Week 8 Reading : Chapter 17 (The War on Drugs)

Question 1

Quote by Nixon that started the war on drugs

Answer 1

• “Public Enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all -out offensive” - Nixon, 1971

-This was the beginning of the war on drugs

Question 2

Use of drugs in the real wars: historically and today

Answer 2

• The use of drugs has been historically common in military -> trying to deal with trauma (PTSD), lack of sleep, experience of inflicting violence, dealing with physical pain etc. etc.
• Old view though was that stimulants like amphetamines would increase military performance (keep people awake)
  ○ Use by British alone = 70 million amphetamine tablets over the course of WW2.
  ○ Germans + Japanese used methamphetamines instead -> potentially influenced battle outcomes as they would have had longer lasting side effects e.g. withdrawal exhaustion when stopped.
  ○ As war went on realised even if helped in short-term it was not beneficial in the long-term
• Nixon administration worried that large numbers of addicts would flood back into civilian life once ware settlement was negotiated ( in reality most went back to civilian life fine and stopped using).
• Today strict drug-testing as believed drugs inhibit military performance
  except -> US army uses modafinil to enhance wakefulness

Question 3

Cultural background for the war on drugs

Answer 3

-Flower power movement ( high use of cannabis + psychedelics) by African Americans

-Plus fears of huge numbers of soldiers returning from war and keeping using.

Question 4

The Aims of the War on Drugs

Answer 4

• War on drugs was also political rather than designed to improve health.
• “The Nixon 1968 campaign had two enemies: the anti-war left and black people. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black people, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and the black with heroin, and the criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities, We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Question 5

Drug war on two fronts. What assumptions were made regarding this?

Answer 5

○ Cutting off supply (destroying crops + seizing manufactured products) -> drive up price (SUPPLY)

○ Reducing demand through educate and threat of criminal sanctions -> reduce the want for drugs (DEMAND)

• The thought automatically was that lower supply and demand would reduce drug harms -> today it’s recognised that harm reduction and being “tough on drugs” don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

Question 6

Interventions in regards to reducing drug supply include…

Answer 6

○ Reducing the production of raw materials in source countries

○ Seize consignments on the way to the US

○ Target street dealers in the UK (once in the country)

○ Money Laundering

Question 7

Reducing the production of raw materials in source countries. What are the three methods to do this? What are some of the benefits and disadvantages to each method?

Answer 7

• E.g. reducing the amount of coca lead + sodium growth.

Three methods of doing this…
□ Destroying crops and compensating farmers
® Expensive
® Can result in framers growing more illicit crops rather than shifting to other income sources.

□ Destroying crops and not compensating farmers
® Cheapest
® Creates social tension -> puts farmers into poverty and contributes to anti-capitalism revolution.

□ Encouraging viable alternatives.
® Most effective
® Expensive
® Requires development of good governance
® Very difficult to implement in countries where the drug trade is a well-established income source due to corruption.

• OVERALL impact is on those at the bottom on the chain already struggling i.e. the farmers and the higher ups (dealers) : those that are making the real profit escape consequence and can often just move to still fulfil sales.

Question 8

Seize consignments on the way to the US

Answer 8

• Better as it means that target the criminal organisation themselves. And if a large bust can have a big impact on the viability of the drug companies business.
• Can drive up price which may reduce people using or it might have harms e.g. if the dose in the drug goes down and then goes up again when the supply is restored fluctuations can contribute to overdose.

Question 9

Target street dealers in the UK (once in the country)

Answer 9

• High police present can reduce their presence and make it look like we are doing something about drugs (appease media + public concerns)

-BUT dealers can be easily replaced and removing a dealer from the system only removes a small quantity of drugs.

Question 10

Money Laundering

Answer 10

• Hardest to disrupt (shrouded in secrecy)

Question 11

Did the aim to reduce drug supply work?

Answer 11

○ Overall not really working

○ Government interventions are an inconvenience and a cost to business for drug companies BUT they don’t threaten its viability.

○ Use it rising (for both cocaine and heroin) so the attempts to reduce supply in order to reduce use are not effective.

Question 12

Has the War on Drugs Reduced Demand

Answer 12

• Annual drug consumption across the world from 1998 to 2016 show a substantial increase for opiates, cocaine and cannabis. (demand is not decreasing).
• Mostly the war on drugs has focused on putting users or low scale dealers in jail
  ○ Most dealers are addicts themselves doing so fund their habits
  ○ Criminal measures do not anything to address health or alleviate addiction symptoms
  ○ In fact makes worse -> once out and have a criminal conviction it makes it even harder to rebuild a life that is drug free.

Question 13

Does Criminalisation Reduce the Drug Supply?

Answer 13

• As long as demand remains there is always going to be someone to supply the drug especially when criminalisation largely puts those at a low level in the drug trade in jail
• These individuals have little impact
• It would be very rare for a big boss of the drug world, or entire cartel to come down and usually they have the money to hire good lawyers to get them off if needed.

Question 14

Harmful effects of the war on drugs (list)

Answer 14

○ Increase the spread of infectious disease

○ Causing the terminally ill people to die in agony

○ Making world financial systems unstable and unaccountable

○ Holding back research on new medicines

○ Increasing the levels of drug-related violence and crime

○ Increasing the number of users by forcing them to become dealers

○ Bringing the law into disrepute allowing discriminatory policing

○ Diverting attention away from the dangers of alcohol and tobacco.

Question 15

Harms of war on drugs: Increase the spread of infectious disease

Answer 15

• Injecting drug users most at risk (e.g. HIV/ aids)
• War on drugs promoted the stance that all drug users are bad and they should not have access to clean needles so things like needle exchange programs were banned.
• Particularly bad in Russia where there is current 1 million cases of HIV

Question 16

Harms of war on drugs: Causing the terminally ill people to die in agony

Answer 16

• War on drug caused a lack of painkillers e.g. morphine.
• Morphine is a target of strict regulations due to its similarity to heroin.
• Human right to have access to pain medications in chronic conditions?

Question 17

Harms of war on drugs: Making world financial systems unstable and unaccountable

Answer 17

• Large amounts of money travel the world without accountability -> dangerous for the economy and undermines governments.

Question 18

Harms of war on drugs: Holding back research on new medicines

Answer 18

• Illegality means there is so many hurdles to jump through if someone wants to research the effects of such a drug
• This means some benefits of rugs are not being discovered e.g. ecstasy for PTSD / are being discovered way later then they would otherwise be if there was open access.

Question 19

Harms of war on drugs: Increasing the levels of drug-related violence and crime

Answer 19

• Cracking down tends to increase violence
• In the UK 86% of shoplifting and 80% of domestic burglary is committed by problem drug users -> largely because costs of drugs are so high and they need a way to fund their habits.

Question 20

Harms of war on drugs: Increasing the number of users by forcing them to become dealers

Answer 20

• Creating a black market for drugs incentivised drug pushers who see finically benefit on getting people hooked: amount of users has gone up from 57 registered heroin addicts to 300,000 UK heroin addicts.
• Many of the pushers are addicts themselves who had to buy heroin illegally now that they no longer can receive it on prescription.

Question 21

Harms of the war on drugs: Bringing the law into disrepute allowing discriminatory policing

Answer 21

• Particular for cannabis it is penalising people for low level offense and then majorly disrupting/ ruining their lives
• Those on the streets/ in the ethnic minority are more likely to be targeted setting them up to be lifelong users and criminals.
• Especially considering the police are given discretion by the law on how they carry it out -> i.e. if they think it will put communities at risk they can prosecute -> allows for bias and prejudice to creep in as not as concrete.

Question 22

Harms of the war on drugs: Diverting attention away from the dangers of alcohol and tobacco.

Answer 22

• Tobacco use kills 8 million per year
• Alcohol use kills 3.5 million per year
• By comparison illicit drugs kill around 200,000 people between them. Even when you take into account the fewer people that take these drugs the deaths/ harms still far outstrip alcohol + Tobacco.
• Yet, we fund campaigns and put so much money into prevent elicit drug use and not much goes to educating surrounding alcohol + tobacco harms.

Question 23

Why are we Still at War?

Answer 23

• The war on drugs was the wrong strategy in terms of decreasing drug use (supply and demand)
• It was also was the bad approach in terms of harm reduction
• Current politicians have backed themselves into a corner where they have to push for prohibition and ignore the evidence.

Question 24

What are the Alternatives to the war on drugs?

Answer 24

• In Portugal: heroin, cocaine and cannabis remain illegal but possession of small amounts doesn’t carry any criminal sanctions kind of like minor traffic offenses.
• Decriminalisation allows countries to focus on harm reduction strategies.
• Going further and making drugs legally available is a step further and could be regulated via making them available on prescription, selling them from pharmacies (means they can give dose) -> new specialisation which can also provide advice for addiction if someone at risk, licensed sales : only certain shops can sell them under certain conditions/ times, licensed premises for consumption on site e.g. Dutch cannabis cades -> these places can only specialise in one this e.g. couldn’t have alcohol available or allow tobacco smoking, membership-based licensed premises
• There is no one best way and we can do costs/ benefit analysis for each step/ set of rules BUT decriminalisation does allow us to treat drug users as human beings, we decrease the risks in their lives and we can focus and direct funds in an evidence based way that actually reduces harm.

Question 25

The harms of cannabis versus the harms of jail

Answer 25

Decriminalising for something like cannabis only works to benefit the user if the costs to cannabis use outweighs the costs of jail which they don’t. Jail severely impacts mental health, can result in harder drug use, makes it more difficult to get a job so impacts career progression to a greater extent than cannabis ever does.