Read summary then answer questions below:

U.S. Statistics:

Statistics on the 'War on Drugs' help evaluate whether the campaign has been beneficial to the population or not. Since the 1970s, $20 billion has been spent to combat drug cartels in their countries. The federal government spends an average of $47 billion every year on the "War on Drugs", enforcing prohibition (We Are the Drug Alliance Policy, 2020). The federal government spends about $9.2 million every day to incarcerate people on drug charges (Pearl, 2018). Budgetary gains are estimated at $106.7 billion annually with the legalization of drugs. Since 1972, around the War on Drugs' inception, incarceration rates have increased 5-fold while drug use and crime rates remain steady(Elkavich & Moore, 2008). The rates of drug use differentiated by race are fairly similar with whites having a 7.4% usage rate, blacks with 7.2%, and Latinos at 6.4%. Despite similar drug usage rates, people of color generally have a higher chance of being arrested or convicted on drug charges. 60% of those incarcerated in state prisons because of drug offenses are people of color. The rate at which people of color are admitted to prison on drug charges is 13 times higher than that of white men. In 2015, the State of GA spent over $78M to incarcerate 3742 POC. Its budget for substance use treatments is under $50M. Despite the similar use rates, arrest and incarceration rates are much higher for people of color.

Federal Government Drug-Related Legislation:

Before the 20th century, the United States did not have any drug related laws or regulations to speak of. This changed in the early 20th century when there began to emerge abuse of drugs across the country. In 1914, legislation was first put in place in an attempt to curtail the abuse of drugs and the first was the HarrisonAct of 1914 which attempted to tax those that were involved with importing, manufacturing and distribution. The Marijuana Act of 1937 began the era of enforcement and marijuana was first banned but this was unofficial. The Boggs Act of 1951 established prison sentences for some drug offences while the 1956 Narcotic Control Act increased these penalties as well as established the death penalty for selling heroin to youth (Sacco, 2014).

In 1970, President Nixon ramped up the war on drugs with the passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Control Act of 1970. This was also known as the Controlled Substance Act or CSA and this placed the control of select drugs under federal jurisdiction. This was done to replace earlier laws with a single comprehensive statute. Legislation later on further clarified or created laws that were built on the CSA. These included the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 that enhanced penalties as well as established criminal forfeiture of property to the federal, state or local governments. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and 1988 began dealing with enforcement of synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine and included penalties for simple possession. New criminal penalties were created that established mandatory minimum sentences for these offences. In 2003, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act was designed to target the producers of places where synthetic drugs were used (Sacco, 2014).

The United States has shifted its drug enforcement policies to focus more on prevention, treatment and enforcement in order to instill a comprehensive approach. Approximately 60% of all federal drug control spending is dedicated to supply reduction while 37% is dedicated to domestic law enforcement. The total amount of funding in 2017 for drug related enforcement was $27.475 billion which included funding for treatment, prevention, law enforcement and interdiction (Sacco, 2014).

Positive Argument For War On Drugs:

These are four positive arguments for the war on drugs. Firstly, the war on drugs in the U.S.A involving the implementation of anti-drug policies will promote a healthier American labor force which in turn will raise the life expectancy of the current and future generation of both the young and the elderly.

The second positive argument is that it compels former drug criminals to reach for a higher standard of living after completing government-mandated remediatory programs. Therefore, the proportion of American society that were former addicts will gradually decrease as a result of people passing through career-training programs, therapist counselling, or rehabilitation programs.

Thirdly, the decreased occurrence of drug-related crimes in the U.S.A is another potential result of a declared war on drugs in America. Drug crime rates of illegal dealing, smuggling, and peddling, for instance, will be on the decline once a war on drugs is declared.

Fourthly, a war on drugs will spur increased awareness of drugs and drug-related crimes and their dangers to physical human health, well-being, and other human lives. Reformative 'War on Drugs' policies can include the enforcing of state-level rehabilitative drug addiction prevention programs and public service announcements (PSAs) that deter drug use and drug- related criminal offenses.

Negative Argument Against War On Drugs:

War on drugs- Negative Effects

The over 40-year war on drugs has failed tremendously and has had many negative effects over time. Initially created to combat the drug epidemic, instead led to the downfall of communities and destruction of the nuclear family structure in minority communities. There are three categories that suffer greatly which are the judicial system, financial cost to communities, and the destruction of societies.

Judicial System:

The war on drugs greatly impacted the justice system, especially against communities of minorities disproportionately. In 1952, the Boggs Act was passed which established mandatory minimum sentences from drug offenses, especially cannabis. In 1986, the Anti-Drug abuse act was passed that added provisions to different types of drug with specific mandatory minimum sentences. A person who has a drug charge for crack cocaine, is charged harsher than someone who has cocaine. This is an example of how drug laws are harsher on minorities than Caucasians. Crack cocaine is prevalent in minority communities, whereas cocaine is in a majority of Caucasian communities. The mandatory minimum sentences have led to overcrowding of prisons, according to the Federal Bureau of prisons almost 50% of inmates are drug offenders and less that 30% are violent offenders. 80% of people in prison due to drug charges are either Black or Latino. With monitories, prosecutors are twice as likely to attempt to enforce mandatory minimum charges, than those of their white counterparts who are facing the similar charges. The Judicial system and the war on drugs, led to prison overcrowding and inflated charges against minorities (We Are the Drug Alliance Policy, 2020).

Financial:

The war on drugs has cost almost $1 trillion dollars to the U.S. economy as a whole. According to Americanprogress.org,"Since 1971, the war on drugs has cost the United States an estimated $1 trillion. In 2015, the federal government spent an estimated $9.2 million every day to incarcerate people charged with drug-related offensesthat's more than $3.3 billion annually"(Morgan, 2015). The funds used towards the war on drugs could have been spent elsewhere to aid the community as a whole. By diverting funds used to fight the war on drugs, communities could improve education, safety, create rehabilitation centers and public health issues. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon have seen a boost in tax revenues with the legalization of marijuana, and no increase in crime after legalization. The chart below is from Statista.com, is a breakdown of tax revenue created from marijuana sales (We Are the Drug Alliance Policy, 2020). I feel that by legalizing drugs as Oregon did on Election Day, it would make a boost in revenue. Commuting sentences for non-violent drug offenders, could greatly decrease prison overcrowding, thus reducing the cost for housing those inmates

Society:

The societal impact of the war on drugs is far reaching. One place the war on drugs stuck hardest was the family structure. Over 2.7 million children have at least one parent incarcerated due to drugs. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, created monetary incentives for state foster care agencies to fast track permanent removal of children from families. State agencies would receive anywhere from $4,000 to $10,000 to adopt children out of the foster system. Many of these children are in foster care due to parents being incarcerated on drug charges, thus creating a permanent rift in the family structure. Another issue created by the war on drugs is that anyone convicted of drug charges either felony or misdemeanor, will no longer be eligible for public

housing or food stamps. Also drug convictions will invalidate anyone from receiving federal aid for education, thus inhibiting someone to better themselves via education options available to others (We Are the Drug Policy Alliance, 2020).

In conclusion, the war on drugs has failed as a whole, it hasn't helped to curb the use of drugs but may have magnified it. It has created a racially biased system that has led to overcrowding of prisons, separated families, and cost over $1 trillion dollars. The war on drugs should discontinue and we should find ways to legalize drugs to capitalize off its resources.

Ethical Dilemmas:

There are many ethical dilemmas in the drug world. There are many cases where some drugs should be legal or stay illegal. For the past couple of years, the argument of the legalization of marijuana has been consuming the drug market. Some states fought to make it legal and some are still fighting for it. Other states are keeping it illegal. The oil helps many people medically, but it offers an opportunity for anyone who abuses this drug a way to get their drugs whenever they please (Richter, 2020).

Another ethical dilemma is that there is illegal smuggling of drugs across the Mexican and Canadian borders. The most common one is the smuggling of the drugs over the Mexican border. There are many families that try to flee the drug war and some are forced into it to get over the border as well as have money to provide for their families. This is an ethical dilemma because some families want to seek refuge in the US, but because of the drugs they are sent back to Mexico. It is also hurting the US citizens because they bring their drug war over here (Solis, 2017).

The cities by the border are not the safest because of this drug war. One more ethical dilemma is about prescription drugs and painkillers. Some doctors have been giving prescriptions just to get the money from it. Other doctors prescribe the main painkiller instead of giving the patient the option to choose which one would be the best. The ethical dilemma for many doctors is the question of if they should prescribe the opioid or an alternative medicine because of the patient's history (Rieder, 2017).

• What are the ethical dilemmas?
• What are the competing values?
• What precedence does this create?
• Was it legal or moral or both?
• What are the intended and unintended consequences?