so. According to the United Nations, in an exhaustive report by a global commission on drugs published this summer, worldwide opiate consumption increased by 34.5% between in the two decades to 2009, and that of cocaine by 25%. The UN estimates the drug business to be the third biggest in the world after oil and arms, worth £198bn a year. The former head of its office on drugs and crime, Antonio Maria Costa, posits that the laundered profits of the narco-trafficking underworld by the "legitimate" financial sector is what kept the banks afloat for years before they finally crashed in 2008.

But while Costa (and I, for what it's worth, after three years covering the Mexican drug war) advocates going after the money as the most urgent priority, most of the lexicon in the now burning debate about what to do in the wake of the drug war's manifest failure concerns decriminalisation, or even legalisation. There has been a campaign for the legalisation of drugs in the US ever since the first state ban on marijuana in 1915. Now President Barack Obama's drug tsar, Gil Kerlikowske, carefully describes America's own war on drugs as "unhelpful". Last month, former president Jimmy Carter wrote in the New York Times that "excessive punishment" has "destroyed the lives of millions of young people and their families"; drug policy, he said, should be "more humane and more effective". Obama has entirely changed the language of the US's relationship with Mexico, conceding "co-responsibility" for the dual catastrophe of violence south of the border and addiction north of it. Experts such as David Shirk, of the Trans-Border Institute in San Diego, say that "the legalisation of marijuana in the US within 10 years is an inevitablity".

The UK has traditionally been a hardline participant in the war on drugs, but in opposition David Cameron said: "Drugs policy has been failing for decades." Professor David Nutt of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs , who has become synonymous with the anti-prohibition movement, says that "the obscenity of hunting down low-level cannabis users to protect them is beyond absurd". In Europe, the Netherlands famously refuses to criminalise cannabis users, while Portugal became the first European country, in 2001, to abolish criminal penalties for personal possession of all drugs, sending addicts for counselling instead. Italy has decriminalised possession of less than half a gram of most illegal substances. Prohibitionism, however, remains strongly supported by most law enforcement agencies in the US and UK. But prohibitionism has its creative and radical exponents too, not least Costa, who argues: "Why open the floodgates to addiction by increasing access to drugs?" He wrote for this newspaper: "Maybe western governments could absorb the health costs of increased drug use, if that's how taxpayers want their money spent. But what about the developing world?

Why unleash an epidemic of addiction in parts of the world that already face misery and do not have the health and social systems to cope with a drug tsunami?" Costa proposed that "drugs should be regarded as a health issue"; he wanted to "reduce vulnerability to drugs in regions of the world where governance is weak", and – calling the bluff of rich countries that host the big banks – "get serious about organised crime". The most compelling and sophisticated initiatives in the debate 40 years on from Nixon's declaration come from the region that has arguably suffered more than anywhere from the ravages of drug production, trafficking and now addiction, too – Latin America. Last August, Argentina's supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to punish people for using marijuana for personal use. Even Mexico, which has since 2005 been the theatre for a singularly vicious drugs war, has elected to legalise limited amounts of all drugs for personal use, for example: 0.5g of cocaine, 40mg of methamphetamine and 50mg of heroin. Felipe Calderón, the president, has called for "a fundamental debate on the legalisation of drugs", even though he opposes such a policy himself.

A landmark proposal was made by three former presidents: Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, César Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil. It opened with the salvo: "Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalisation of consumption simply haven't worked … The revision of US-inspired drug policies is urgent in the light of the rising levels of violence and corruption associated with narcotics." Of the three, Colombia – which has just emerged from a ferocious drug war – is the most impatiently adventurous in its call for a complete global overhaul of drugs policy. Colombia's ambassador to London, Mauricio Rodríguez, says that this should be "based not on anyone's political or ideological agenda, or any media agenda, but on the economic and social data and information we do not yet have, and must acquire" "Our president has said very clearly that this is the time for a deep analysis of what has happened over the past 40 years, and to learn the lessons of the mistakes that have been made," Rodríguez said in an interview with the Observer last week.

"And we have to evaluate every alternative, without excluding any possibility – from complete legalisation to a second, different, war on drugs." The discourse, he says, "can no longer be that of this country or that, but a serious global discussion". It cannot even, he says, make the conventional distinctions between "producing" and "consuming" nations, "since we now have widespread consumption in the so-called 'producing' nations and, with synthetic drugs, significant production in the 'consuming' nations". The global horizon is necessary, he says, "because we want to be sure that what is good for Colombia is good for the rest of the world, and vice versa. We are not saying that we have a solution; we are saying that we do have some moral authority because we have lived 24 years in hell – been through a painful experience which has cost us thousands of lives lost, hundreds of millions of dollars lost, the reputation of the country lost. We are now re-establishing that reputation, and stabilising the country, but the problem has moved elsewhere – to Central America, Mexico and West Africa.

"And so we realise," Rodríguez continues, "that we need to start afresh with a global and entirely different approach, different analyses which are social, economic – and different solutions. I've been studying this for 25 years, and have heard too many superficial analyses: that this is to do with leisure, or this is a problem of mafia. We need a more complex analysis of the deep roots of this problem – we cannot fool ourselves about the root causes of the tragedy of drugs in both the developed and developing world, they are to do with poverty and deprivation, young people without access to employment, with no access to education. They are about alienation, fear and anger." Among the strategies he wants to see pursued are, first, "detailed economic work on these causes and the ways of combating them". Second: "Let's be serious about where the big money is. If you look at the trail of cocaine, you'll find that 5% of the profits remain in the producing countries; 95% is in the distribution networks and laundered.

The big money is in the big banks in the big countries; the big money is in the US, Europe and Asia." And third: "Let's talk about the human rights issues." Rodríguez discusses a programme his embassy has launched in collaboration with the police in Scotland called "Sniffing the rainforest". "We tell the young people that one gram of cocaine involves the destruction of four square metres of rainforest. That it costs hundreds of lives – and although they are taken to drugs by economic alienation, the response to this kind of language has been positive." We also tell them, he adds, "what else is involved in sniffing cocaine: gasoline, cement, sulphuric acid – and they listen to that". It was while working along the US-Mexican border, in an inferno of violence and addiction, that I came to see the wisdom of the proposed Colombian strategy.

In the rehab clinics and wretched outskirts of Ciudad Juárez, where drugs are legal for personal use and easier to obtain than soft drinks, I developed a problem with the scope of the lexicon in the UK and, to a lesser extent, the US, which too often presumes that people take drugs for reasons of "recreation", rather than out of desperation and despair. This view of drugs as stimulating entertainment may hold true of Camden Lock in London and the capital's West End clubs, but not of São Paulo or even the valleys of south Wales, let alone the US-Mexican border. What may work for Notting Hill might not work in Rhondda, let alone Tijuana. In Tijuana in 2009, addicts could not believe their luck – those arriving at a Narcóticos Anónimos session were amazed that possession of up to four lines of cocaine or 50mg of heroin was now legal.

Juan Morales Magana, 17, a windscreen-washer and registered methamphetamine and heroin addict, was working out how many hits the legal limit of 40mg of meth would get him, though his counsellor, an evangelical pastor, was ambivalent: "I wouldn't want anyone to think that just because it is legal, one should live like this for fun. Drugs are the scourge of our society. All this can do would limit killing between small-time cholos [gangsters] for street-corner turf. The danger is that kingpins will accelerate the domestic market if possession is legal and smuggling into the US more difficult." "Personally, I sometimes wish drugs would be made legal so that the gringos can get high and we can live in peace," said Tijuana police officer Elisio Montes, whose two best friends, his former boss and assistant, were murdered by executioners for the cartels. "Then I say to myself: no – these drugs are addictive after one single hit. They're terrifying, they destroy lives, they destroy our young people.

If they're legal, they'll buy more." Writing in the Times, Antonia Senior insists that: "Drugs policy must start from the premise that teenagers like taking drugs, because drugs make them feel good." I would rather it started from the premise that life in most places is so awful that it leads to catastrophic addiction such as that in the barrios of Honduras or, indeed, the back streets of Naples or Swansea. The Economics of the Drug Trade and War on Drugs | Infographics Showcase The Economics of the Drug Trade and War on Drugs Posted on by Infographics Guy This graphic, created by Credit Loan , gives us a great deal of information about the war on drugs, and interjects its opinions as well, creating a highly intriguing infographic from a content perspective. The first part of the graphic discusses how much money has been spent on fighting the “war” and where that money has gone. One of the things that stands out is that much more money has been spent locking people up in prisons for drug use rather than on prevention, unless you count locking people away as a preventive measure, and that certainly can be argued.

Although, I would argue that putting people behind bars as a deterrent isn’t as strong as showing the damaging effects that certain drugs can have on your health, and clearly not nearly as much money is being spent on anti-drug marketing campaigns as it is on incarceration. The $121 billion spent on finding and arresting non-violent drug offenders must be lumped together with the $450 billion spent on incarnating them in private and federal prisons. That brings the total used to fight the drug war via arresting people to a whopping $571 billion, which is rather higher than the 33 million spent on the largely ineffective “Just Say No” campaigns. All in all, about 1 trillion dollars has been spent in the last 40 years fighting this war. And all of that 1 trillion comes from U.S. tax payers. According to the graphic, despite the huge amount in spending (that increases year after year), the amount of drugs flowing into the U.S. has not decreased. Ok, so this war has cost the U.S. about a trillion since 1971, but how much did it cost the country last year? 15 billion.

And the proposed 2011 budget is 15.5 billion. So, the budget is continuing its steady climb upward since its inception in 1971. The last portion of the graphic breaks down drug importation and exportation by country. The U.S. is the world’s largest consumer of drugs (woohoo!). It also imports, exports, and sells $460 billion of them per year. Ready for the grading portion? Then lace that paper in your hand with acid, take a lick, and look below. You’re going to need drugs when you’re done reading our analysis. Design: C This infographic certainly has an edge to it, but that edge isn’t found in the design. An intentionally plain color scheme comes with a disadvantage; it will probably never be considered as grand as a bright and colorful scheme. Content: A- I thought this graphic’s content was strong, to be honest. It seems infographics filled predominately with strong opinions about a topic are a rarity.

Opinion: War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure - CNN.com Opinion War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure Richard Branson, Special to CNN Updated 6:05 PM ET, Fri December 7, 2012 Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what's happening in the world as it unfolds. JUST WATCHED Branson 'Breaking the Taboo' on drugs 04:04 Story highlights Richard Branson: Prohibition caused damage in the same way the war on drugs has done Branson says if one of his companies is failing, he doesn't continue with failed strategies U.S. has the most prisoners in the world, he says, 500,000 of them for drug violations Branson: We need alternatives to jail that focus on education, health, taxation, regulation Richard Branson is the founder of Virgin Group, with global branded revenues of $21 billion, and a member of the Global Drug Commission. Sir Richard was knighted in 1999 for his services to entrepreneurship.

Watch today for Branson's interview with CNN/US' Erin Burnett Out Front at 7pm ET and tomorrow (12/7) with CNN International's Connect the World program at 4pm ET (CNN) In 1925, H. L. Mencken wrote an impassioned plea: "Prohibition has not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic but more. There is not less crime, but more. ... The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished." This week marks the 79th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in December 1933, but Mencken's plea could easily apply to today's global policy on drugs. We could learn a thing or two by looking at what Prohibition brought to the United States: an increase in consumption of hard liquor, organized crime taking over legal production and distribution and widespread anger with the federal government. News: Pot smokers enter legal limbo in Washington, Colorado Richard Branson Here we are, four decades after Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971 and $1 trillion spent since then.

What do we have to show for it? Read More The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, with about 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation. What a waste of young lives. In business, if one of our companies is failing, we take steps to identify and solve the problem. What we don't do is continue failing strategies that cost huge sums of money and exacerbate the problem. Rather than continuing on the disastrous path of the war on drugs, we need to look at what works and what doesn't in terms of real evidence and data. Opinion: The end of the war on marijuana The facts are overwhelming. If the global drug trade were a country, it would have one of the top 20 economies in the world. In 2005, the United Nations estimated the global illegal drug trade is worth more than $320 billion. It also estimates there are 230 million illegal drug users in the world, yet 90% of them are not classified as problematic.

In the United States, if illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco, they would yield $46.7 billion in tax revenue . A Cato study says legalizing drugs would save the U.S. about $41 billion a year in enforcing the drug laws. News: Marijuana advocates hope to rise from 'prohibition' About 40,000 people were in U.S. jails and prisons for drug crimes in 1980, compared with more than 500,000 today. Excessively long prison sentences and locking up people for small drug offenses contribute greatly to this ballooning of the prison population. It also represents racial discrimination and targeting disguised as drug policy. People of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than white people -- yet from 1980 to 2007, blacks were arrested for drug law violations at rates 2.8 to 5.5 times higher than white arrest rates. Prohibition failed when the American people spoke up and demanded its repeal. Today, the American people are showing their dissatisfaction with the war on drugs by voting for change, often in the face of federal law.

Colorado and Washington recently became the first U.S. states to legalize recreational use of marijuana. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia allow the medical use of marijuana, and 74% of Americans support alternatives to locking people up for marijuana possession. How would our society, our communities and daily lives improve if we took the money we use running a police and prison state and put it into education and health? Treating drugs as a health issue could save billions, improve public health and help us better control violence and crime in our communities. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from overdoses and drug-related diseases, including HIV and hepatitis C, because they didn't have access to cost-effective, life-saving solutions. A Pew study says it costs the U.S. an average of $30,000 a year to incarcerate an inmate, but the nation spends only an average $11,665 per public school student . The future of our nations and our children should be our priority. We should be helping people addicted to drugs break their habits rather than putting users in prison. When it comes to drugs, we should focus on the goals we agree on: protecting our kids, protecting public safety and preventing and treating drug abuse and addiction.

To help unlock barriers to drug reform, last June, I joined the Global Commission on Drug Policy , which is bringing global leadership to drug reform to make fact-based research public and draw attention to successful alternative approaches. Opinion: Mr. President, fix our broken drug policy As part of this work, a new documentary, "Breaking the Taboo," narrated by Oscar award-winning actor Morgan Freeman and produced by my son Sam Branson's indie Sundog Pictures, followed the commission's attempts to break the political taboo over the war on drugs. The film exposes the biggest failure of global policy in the past 40 years and features revealing contributions from global leaders, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. It is time we broke the taboo and opened up the debate about the war on drugs. We need alternatives that focus on education, health, taxation and regulation. If you ignore a serious problem, refuse to debate it and hope it will go away all by itself, you are very naive. The war on drugs has failed. It's time to confront the issue head on.

Question: What figurative "war" has the U.S. been fighting since 1971?
Answer: The War on Drugs