Drug trafficking

These lollipops were found to contain heroin when inspected by the US DEA

The illegal drug trade is a worldwide black market consisting of production, distribution, packaging and sale of illegal psychoactive substances. The illegality of the black markets purveying the drug trade is relative to geographic location, and the producing countries of the drug markets (many South American, Far East, and Middle East countries) are not as inclined to have "zero-tolerance" policies, as the consuming countries of the drug trade (mostly United States and Europe) are. The economic reality of the massive profiteering inherent to the drug trade serves to extend its reach despite the best efforts of enforcement agencies worldwide. In the wake of the economic reality, the social consequences (crime, violence, imprisonment, social unrest) of the drug trade are undeniably problematic.

Origins

In jurisdictions where legislation restricts or prohibits the sale of certain popular drugs, it is common for an (illegal) drug trade to develop. For example, the United States Congress has identified a number of controlled substances with corresponding drug trades.

Most nations consider drug trafficking a very serious problem. In 1989, the United States intervened in Panama with the goal of disrupting the drug trade coming from Panama. The Indian government has several covert operations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent to keep a track of various drug dealers. Some estimates placed the value of the global trade in illegal drugs at around US$400 billion in the year 2000; that, added to the global trade value of legal drugs at the same time, totals to an amount higher than the amount of money spent for food in the same period of time. In the 2005 United Nations World Drug Report, the value of the global illicit drug market for the year 2003 was estimated at US$13 billion at the production level, at US$94 billion at the wholesale level, and at US$322 billion based on retail prices and taking seizures and other losses into account.

Major consumer countries include the United States and European nations, although consumption is world-wide. Major producer countries include Afghanistan (opium) and Bolivia (primarily cocaine,and Colombia (primarily cocaine declining in the past years; see below for further details

History

The First Opium War was an attempt Force China to accept Illegal drug trade from British drug dealing merchants to the gerneral population of China. Smoking opium was normal in the 1800s and was said to cure many health problems. for the main article see Drug History

Illegal trade of legal drugs

Legal drugs like tobacco can be the subject of smuggling and illegal trading if the price difference between the origin and the destination are high enough to make it profitable. With taxes on tobacco much higher in the United Kingdom than on mainland Europe this is a considerable problem in the UK

Prescription drugs

Some prescription drugs are also available by illegal means, eliminating the need to manufacture and process the drugs. (Prescription opioids for example, are sometimes much stronger than heroin found on the street, example: the group of the fentanyl analogs.) They are sold either via stolen or partly divided prescriptions sold by medical practices and occasionally from Internet sale. However, it is much easier to control traffic in prescription drugs than in illegal drugs because the source is usually an originally legal enterprise and thus can often be readily found and neutralized.

Internet and controlled substances

"No Prescription Websites" (NPWs) offer to sell controlled substances without a valid prescription. NPWs were first recognized by the U.S. Justice Department in 1999, indicating that such sites had been operating at least through the late 1990s. NPWs enable dealers and users to complete transactions without direct contact. While many NPWs accept credit cards, others only accept cash thereby further reducing any paper trail. Many NPWs are hosted in countries in which specific categories of controlled substances are locally legal (e.g. prescription opioids in Mexico), but because of the global nature of the internet, NPWs are able to do (mostly illegal) business with customers around the globe. In addition to prescription opioids, stimulants, and sedatives, steroids are often widely distributed. To date, no websites have been found offering directly to sell illegal drugs like heroin, illegal amphetamine or methamphetamine derivatives, or cocaine, however the police have uncovered several instances of dealers/drug rings using Craigslist personal ads to solicit drug business using code words and phrases. All other categories of drugs are readily available online.

2004 saw the conclusion of Operation Web Tryp, focusing on companies selling so-called research chemicals, legal psychedelic phenethylamines and tryptamines on the Internet.

Violent resolutions

Because disputes cannot be resolved through legal means, participants at every level of the illegal drug industry are inclined to compete with one another through violence. Some statistics have shown that a large percentage of murders recorded are a result of the drug trade. This plays a role in the gun politics debate due to the number of drug-related murders that are committed with a firearm.

Many have argued that the arbitrariness of drug prohibition laws from the medical point of view, especially the theory of harm reduction, worsens the problems around these substances.

Trade of specific drugs

The price per gram of heroin is typically 8 to 10 times that of cocaine on US streets.[2] Generally in Europe (except the transit countries Portugal and the Netherlands), a purported gram of street Heroin, which is usually actually between 0.7 and 0.8 grams light to dark brown powder consisting of 5-10%, less commonly up to 20%, heroin base, is between 30 and 70 Euros, which makes for an effective price of pure heroin per gram of between 300 and 2000 Euros.

The purity of street cocaine in Europe is usually in the same range as it is for heroin, the price being between 50 and 100 Euros per between 0.7 and 1.0 grams. This totals to a cocaine price range between 500 and 2000 Euros.

Anabolic steroids

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, drug smugglers have an easier time smuggling them into the United States. When they have arrived in the United States, they are often sold at gyms and competitions as well as through mail operations.

Cannabis

A bag of Cannabis

When cannabis is not grown in either large-scale 'grow ops' in warehouses and other large establishments, or grown for limited distribution in small-scale, possibly domestic operations, it is usually imported from Mexico or farther south. Most of the cannabis sold commercially in the U.S. is grown in hidden grow operations nationally with the majority grown in the Midwest or in the California area, which has some of the world's best soil for growing crops. Much of the cannabis in the United States is imported from Mexico, however this cannabis is usually low quality. The packaging methods used are crude often resulting in compressed or "bricked" weed.

LSD

LSD (also known as "acid") is a highly potent hallucinogenic drug which is synthesized artificially from certain metabolism products of the ergot fungus which grows on certain grain strains. The availability of LSD in the United States dropped sharply starting in the year 2000, when two distributors alleged by the government to have been manufacturing 95% of all LSD available in the US were captured, but availability has started to rise again (possibly due to law enforcement focusing more heavily on Cannabis and Methamphetamines).

Psilocybin mushrooms

Psilocybe mushrooms grow naturally in most climates, thus this drug market is financially less lucrative, even though there is no doubt a certain kind of commercial growing of the Psilocybe mushrooms, half-legally in the Netherlands and illegally from different stages of maturity/manufacture of chewable dried mushroom tissue. Psychonauts will often grow these mushrooms or pick them for themselves as they are common to find in many places of the world.

Alcohol

In some areas of the world, particularly in and around the Arabian peninsula, the trade of alcohol is strictly prohibited. For example, Pakistan bans the trade because of its large Muslim population. Similarly, Saudi Arabia forbids the importation of alcohol into its kingdom.

Tobacco

The illegal trade of tobacco is motivated primarily by increasingly heavy taxation. When tobacco products such as name-brand cigarettes are traded illegally, the cost is as little as one third that of retail price due to the lack of taxes being applied as the product is sold from manufacturer to buyer to retailer. It has been reported that smuggling one truckload of cigarettes within the United States leads to a profit of 2 million U.S. dollars.[3]

The source of the illegally-traded tobacco is often the proceeds from other crimes, such as store and transportation robberies.

Sometimes, the illegal trade of tobacco is motivated by differences in taxes in two jurisdictions, including smuggling across international borders. Smuggling of tobacco from the US into Canada has been problematic, and sometimes political where trans-national native communities are involved in the illegal trade.

The kingdom of Bhutan made the sale of tobacco illegal in December 2004,[4] and since this time a flourishing black market in tobacco products has sprung up. In 2006, tobacco and betel nut were the most commonly seized illicit drugs in Bhutan. [5]

Opium

International illicit trade in opium is relatively rare. Major smuggling organizations prefer to further refine opium into heroin before shipping to the consumer countries, since a given quantity of heroin is worth much more than an equivalent amount of opium. As such, heroin is more profitable, and much stronger, because heroin is made of the main naturally-occurring psychoactive substance in opium - morphine.

Heroin/Morphine

Heroin is smuggled into the United States and Europe. Purity levels vary greatly by region with, for the most part, Northeastern cities having the most pure heroin in America (according to a recently released report by the DEA, Elizabeth and Newark, New Jersey, have the purest street grade heroin in the country). Heroin is a very easily smuggled drug because a small quarter sized vial can contain hundreds of doses. Heroin is also widely (and usually illegally) used as a powerful and addictive drug that produces intense euphoria, which often disappears with increasing tolerance. This 'rush' comes from its high lipid solubility provided by the two acetyl groups, resulting in a very rapid penetration of the blood-brain barrier after use. In the brain, heroin is rapidly converted into morphine. The morphine then binds to the opioid receptors in the brain and spinal cord, causing the subjective effects. Heroin and morphine can be taken or administered in a number of ways, including snorting and injection. They may also be smoked by inhaling the vapors produced when heated from below (known as "chasing the dragon"). Penalities for smuggling heroin and/or morphine are often harsh in most countries. Some countries will readily hand down a death sentence for the illegal smuggling of heroin or morphine, which are both, internationally, Schedule I drugs under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. In various Asian countries, including Singapore and Malaysia, heroin and morphine are classed by themselves and penalities for their use, possession, and/or trafficking are more severe than all other drugs, including other opioids and cocaine.

Methamphetamine (Meth)

In some areas of the United States, the trade of methamphetamine is rampant. Because of the ease in production and its addiction rate, methamphetamine is a favorite amongst many drug distributors.

According to the Community Epidemiology Work Group, the numbers of clandestine methamphetamine laboratory incidents reported to the National Clandestine Laboratory Database decreased from 1999 to 2004. During this same period, methamphetamine lab incidents increased in midwestern States (Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio), and in Pennsylvania. In 2004, more lab incidents were reported in Illinois (926) than in California (673). In 2003, methamphetamine lab incidents reached new highs in Georgia (250), Minnesota (309), and Texas (677). There were only seven methamphetamine lab incidents reported in Hawaii in 2004, though nearly 59 percent of substance abuse treatment admissions (excluding alcohol) were for primary methamphetamine abuse during the first six months of 2004.

Some MDMA (ecstasy) and cocaine users are switching to methamphetamine. Increasingly, due to it being less expensive, dealers or manufacturers have begun to introduce methamphetamine into ecstasy and cocaine without the user being aware^{[citation needed]}.

Methamphetamine is sometimes used in an injectable form, placing users and their partners at risk for transmission of HIV, hepatitis C^{[citation needed]}.

U.S. Government involvement

The U.S. federal government is a most vocal opponent of the drug industry and it has set the de facto international standards regarding the legality and illegality of different drugs^{[citation needed]}. State laws vary greatly and in some cases defy federal laws. Despite the US government's official position against the drug trade, US government agents and assets have been implicated in the drug trade. [6] [7] [8]

Oliver North and Barry Seal were caught and investigated during the Iran-Contra scandal, implicated in the use of the drug trade as a secret source of funding for the USA's support of the Contras. Page 41 of the December 1988 Kerry report to the US senate [9] states that "indeed senior US policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contra's funding problem."

Highly decorated US military Special Forces veteran, Colonel Bo Gritz (retired) has accused the USA of collaborating with and supporting Manuel Noriega in his drug trafficking operations. In his book Called To Serve, Gritz details his role as a key US Government employee tasked with protecting the USA's relationship with Noriega.

Counter to its official goals, the US has been known to attempt to suppress research on drug usage. For example, in 1995 the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) announced in a press release the publication of the results of the largest global study on cocaine use ever undertaken. However, a decision in the World Health Assembly banned the publication of the study. In the sixth meeting of the B committee the US representative threatened that "If WHO activities relating to drugs failed to reinforce proven drug control approaches, funds for the relevant programmes should be curtailed." This led to the decision to discontinue publication. A part of the study has been recuperated. Available are profiles of cocaine use in 20 countries.

Fiction

Drug smuggling was the topic of:

• The French Connection (1971)
• Midnight Express (1978)
• Scarface (1983)
• License to Kill (1989)
• Deep Cover (1992)
• Clockers (1995)
• Brokedown Palace (1999)
• Traffic (2000)
• Requiem for a Dream (2000)
• Blow (2001)
• 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
• Bad Boys II (2003)
• Maria Full of Grace (2004)
• Layer Cake (2004)
• Power of the Dog Don Winslow (2005)
• Miami Vice (2006)
• Protege (Andy Lau movie) (2007)

Prohibition on drugs

The prohibition of drugs through legislation or religious law is a common means of controlling the perceived or actual consequences of drug use and substance abuse of recreational drugs at a society- or world-wide level.

Scope

Islamic countries mostly prohibit the use of alcohol, while most other states allow at least adults to purchase and consume alcohol. The United States, Finland, Canada, and the USSR also instituted alcohol prohibition in the first half of the 20th century. All countries regulate the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of some or all drugs, such as by using a prescription system. Only certain drugs are banned with a "blanket prohibition" against all use. However, the prohibited drugs generally continue to be available through the illegal drug trade. Many countries allow a certain amount of personal use of certain drugs, but not sale or manufacture. Some also set a specific amount of a particular drug, above which is ipso jure considered to be evidence of trafficking or sale of the drug.

In July 2000, the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan ruled opium to be "against Islam" and outlawed it, with verbal and foreign aid support of the US government. After the Taliban was removed from power by the US (for other reasons), opium cultivation resumed in more widespread areas and in greater yield. In April 2004, Afghan interim president Hamid Karzai declared a jihad on drugs (after opium output reached a near-record 3,600 tonnes in 2003 — equivalent to three-quarters of world supply). Over the next two years, despite the assistance of several hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign anti-drug support, Afghanistan has raised opium production to 6,100 tonnes in 2006, produced on 407,000 acres (1,650 km²) of land, including nearly 30,000 acres (120 km²) of government land - a production estimated to exceed the global demand for opium by thirty percent.[10]

History

Early drug laws

Although the present "War on Drugs" is a distinctly modern phenomenon, drug laws have been a common feature of human culture throughout history.

Perhaps the earliest recorded example in the old world is the prohibition of the use of alcohol under Islamic law (Sharia), which is usually attributed to passages in the Qur'an purportedly dating from the 7th century. Some Muslim scholars assert that this prohibition actually addresses only the abuse of alcohol, but they do not have sufficient numbers or authority to override the familiar total prohibition. Although Islamic law is often interpreted as prohibiting all intoxicants (not only alcohol), the ancient practice of hashish smoking has continued throughout the history of Islam, against varying degrees of resistance. A major campaign against hashish-eating Sufis was conducted in Egypt in the 11th and 12th centuries resulting among other things in the burning of fields of cannabis, and the public torture of hashish users (Ref 1).

Religious intolerance was also the motivation for drug prohibition in Christian Europe. In a move interpreted as support of the efforts of the Spanish Inquisition against the Arabs, in a 1484 fiat Pope Innocent VIII banned the use of cannabis. The persecution of heretics in the form of witch-hunts also gathered momentum around this time, and frequently targeted users of medicinal and hallucinogenic herbs. The Inquisition proceeded apace in Meso-America and South America, where peyote (péyotl), ololiúqui, toloáche, teonanácatl and other sacred plants of the Mexican culture were prohibited as works of the devil.

In Northern Europe, the Protestants were also responsible for passing drug laws motivated by religious intolerance, according to Stephen Harrod Buhner (Ref 2). Buhner argues that the 1516 Reinheitsgebot, which stipulates that beer may only contain water, barley and hops was a "reflection of Protestant irritation about 'drugs' and the Catholic Church." Unlike the typically stimulating herbal blends widely used at the time (e.g. gruit), hops cause sedation and reduce libido. The exclusive use of hops had been compulsory in France since 1268 (Ref 3).

Coffee almost followed the same fate as cannabis as its use spread from Ethiopia through the Middle East to Europe. Its use was banned in the Middle East on numerous occasions as in conflict with Islamic law, but eventually it came to be accepted. The introduction of coffee in Europe from Muslim Turkey also prompted calls for it to be banned as the Devil's work, however Pope Clement VIII sanctioned its use, declaring that it was "so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it."

In late Qing Imperial China, opium imported by the British East India Company was vastly consumed by all social classes in Southern China. Between 1821 and 1837 imports of the drug increased five-fold. The Chinese government attempted to end this trade, on public health grounds. The effort was initially successful with the destruction of all British opium stock in May 1839 . However, to protect this trade, the British declared war on China (First Opium War). China was defeated and the war which ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which protected foreign opium smugglers from Chinese law. A related American treaty promised to end the smuggling of opium by Americans. It took until the next Opium War for the trade to be legalised. The resulting trade greatly weakened Chinese society, and set into motion a chain of events that would lead to the massive Taiping Rebellion.

Twentieth century

The next great wave of anti-drug legislation began in the late 19th century, and continues to the present day. The United States has been the driving force in the present-day "War on Drugs."

The first law outright prohibiting the use of a specific drug was a San Francisco, California ordinance which banned the smoking of opium in opium dens in 1875 . The inspiration was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise," though there is no evidence to suggest this ever happened. The primary cause of the movement for the law was a moral panic based on a fear of Chinese immigrants and other railroad workers seducing white women with the drug ^{[citation needed]}. This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws which barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a panacea by white Americans. The dividing line was usually the manner in which the drug was ingested. Chinese immigrants smoked it, while it was included in various kinds of (generally liquid) medicines for people of European descent. The laws were aimed at smoking opium, but not otherwise ingesting it. [11] As a result of this discrepancy, modern commentators believe that these laws were racist in origin and intent.

Cocaine was prohibited in the first part of the 20th century. Newspapers used terms like "Negro Cocaine Fiends" and "Cocainized Niggers" to drive up sales, causing a nationwide panic about the rape of white women by black men, high on cocaine. Many police forces changed from a .32 caliber to a .38 caliber pistol because the smaller gun was supposedly unable to kill black men when they were high on cocaine.[4]

This was followed by the Harrison Act, passed in 1914, which required sellers of opiates and cocaine to get a license (which were usually only distributed to white people). While originally intended to require paper trails of drug transactions between doctors, drug stores, and patients, it soon became a prohibitive law. The law’s wording was quite vague; it was originally intended as a revenue tracking mechanism that required prescriptions for opiates. It became precedent that any prescription for a narcotic given to a drug addict by a physician or pharmacist – even in the course of medical treatment for addiction - constituted conspiracy to violate the Harrison Act. In the Supreme Court decision Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920) the court upheld that it was a violation of the Harrison act even if a physician provided prescription of a narcotic for an addict of any kind and thus, subject to criminal prosecution. The supporters of the Harrison Act did not support blanket prohibition of the drugs involved 1. This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Act in 1937 . Soon, however, the people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs.

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The prohibition of alcohol commenced in the United States in 1920 and Finland in 1919 . Because alcohol was the most popular recreational drug in these countries, reactions to its prohibition were very different to those of other drugs, which were commonly perceived to be associated with racial and ethnic minorities. Public pressure led to the repealing of alcohol prohibition in 1933 in the United States, 1932 in Finland. Residents of many provinces of Canada also experienced alcohol prohibition for similar periods of time in the first half of the 20th century.

In Sweden a referendum in 1922 decided against an alcohol prohibition law (with 51% of the votes against and 49% for prohibition), but starting in 1914 (nationwide from 1917) and until 1955 Sweden employed an alcohol rationing system with personal liquor ration books ("motbok").

1937 saw the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act. Harry J. Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a violent "effect on the degenerate races." This specifically referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs during the Great Depression. The law passed quickly and with little debate. The American Medical Association (AMA) protested the law soon after, both on the grounds of actual disagreement with the law and the supporters' lies on the subject; Anslinger and others had claimed the AMA had vocalized support when, in fact, the opposite was true. The passing of this law, along with the subsequent lies regarding the effects of cannabis, have deemed it more of a conspiracy than a racist act to control Mexicans. Although the latter is true, there exists a lot of evidence, as explained in "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer, that the law was passed in order to prohibit industrial hemp from becoming a competing industry with paper and cotton, but more importantly, newly discovered plastics (DuPont's Nylon), and the fuel industry.

In response to rising drug use amongst young people and the counter-culture in particular, efforts to enforce prohibition were strengthened in many countries from the late 1960s onwards. In 1972 United States President Richard Nixon announced the commencement of the so-called "War on Drugs." Later, President Reagan added the position of drug czar to the President's Executive Office.

Support at an international level for the prohibition of non-medical drug use has been a consistent feature of United States policy during both Republican and Democratic administrations, to such an extent that US support for foreign governments is sometimes contingent on adherence to US drug policy. Major milestones in this campaign include the successful introduction of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971 and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in 1988 .

In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (113g) of a hard drug, called the Rockefeller drug laws after New York Governor and later Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. Similar laws were introduced across the United States.

California's broader 'three strikes and you're out' policy adopted in 1994 was the first mandatory sentencing policy to gain widespread publicity and was subsequently adopted in most United States jurisdictions. This policy mandates life imprisonment for a third criminal conviction of any offense.

A similar 'three strikes' policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offence involving a class A drug.

In the United States today, mandatory sentencing laws are being questioned, due to prison overcrowding and controversy about the ethics of convicting non-violent drug addicts. Starting in 1989, a new institution was created, called the Drug Court, which offers non-violent drug users accused of crimes the opportunity to successfully complete substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The program, supported by the Department of Justice grew to over 1200 Drug Courts in each of the Fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia by 2003. Drug Courts are touted as one way to reduce criminal justice costs and recidivism, although those who support drug legalization criticize them as "forced treatment."

The current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Czar, John P. Walters has described the drug problem in the United States as a "public health challenge," and he has publicly eschewed the notion of a "war on drugs." He has supported additional resources for substance abuse treatment and has touted random student drug testing as an effective prevention strategy. However, the actions of the Office of National Drug Control Policy continue to belie the rhetoric of a shift away from primarily enforcement-based responses to illegal drug use.

Drug control strategy

Present drug control efforts utilise several techniques to achieve their goals of eliminating recreational drug use:

• Disrupting the market for drugs
• Prevention efforts that rely on community activism, public information campaigns to educate the public on the potential dangers of drug use
• Law-enforcement efforts against current users, through medical screenings, workplace testing and Drug Courts
• Law-enforcement efforts against elements of the supply chain, through surveillance and undercover work
• Providing effective and targeted substance abuse treatment to dependent users

Methods of enforcement

Disrupting the Market relies on eradication, interdiction and domestic law enforcement efforts.

Through cooperation with governments such as Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan, coca (the plant source for cocaine) and poppy (the plant source for opium and heroin) are eradicated by the United States and other allies such as the United Kingdom, so that the crops cannot be processed into narcotics. Eradication can be accomplished by aerial spraying or manual eradication. The government of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has resisted criticism of aerial spraying of coca and poppy and has seen major reductions in both crops according to the United Nations Office of Crime and Drugs.Note 7: The United States government's Plan Colombia has been quite effective. In 2003, over 1,300 square kilometres of mature coca were sprayed and eradicated in Colombia, where at the start of the year, approximately 1,450 square kilometres had been planted. This strategic accomplishment prevented the production over 500 metric tons of cocaine, sufficient to supply all the cocaine addicts in both US and Europe for one year. Further, it eliminated upward of $100 million of illicit income that supports narco-terrorism in Colombia.Note 8: No effect on prices or availability in the marketplace has been noted.

Interdiction is carried out primarily by aerial and naval armed forces patrolling known trafficking zones. From South America to the United States most drugs traverse either the Caribbean Sea or the Eastern Pacific, usually in "go-fast" boats that carry drug cargos and engines and little else.

Investigation on drug trafficking often begins with the recording of unusually frequent deaths by overdose, monitoring financial flows of suspected traffickers, or by finding concrete elements while inspecting for other purposes. For example, a person pulled over for traffic violations may have illicit drugs in his or her vehicle, thus leading to an arrest and/or investigation of the source of the materials. The federal government has placed a premium on disrupting the large drug trafficking organizations that move narcotics into and around the United States, while state and local law enforcement focus on disrupting street-level drug dealing gangs. Law enforcement has been effective in arresting and disrupting large-scale drug trafficking organizations, but often lament the fact that with such a lucrative commodity, others move in to take over quickly.

Legal provisions

The following frequently used drugs are prohibited or otherwise regulated for recreational use in most countries:

• Barbiturates, like Pentobarbital
• Benzodiazepines such as diazepam (Valium)
• Cannabis products, e.g. marijuana, hashish and hashish oil
• Dissociatives such as dextromethorphan (DXM), phencyclidine (pcp), and ketamine
• Hallucinogens such as LSD, mescaline, peyote, and psilocybin
• Opium, opiates such as heroin, morphine and codeine, and opioids such as hydrocodone
• Sedatives such as GHB, and methaqualone (Quaalude)
• Stimulants such as amphetamines (Adderall, Dexedrine), coca leaves and their derivative cocaine, MDMA (Ecstasy), methamphetamines, methcathinone, methylphenidate (Ritalin), and nicotine
• Pregabalin (Lyrica)

The regulation of the above drugs varies in many countries; cannabis and hashish, for example, are sometimes legal for personal use, though not sale. In some countries Dextromethorphan is available in ordinary over-the-counter products such as cough medicines. Alcohol possession and consumption by adults is today banned only in Islamic countries and various parts of India. The United States, Finland, and Canada banned alcohol in the early part of the 20th century; this was called Prohibition. Tobacco is not illegal for adults in most countries, with the notable exception of Bhutan (as of 2005). In some parts of the world, provisions are made for the use of traditional sacraments like Ayahuasca, Iboga, and Peyote. In Gabon, Africa, iboga (Tabernanthe iboga) has been declared a national treasure and is used in rites of the Bwiti religion. The active ingredient, ibogaine, is proposed as a treatment of opioid withdrawal and various substance use disorders.

In countries where alcohol and tobacco are legal, certain measures are frequently undertaken to discourage use of these drugs. For example, packages of alcohol and tobacco sometimes communicate warnings directed towards the consumer, communicating the potential risks of partaking in the use of the substance. These drugs also frequently have special sin taxes associated with the purchase thereof, in order to recoup the losses associated with public funding for the health problems the use causes in long-term users. Restrictions on advertising also exist in many countries, and often a state holds a monopoly on manufacture, distribution, marketing and/or the sale of these drugs.

In the United States, there is considerable legal debate about the impact these laws have had on Americans' civil rights. Critics claim that the War on Drugs has lowered the evidentiary burden required for a legal search of a suspect's dwelling or vehicle, or to intercept a suspect's communications. However, many of the searches that result in drug arrests are often "commission" to search a person or the person's property.

People who consent to a search, knowing full well that they possess contraband, generally consent because they are ignorant of the fact that they have the right to decline permission to search. Under the laws of most U.S. states, police are not required to disclose to suspects that they have the right to decline a search. Even when a suspect does not give permission to search, police are often known ^{[citation needed]}to state in arrest affidavits and even provide sworn testimony that the suspect consented to the search, secure in the knowledge that a judge will normally weigh all questions of credibility in favour of law enforcement and against the accused.

The sentencing statutes in the United States Code that cover controlled substances are notoriously intricate. For example, a first-time offender convicted in a single proceeding for selling marijuana three times, and found to have carried a gun on him all three times (even if it were not used) is subject to a minimum sentence of 55 years in federal prison. U.S. v. Angelos, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Utah 2004).

Drug sentencing guidelines under state law in America are generally much less harsh than the draconian federal sentencing guidelines. The vast majority of drug felonies and almost all drug misdemeanors in the United States are prosecuted at the state level. The federal government tends to prosecute only drug trafficking cases involving large amounts of drugs, or cases, which have been referred to federal prosecutors by local district attorneys seeking harsher sentences under the federal sentencing guidelines. In rare instances, some defendants are prosecuted both federally and by the state for the same drug trafficking conduct. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant does not face double jeopardy if he is convicted and sentenced by both the state and federal government for the same underlying criminal conduct.

Sometimes, crimes not directly related to drug use and sale are prohibited. For example, the United States recently brought charges against club owners for maintaining a place of business where a) Ecstasy is known to be frequently consumed; b) paraphernalia associated with the use of Ecstasy is sold and/or widely tolerated (such as glow sticks and pacifiers); and c) "chill-out rooms" are created, where Ecstasy users can cool down (Ecstasy raises the user's blood temperature). These are being challenged in court by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Drug Policy Alliance.

Drug prohibition has created several legal dilemmas. For example many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. Some people have criticized this practice as failing to ensure equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.

Another legal dilemma is the creation of a legal loop hole allowing for the arbitrary arrest and prosecution of anyone in several countries. This is the result of several drugs such as Dimethyltryptamine, GHB and morphine being illegal to possess but also inherently present in all humans as a result of endogenous synthesis. Since some jurisdictions classify possession of drugs to include having the drug present in the blood in any concentration, all residents of such countries are technically in possession of multiple illegal drugs at all times.

The War on Drugs has stimulated the creation of international law enforcement agencies (such as Interpol), mostly in Western countries. This has occurred because a large volume of illicit drugs come from Third-World countries.

Penalties

United States

Drug possession is the crime of having one or more illegal drugs in one's possession, either for personal use, distribution, sale or otherwise. Illegal drugs fall into different categories and sentences vary depending on the amount, type of drug, circumstances, and jurisdiction.

In the U.S., the penalty for illegal drug possession and sale can vary from a small fine to a prison sentence. In some states, marijuana possession is considered to be a petty offense, with the penalty being comparable to that of a speeding violation. In some municipalities, possessing a small quantity of marijuana in one's own home is not even punishable at all. Generally, however, drug possession is an arrestable offense, although first-time offenders rarely serve jail time.

In the U.S., the War on Drugs is causing a prison overcrowding problem. In 1996, 59.6% of prisoners were drug-related criminals. U.S. population grew by about +25% from 1980 to 2000. In that same 20 year time period, U.S. prison population tripled. To make room in prison for incoming drug users and dealers, all inmates, including violent criminals are having their sentences shortened or are being paroled early. This is why mandatory sentencing laws are being repealed.

Australia

There is a movement in Australia to make some substances decriminalised, particularly cannabis, making the possession of such a non-convictable offence in most states (however, the definition of what constitutes possession can differ between states). Heroin trials have been tried in various states with mixed results.

As a result of the decriminalisation, the punishments for drug use and drug dealing in Australia are typically very small, with many convicted small-time drug dealers not having to spend any time in jail.

There is an associated pro-drugs culture amongst a minority of the youth of Australia. The popular national youth radio station Triple J often refers to drug use with a neutral sentiment, rarely discouraging their use. Many take this neutrality as an encouragement to use drugs, and a feeling of drug use being acceptable in Australia. However, there is still law enforcement targeting drugs, particularly in the party scene.

The Netherlands

Related article: Drug policy of the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, cannabis and other "soft" drugs are fully decriminalised in small quantities. Contrary to popular belief, cannabis is still illegal, mostly to satisfy the country's agreements with the United Nations. Coffee shops that sell cannabis are tolerated across the country, and pay taxes like any other business for their drug sales, although distribution is a grey area that the authorities would rather not go into as it is not decriminalised. Many "coffee shops" are found in Amsterdam and cater mainly to the large tourist trade; the local consumption rate is far lower than in the US.

Similarly to the rest of the European Union member states and American democracies, controlled drugs are illegal in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, illegal narcotics are consumed worldwide, causing concern in the international community. According to the United Nations Drug Control Program, results in the 2001 World Drug Report estimate "that the extent of drug abuse in the world involves about 180 million people, which represents 3% of the global population. The majority of drug users (80%) used cannabis, followed by amphetamine-type stimulants such as methamphetamine, amphetamine and substances of the ecstasy group (16%), cocaine (8%), heroin (5%) and other opiates (2%)."

The administrative bodies responsible for enforcing the drug policies include the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, and the Ministry of Finance. It is important to note that local authorities also shape local policy, within the national framework. The prohibition policy is heavily influenced by the international community (through the United Nations), especially the neighboring states of France and Germany, which pressure the kingdom to be more strict, for they are directly affected through the illegal trafficking of narcotics coming from the Netherlands.

Legally, possession, manufacturing, trafficking, importation and exportation are forbidden. Nonetheless, it is not an offense to use drugs (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2003). There are different penalties involved when breaking the law, which may include a monetary fine, imprisonment, or both. To apply the law, the government differentiates between "soft" and "hard" drugs. Soft drugs are considered to produce less harm to both the individual and society, these being used mainly for homeopathic and recreational purposes. This category encompasses cannabis (nederwiet), hashish and some fungi. Hard drugs are considered to cause considerable personal harm through addiction and physical detriment, as well as nuisance to society, by increasing crime and deteriorating families. Cocaine, heroin, etc. belong to this category.

Along with these two categories, there is a pyramid of priority when it comes to prosecution by law enforcement agencies.

1. The handling and trade of hard drugs is on the zenith, being a joint target not only by the Netherlands, but also by the international community. This can be punished by maximum sentences of twelve years of imprisonment and/or a fine of up to €45.000.
2. The second priority is given to the production and trade of soft drugs. Deviation from the AHOJ-G criteria for coffee shops may result in up to four years of imprisonment and/or a fine of €45.000.
3. The third priority focuses on hard drug users. Instead of labeling the users of hard drugs as "criminals," the state aims to rehabilitate users and prevent others from becoming addicted. However, disturbance to society cased by the consumption of hard drugs can result in one year of prison and/or a €11.250 fine. Lastly, individuals possessing more than five grams for personal consumption, or disturbing the public, can go to prison for one month and/or be fined €2.250.

There are varying rules within this categories, for example the amount possessed, the role played in the transaction and the intent of the goods.

As regards coffee shops, the line between law and practice thins. A coffee shop is a heavily controlled business establishment where individuals can purchase a personal dose of soft drugs in the form of joints, pastry, drinks and packages. In theory illegal, these shops must abide by governmental and local regulations, as well as meet the AHOJ-G criteria, an acronym for: No Advertising, Hard drugs, Nuisance of any kind, Jongeren (minors), and a limit of five grams per transaction. Additionally, the maximum stock at any time is five hundred grams. Local governments may impose additional rules, such as closing times, zoning (coffee shops may not be close to schools), and parking restrictions. The rationale behind coffee shops is to keep citizens away from the hard drugs scene, bringing them to a safe, social, and regulated environment.

When analyzing the Dutch model, both disadvantages and advantages can be drawn when comparing the results with other countries. On a moral argument, tolerating soft drugs can be seen as the defeat of the government against hedonism. Additionally, decades of growing and perfecting cannabis and hashish has resulted in increased levels of the main active hallucinogenic constituent tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as levels have doubled, making the derived products more powerful.

On the other side, gedoogbeleid has considerable advantages, making it the most successful policy in the post-industrial world. To begin, this tolerance did not result in hordes of young Dutch queuing in coffee shops after school. Though there was a slight increase of use at the beginning, the rates balanced out some years later. The presence of coffee shops does not translate in public urge for experimentation. In fact, most people that did not consume drugs before the enhancement of the policy continue not to use them.

Tolerating soft drugs also leads to a more cohesive society, where everyone is represented, even those who decide to use drugs as a recreational item, just like Heineken, a pseudo-symbol of national pride, is widely consumed and exported around the EU and the world. Having users as part of the public sphere also aids the government to conduct studies on the medical and psychosocial consequences of drugs, allowing it to draft improved policies, and serve as an example to the world, as well as aiding those who need professional help, which would hesitate less to seek help if there is no stigma associated with their habit. Eliminating the taboo element associated with illegality, many curious consumers would not even ponder soft drugs as a source of deviance. Incorporating drugs in the market economy also entitles the government to regulate doses and the contents of the products, further reducing potential harm to individuals. The dangers of the underground market are also highly reduced by condoning small-scale trade, making the establishments more accessible to the public.

When compared to other countries, Dutch drug consumption falls in the European average at six per cent regular use (twenty-one per cent at some point in life) and considerably lower than the Anglo-Saxon countries headed by the United States with an eight per cent recurring use (thirty-four at some point in life). Experts have come to the conclusion that the policies applied do not play a striking role in these statistics, though there is debate over this issue (CEDRO, 2004).

A major argument in favor of drug prohibition is that it maintains the well-being of citizens. Substances such as cigarettes and alcohol can prove to be a much higher risk factor to the consumer, resulting in similar and other worse side effects. A move of the Dutch government towards the right, in addition to increased international pressure, endanger the current gedoogbeleid, and its future is uncertain. The number of coffee shops (one third of the total is located in Amsterdam) has decreased by roughly one fifth and is expected to further decrease, as local governments tighten regulations. There is however some hope that the political climate could change, as some countries such as Germany have decriminalized the personal use of soft drugs for recreational and medicinal purposes.

Indonesia

Indonesia carries a maximum penalty of death for drug dealing, and a maximum of 15 years prison for drug use. In practice, this is rarely carried out against Indonesian citizens, however they have controversially executed many overseas tourists to the country.

In 2004, Australian citizen Schappelle Corby was convicted of smuggling 4.4 kilograms of cannabis in to Bali, a crime that carried a maximum penalty of death. Her trial reached the verdict of guilty with a punishment of 20 years imprisonment. Corby claimed to be an unwitting drug mule.

Australian citizens known as the "Bali Nine" were caught smuggling heroin, and each face the death penalty.

In August 2005, Australian model Michelle Leslie was arrested with two Ecstasy pills. She pleaded guilty to possession and in November 2005 was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, which she was deemed to have already served, and was released from prison immediately upon her admission of guilt on the charge of possession.

The neutrality of this article or section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

The prohibition of drugs is a subject of considerable controversy. The following is a presentation of arguments for and against drug prohibition.

Arguments against prohibition, and for legalization/decriminalization

Moral and Religious

Many of the arguments for drug prohibition are based on perceptions of drugs as dangerous to people, which creates the basis for a moral opposition to drug use. Some of these perceptions are based on common knowledge or scientific evidence, indicating how certain drugs are detrimental to individuals and communities. Those who are against prohibition argue, however, that even though drugs can be dangerous to people, it would be much easier to control their use if drugs were legal. The legalization of drugs would then be perceived as a more ethical way to deal with the problem.

Some religious groups including the União do Vegetal, Native American Church and the Rastafari movement use psychoactive substances as sacrament in religious rituals. In some religious practice, drugs are sometimes used as a conduit to an oceanic feeling or divine union , equated with mysticism or entheogenic ('that which causes God to be within an individual') experiences. In others, the 'entactogenic' qualities of drugs are used to enhance feelings of empathy among congregations.

Almost all nations have signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, amongst other human rights treaties, as a set of moral standards for the world to live by. One of the fundamental rights enshrined in international human rights law is the right to freedom of thought, which current case law may suggest is violated by a blanket prohibition of drugs^{[citation needed]}.

Other human rights, such as the right to freedom from discrimination, are also often said to be violated, due to the arbitrary difference in treatment between those who use illegal drugs and those who use often more harmful legal ones.

In opposition to the mentioned opposition to the intoxicating or mind-altering effects of drugs, some argue that altered states and experimentation are able to push the boundaries of human experience. There is thus a moral imperative to experiment with drugs in terms of human progress, teleological development, or just increased artistic creativity; such ideas are central to Cognitive Liberty, Stoned Ape Theory and Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception.

Crime/terrorism

Critics of drug prohibition often cite the fact that the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933 led to immediate decreases in murders and robberies to support the argument that legalization of drugs could have similar effects. Once those involved in the narcotics trade have a legal method of settling business disputes, the number of murders and violent crime could drop. Robert W. Sweet, a federal judge, strongly agrees: "The present policy of trying to prohibit the use of drugs through the use of criminal law is a mistake" (Riga 53). When alcohol use was outlawed during prohibition, it gave rise to gang warfare and spurred the formation of some of the most well known criminals of the era, among them the infamous Al Capone. Similarly, drug dealers today resolve their disputes through violence and intimidation, something which legal drug vendors do not do. Prohibition critics also point to the fact that police are more likely to be corrupted in a system where bribe money is so available. Police corruption due to drugs is widespread enough that one pro-legalization newsletter has made it a weekly feature.

Drug money has been called a major source of income for terrorist organizations. Critics assert that legalization would remove this central source of support for terrorism. While politicians blame drug users for being a major source of financing terrorists, no clear evidence of this link has been provided. US government agencies and government officials have been caught trafficking drugs to finance US-supported terrorist actions in events such as the Iran-Contra Affair, and Manuel Noriega but the isolated nature of these events precludes them from being major sources of financing.

Over 2,000 people in Mexico alone have been murdered in drug trafficking related violence in 2006. [12]

Prohibition causes more harm than good

Despite increasing amounts of money being spent on prohibition, drugs have become more accessible, cheaper, and more potent. The illegality of injectable drugs leads to a scarcity of needles which causes an increase in HIV infections. The money spent on both increased health costs due to HIV infections and drug prohibition itself causes a drain upon society. Despite the fact that most drug offenders are non-violent, the stigma attached to a conviction can prevent employment and education.

Legal dilemmas

Drug prohibition has created several legal dilemmas. For example many countries allow the use of undercover law enforcement officers solely or primarily for the enforcement of laws against recreational use of certain drugs. Many of these officers are allowed to commit crimes if it is necessary to maintain the secrecy of the investigation, or in order to collect adequate evidence for a conviction. Some people have criticized this practice as failing to ensure equality under the law because it grants police officers the right to commit crimes that no other citizen could commit without potential consequences.^{[citation needed]}

Several drugs such as Dimethyltryptamine, Morphine and GHB are illegal to possess but are also inherently present in all (Dimethyltryptamine and Morphine) humans as a result of endogenous synthesis. Since some jurisdictions classify possession of drugs to include having the drug present in the blood in any concentration, all residents of such jurisdictions are technically in possession of multiple illegal drugs at all times.

Forbidding drugs can romanticize them

The war on drugs is counterproductive to the goal of discouraging drug use. The primary mechanism for this is reverse psychology. Forbidden things become fodder for rebellion, and illegal drugs have been popularized by this perception. In addition, the ability of the government to enforce drug laws among those below the age of 18 is diminished, which causes high school aged people to become a popular conduit through which drugs are distributed, a counterpoint to "protect the children" arguments of those for prohibition.

This argument is often summed up as the allure of the forbidden fruit, which is increased because it is forbidden.

Criminalization increases profits for drug dealers

Legalization would reduce the profits of drug dealing. The illegal drug business is very profitable since the price of a product increases when it is made illegal. "Whenever there is a great demand for a product and (the) government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand" (Official United States Libertarian Party Platform).

Yearly drug trafficking earnings average to about 60 billion US dollars and range as high as 100 billion US dollars a year in the US alone (Duke and Gross 33). Marijuana is the largest cash crop in ten states as well as in the US as a whole[13]

"Revenues from drug trafficking in Miami, FL., are greater than those from tourism, exports, health care and all other legitimate businesses combined" (Wink 108). The U.S. illegal drug market is one-eighth of the total world market, making it the largest illegal drug market in the world (Rodriguez). Worldwide, the trade in illegal recreational drugs is estimated to be worth as much as US$ a billion per year, approximately the same value as the legitimate trade in pharmaceutical drugs used in medicine.^{[citation needed]}

Janet Crist of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy mentioned that the anti-drug efforts have had "no direct effect on either the price or the availability of cocaine on our streets" (qtd. in Boaz). Additionally, drug dealers show off expensive jewelry and clothing to young children (Duke and Gross 33). Some of these children are interested in making fast money instead of working legitimate jobs (Kane 157). Drug legalization would remove the "glamorous Al Capone-type traffickers who are role-models for the young" (Wink 111).

Economics

The United States efforts at drug prohibition started out with a US$350 million budget in 1971, and is currently (in 2006) a US$30 billion campaign. These numbers only include direct prohibition enforcement expenditures, and as such only represent part of the total cost of prohibition. This $30 billion figure rises dramatically once other issues, such as the economic impact of holding 400,000 prisoners on prohibition violations, are factored in.

The war on drugs is extremely costly to such societies that outlaw drugs in terms of taxpayer money, lives, productivity, the inability of law enforcement to pursue mala in se crimes, and social inequality. Some proponents of legalization say that the financial and social costs of drug law enforcement far exceed the damages that the drugs themselves cause. For instance, in 1999 close to 60,000 prisoners (3.3% of the total incarcerated population) convicted of violating marijuana laws were behind bars at a cost to taxpayers of some $1.2 billion per year. In 1980, the total jail and prison population was 540,000, about one-quarter the size it is today. Drug offenders accounted for 6% of all prisoners. Today drug offenders account for nearly 25%. Libertarian Party opponents to the drug war have stated that if the US government legalized only marijuana, US taxes could be reduced by one third. ^{[citation needed]}

Personal freedom

Many believe what persons do in private should not be regulated by the government. It is argued that persons should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, as long as they do not harm others. Such arguments often cite the harm principle of philosopher John Stuart Mill who urged that the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society: 'Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign' and 'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.' This argument was used in relation to recreational drug use by Aleister Crowley. The argument is that drug use is a victimless crime and as such the government has no right to prohibit it or punish drug consumers, much like the government does not forbid overeating, which causes significantly more deaths per year. This can be equated with the quest for freedom of thought.

Consistency

It has been shown that ending prohibition reduces the use of hard drugs as it has in countries such as The Netherlands [14].

Since alcohol prohibition ended and the War on Drugs began, there has been much debate over the issue of consistency among legislators with regard to drug prohibition. Many anti-prohibition activists focus on the well-documented dangers of alcohol (such as alcoholism, cystisis, domestic violence, brain and liver damage). In addition to anecdotal evidence, they cite statistics to show more deaths caused by drunk driving than by drivers under the influence of cannabis, more assaults instigated by drunks than by smokers, and more property damage.

Although there has not been one single substantiated case for the last 100 years in medical history of a marijuana overdose (death), two other legal drugs have been the cause of more than half a million deaths a year in the USA alone: 480,000 deaths from tobacco smoking-related illnesses and 80,000 from alcohol abuse. Although these drugs constitute about 20% of all yearly deaths in the US, and although preventable by direct prohibition, they are legal to use. This shows an inconsistency between the declared motives of the law enforcement agencies to reduce harm and the laws themselves. Some activists argue that it is inconsistent that alcohol is legal for those over 21 in the United States, while marijuana is absolutely illegal.

Illegal drug impurities

Often when illegal drugs are purchased in the underground market, there is no care for hygiene, and drugs may be cut with other substances or sold under different guises to increase supply, sale potential, profit, or user addiction potential. This can be dangerous as even though numerous illegal drugs have very low toxicity levels (low potential for overdose) and low addiction potential their safety status can be altered dramatically if they contain other chemicals of which the buyer is unaware. This can increase the potential for unexpected effects, overdoses, and drug dependence. For instance, tablets sold as MDMA have commonly been found to contain methamphetamine as the primary active ingredient or include methamphetamine in addition to other drugs.^{[citation needed]} Methamphetamine has much higher comparative addictive potential than MDMA, and a higher risk of overdose as demonstrated by its LD50s. Dozens of people died in one year in Cook County alone, in relation to ingesting heroin unknowingly cut with fentanyl. [15] Black tar heroin has been known to carry wound botulism. Variable heroin purity, active cutting agents, and contaminated product is one of the major dangers of heroin use, and is strictly caused by prohibition.

Health

Traditional health use

Many cultures have used, and still use the same drugs that are illegal under prohibition for both medicine, and comfort with success. It can be argued that if the benefits of a drug can be made clear then the prohibition of the drug is unfounded.

Drug addiction as a public health issue

If drugs were legalized, drug addiction and abuse would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. By selling drugs in state clinics or stores, the government would be able to maintain quality control over drug sales. As with alcohol, government agencies would guarantee purity and safety (Wink 111-113). Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross conclude that drug legalization would result in a reduced risk of drug poisoning or overdose. Producers and traffickers currently sell poisonously diluted drugs because they are cheaper and easier to import. Legalization would allow a control of the diluted form and extent.

"If drug purities were standardized and clearly and accurately labeled, the likelihood of a person accidentally overdosing would be much less than it is under the present regime" (37-38). Administration of clean hypodermic needles would lessen disease transmitted by drug abusers, including AIDS. Pregnant women with drug problems would receive better prenatal care (Duke 116-117). Furthermore, the introduction of addictive agents added into the drug can also be regulated.

Judge James P. Gray, an advocate of drug legalization, believes that the only way to solve a progressively unsuccessful war on drugs is to decriminalize it and make it a health issue (Luna). Currently, it is difficult for drug users to ask for help or seek treatment because of the criminal status of drugs; drug abuse should be considered an illness. Peter J. Riga believes "it is shameful and irrational that users of cocaine and heroin are labeled criminals and go to jail—with almost no hope of therapy or rehabilitation—while the users of the powerful drug alcohol are considered sick and given therapy." The government provides very little funding for drug treatment (53), resulting in the abuse of addicted people. New York City imprisons one drug abuser for more than 150 dollars per day, but ignores the need of the user. Convicted addicts without money have to wait at least four months for therapy (Kane 155). Treatment is "available for only about 15 [percent] of the nation's drug addicts." Recurrently, judges have to follow mandatory sentencing guidelines when prosecuting drug users. The New York Times mentions that in New York in April 1993, two federal judges were fed up with the guidelines and refused to hear any case that was drug-related (Riga 53).

Some drugs cannot be used for medical purposes because of prohibition. Cannabis is a Schedule I drug, which means that it has no accepted medical uses. The benefits of its use include easing the pain of terminally ill patients. For chemotherapy and AIDS patients, cannabis increases their appetite and counters nausea. The American Medical Association protested the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act due to its interest in cannabis for medical purposes (McGrath 123+).

The rationing out of medicines often creates the situation where a patient with legitimate analgesic needs is provided with an inadequate supply. As many physicians are wary of being placed on law enforcement watchlists, newer and relatively untested non-narcotic pain relievers are frequently prescribed instead of opioids. One such medication was Vioxx, later found to be responsible for an estimated 26,000 to 55,000 deaths by heart attack and stroke.

As many people initially only inject heroin to stretch a limited amount (usually due to limited funds), intravenous heroin abuse was practically non-existent back when the substance was legal and cheap. Therefore, drug prohibition is directly responsible for drastically accelerating the spread of HIV/AIDS among North-American heterosexuals. Needle sharing among heroin users has widened the spread of other diseases as well, such as hepatitis C, tetanus, and endocarditis.

The Netherlands government treats drug use as a health problem, not a criminal problem (although there is criminal punishment for trafficking in some "hard drugs"). Because of the country's decision, treatment for drug addiction is widely available in the Netherlands. In Amsterdam 75 percent of heroin addicts are on treatment. HIV infection rate among injective drug users in cities like Amsterdam has dropped from 11 percent to 4 percent and is now one of the lowest in the world.

Research published in March, 2007 by the United Kingdom's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), advocated by Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council (UK) into the harm caused by 20 different common recreational drugs, claimed that if recreational drugs were all classified under the current UK ABC system (A focusing on hard drugs, such as heroin, and, strangely, ecstasy and mushrooms containing psilocin or psilocybin, C containing the soft drugs such as Cannabis and ketamine) then alcohol would be a Class A drug (punishment for possession being 7 years incarceration and an unlimited fine, supply incurring life in prison and an unlimited fine), and Tobacco would be a Class B drug, joining amphetamines (with a punishment of a maximum of 5 years incarceration and an unlimited fine for possession, and 14 years incarceration and an unlimited fine for supplying). The Study suggested a drugs policy that reflected the actual harm of the drug - Heroin and Cocaine topping the list, followed by Alcohol at 5th, Tobacco at 9th, with Cannabis at 11th - the study takes into account the stronger hydroponic skunk that now is the most common form of cannabis in the UK, and the recent studies on the capacity for Cannabis use to enduce mental disorders such as Paranoid Schizophrenia and Psychotic Disorder. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) was ranked 14th, and ecstasy 18th. The harm ratings were based upon completely pure drug consumption - something that is incredibly rare in Britain, where the average ecstasy pill contains less that 15% MDMA, and is cut with amphetamine, methamphetamine, morphine, 2c-b, caffine and occasionally strychnine, creating complex synergystic effects that the user is unlikely to anticipate, and the harm caused is far more difficult to estimate. Proponents of legalisation argue that this not only demonstrates a palpable hypocrisy, but shows how much safer narcotics could be if they were legaly produced. An interesting case study of the problem of impurities is demonstrated by the influx of the highly dangerous para-methoxyampethamine (PMA) compound into the Australian drug scene, where it was sold as ecstasy causing a large number of overdoses. Proponents argue that this could be prevented by legal production and control.

A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegally. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users unintentionally injecting brick dust, quinine, or fentanyl with which their heroin had been cut, the more toxic (and easier to make) derivative MDA sold as MDMA ^{[citation needed]}, etc.

User cost of drugs

When the cost of drugs increases, drugs users are more likely to commit crimes in order to obtain money to buy the expensive drugs (Duke 115). Legalizing drugs would make drugs reasonably cheap (Kane 155). Poor addicts or recreational users would be capable of honest work and would not be driven to crime to support their habits.

Racism and unequal enforcement of drug laws

Some consider the war on drugs, at least in the United States, to be a "war on some drugs"...and some drug users. Current drug laws are enforced in such a way as to penalize African-Americans more harshly and more often than other ethnic groups, and to penalize the poor of all races more harshly and more often than the middle and upper classes. The belief that "hard" drugs such as crack cocaine warrant stronger sentences than "soft" drugs such as marijuana or even powder cocaine represents a double standard not supported by scientific evidence. Defendants convicted of selling crack cocaine receive equal sentences to those convicted of selling 100* times the same amount of powder cocaine.

• This disparity was lessened during the Clinton administration when the Powder Cocaine Sentencing Act changed the ratio to 10 to 1.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the majority of offenders convicted for selling crack are poor and/or black, while the majority of those convicted for selling cocaine are not. In fact, Blacks only constitute 13% of all known drug users, but represent 35% of all arrests for drug possession and 74% of all those sentenced to prison for drug possession. In addition, the convention of selling crack in heavily patrolled neighborhoods makes crack dealers easier targets for arrest than cocaine dealers, who tend to operate in private areas, such as dance clubs and college campuses. If this does not demonstrate that anti-drug laws are useless in themselves (so the argument goes), it shows that they are clearly being implemented inequitably.

The creation of drug cartels

Massive arrests of local growers of marijuana, for example, not only increases the price of local drugs, but protects the major drug cartels from any competition. Only major retailers that can handle massive shipments, have their own small fleet of aircraft, troops to defend the caravans and other sophisticated methods of eluding the police (such as lawyers), can survive by this regulation of the free market by the government.

Milton Friedman:"...it is because it's prohibited. See, if you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true."

Effect on producer countries

The United States' "War on Drugs" has added considerably to the political instability in South America. The huge profits to be made from cocaine and other South American-grown drugs are largely due to the fact that it is illegal in the wealthy neighbouring nation. This drives people in the relatively poor countries of Colombia, Peru and Brazil to break their own laws in organising the cultivation, preparation and trafficking of cocaine to the States. This has allowed criminal, paramilitary and guerrilla groups to reap huge profits, exacerbating already serious law-and-order and political problems. Coca farming has been practiced for centuries in Andean countries, producing coca leaves which are then chewed for their mild stimulant effect. Many of these farmers' livelihoods (whether or not they are supplying the cocaine trade) are destroyed by U.S. sponsored herbicide spraying, usually by air. Producer countries are also given further economic stimulus to grow illicit drugs as a cash crop by the dumping of subsidised farming products (fruit, vegetables, grain etc.) produced by Western countries (predominantly US and EU agricultural surpluses) (see BBC reference, below).

Recently, this has become a huge problem in Afghanistan as well, which went from producing practically no drugs in 2000 having been banned by the Taliban to cultivating as much as 90% of the world's opium (6,100 tonnes according to a United Nations report from September 2006). This has destabilized the government to the point that the top NATO commander in Afghanistan recently warned that the majority of Afghanistan's citizens could support a Taliban return by the summer if conditions do not improve.

Furthermore, the sale of the illegal drugs produces an influx of dollars that is outside the formal economy, and puts pressure on the currency exchange keeping the dollar low and making the export of legal products more difficult.

Same policy for distinctive drugs

Many drug policies group all illegal drugs into a single category. Since drugs drastically vary in their effects, dosages, methods of production, and consumption the arguments for or against drug prohibition are blurred.

In contrast the medical community will group drugs based upon common effects. This allows them to properly regulate the usage of the drugs. Should all prescription drugs be regulated under the same system, doctors may find it difficult to prescribe antibiotics due to the fact they are in the same category as addictive prescription drugs.

Use of more dangerous but more easily accessible drugs

Because some drugs are difficult to make or acquire under prohibition users and producers may instead turn to more dangerous drugs that are easier to obtain or attempt dangerous procedures to make drugs covertly.

For example because a drug like cocaine, is too expensive, users may turn to another drug like methamphetamine that is arguably more dangerous, but also more easily synthesized.

Another example is when a drug is too hard to traffic and sell easily some users may turn to making it themselves to save money or to keep an easy supply of the drug. If the user is unqualified in chemistry, unwanted reactions may occur. Illict synthesis of methamphetamine often results in an end product dangerously contaminated with toxic byproducts, including chemicals from the reaction such as toluene, iodine or phosphorus, or potent neurotoxins such as 4-iodomethamphetamine.

Similarly homebake heroin may contain contaminants such as pyridine and acetic anhydride. Also dealers often dilute drugs in order to make limited supplies stretch further, using any white powder that comes to hand including chalk, salt or flour. Many people have died from injecting drugs contaminated in this way.

The synthesis of Nitrous oxide from ammonium nitrate is another example; explosive byproducts are easily created, which means that property damage or severe injuries are likely. Instances are known of individuals suffering death or severe injury after inhaling the highly toxic gas nitric oxide having mistaken it for nitrous oxide.

Due to the lack of availability of other drugs, some communities have seen a rise of comparatively more dangerous drugs such as inhalant abuse. This increased use of dangerous legal products, according to some critics, has been more harmful to society than regulated sales of the currently illegal drugs would have been.

Deliriant drugs such as nutmeg and datura are not illegal, even though they are both more likely than most illegal drugs to cause death from acute overdose, and have a higher tendency to cause confusion and potentially violent unpredictable behaviour. Some medicines such as Benadryl (diphenhydramine) and Dramamine (dimenhydrinate) are sometimes taken in dangerous overdoses when people try to use them to achieve deliriant effects.

Toad licking has also been noted to cause deaths, for instance in an incident where a man died from confusing the hallucinogenic Colorado River Toad with another kind of toad that sweats powerful cardiotoxic steroids.

Block to research

The illegality of many recreational drugs may be dissuading research into new more effective and perhaps safer recreational drugs. For example it has been proposed that a safer substitute to alcohol with many of the same desired effects could be created imparting many health and safety benefits to society. Furthermore, the compensation received and knowledge gained in the creation of new recreational drugs might allow for more basic research into human biology, treatments for medical conditions such as depression, and general improvements in the functionality of humans. Also the illegality of recreational drugs may be hindering the ability of companies to discover and market drugs that could be used for recreation but could also be effective as medical treatments.

Legitimate medical use of illegal drugs

It has been shown that there may be legitimate medical uses to various illegal drugs, such as use of MDMA for cognitive enhancement in people with Parkinson's Disease, or its administration for people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, such as people who have been raped. The Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies is a non-profit research and educational organization which assists scientists to design, fund, obtain approval for and report on studies into the risks and benefits of MDMA, psychedelic drugs and marijuana. MAPS' mission is to sponsor scientific research designed to develop psychedelics and marijuana into FDA-approved prescription medicines, and to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of these drugs.

Arguments for prohibition, and against legalization/decriminalization

Health

One common reason given for the prohibition of the use of certain drugs is to prevent an increase in health risks to those who might use prohibited drugs. Possible immediate detrimental health effects include altered awareness, reduced motor control, poisoning, and death by overdose. Prohibited drugs may also detrimentally impact broader long term measures of health and well being such as educational performance, standard-of-living, and incidence of depression.^{[citation needed]}

There is concern over a variety of other possible links between health problems and specific prohibited drugs: direct somatic problems such as increased accidents (bone fractures, car accidents)^{[citation needed]}; physical addiction and substance cravings; co-morbid diseases such as HIV, bronchitis and Hepatitis C^{[citation needed]}; psychosocial problems such as increased risk of depression, paranoia and psychosis, and others. Health risk profiles may vary substantially between different prohibited drugs.^{[citation needed]}

In many cases though there is contention as to whether apparent correlations between use of a prohibited drug and an increased health risk results from the drug use itself or results from other factors such as the prohibition of drugs (or related social/ sociological/ legal issues related to such prohibition), economic situations, or social situations.^{[citation needed]}

The U.S. government has argued that illegal drugs are "far more deadly than alcohol" because "[a]lthough alcohol is used by seven times as many people as drugs, the number of deaths induced by those substances is not far apart." [16] However, there is evidence that many illicit drugs pose comparatively fewer health dangers than certain licit drugs (e.g. alcohol and tobacco). In the UK, an average of 500,000 people take ecstasy every weekend, resulting in an average of only 10 ecstasy related deaths a year, whilst there is one death a day due to acute alcohol poisoning.[17].

Economics and psychosocial arguments

While a distinction is often made between 'problem use' of drugs (addiction, alcoholism, binge drinking etc.) and recreational use of drugs (e.g. in clubbing or party settings), possession and sale of illicit drugs remains illegal (ref. the United Nations' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961).

Psychoactive substances, licit or illicit, typically bear a substantial 'cost to society'. Social costs may take numerous forms, for example short- and long-term healthcare provision; harm reduction programs; addiction treatment; public nuisance and third party damage; absence from work and lost productivity; crime committed by drug users while 'under the influence'; and, often primarily, costs associated with identifying/ arresting/ prosecuting/ incarcerating/ reintegrating into society people involved in the drug trade ^{[citation needed]}.

In the case of licit psychoactive substances (e.g. alcohol and tobacco), such costs are easily ascertainable and are rarely redeemed ^{[citation needed]} by tax revenue or the economic/employment contribution made by their manufacturers. The World Health Organization published a Global Status Report on Alcohol (2004). In this report, the social and economic costs of alcohol abuse in the US was estimated at $184.6 billion (1998). In the case of illegal drugs, it is harder to define precise figures for the cost of drugs given the underground nature of the market, although existing estimates for social costs are high: the United States National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, 2006) ^{[citation needed]} places the cost at $181 billion per year in the US. Moreover, in the case of illegal drugs, there is no revenue from taxation to subsidise such societal costs.

An additional, micro-economic argument is that drug users (especially problem users) tend to spend a considerable portion of their day-to-day budget on drugs. As any legalisation is likely to be accompanied by high taxation of the drugs, problem drug users — or those with borderline-heavy drug consumption — might increase current spending, particularly as they will no longer suffer the current stigma attached to purchasing from a dealer or criminal (for example, cigarettes in many countries are as expensive as crack, while cannabis typically offers cheaper intoxication than alcohol ^{[citation needed]}). While prohibitionists may be criticised for paternalistic attitudes to protecting an individual from self-harm, there exists a genuine risk that, with no legal thresholds to purchase and a commercial interest for the (legal) vendor to sell as much as possible, users might be tempted to 'max out' on their drug spending.

One economic argument for defending prohibition of certain substances is to protect traditional producers of legal psychoactive substances (in particular alcohol) from competing with 'newly-legalised entrants' into the recreational drug market. The argument (an example of protectionism) runs that legal drugs are valuable cultural artifacts and provide a livelihood to entire industries, populations and regions. To use the alcohol example, today's products have emerged over centuries to provide intoxication and delivery of dose in a societally-acceptable fashion. Low-potency products (beer/wine) in particular have evolved to extend sought-after effects to provide sustainable revenues for retail outlets. It is uncertain whether illegal drugs, after prohibition, could sustain similar levels of economic activity or employment, and whether increased polydrug consumption would threaten traditional, legal drug sellers.

Drug prohibition as a solution to perceived problems of society

Some proponents of drug prohibition, such as members of the Temperance movement, support drug prohibition on the basis that many of the perceived problems or flaws of society are caused by the use of drugs or drug addiction. As to maintain consistency with this stance, these proponents often call for prohibition of alcohol^{[citation needed]}. Proponents of drug prohibition fear a society with more addicts and drug pushers (attracted by profits) if drugs are legalized. They believe addicts are more likely to commit more crimes because their minds are altered (some drugs may cause harmful behaviour), much as drunk criminals do sometimes^{[citation needed]}.

Commercial exploitation of addictive drugs

Some people, especially those who might otherwise support drug legalization, are against it because of the impact upon society of the commercial exploitation of the addictive potential of drugs. The basic concept is that tobacco and alcohol are extremely popular even though they are relatively more dangerous than many illegal drugs and are subjectively less pleasurable. This, critics say, is attributable to the profit motive and large marketing campaigns of tobacco and alcohol companies. If these same companies were able to sell drugs that were arguably more addictive and pleasurable, then, critics say, even more people would become addicted because of marketing and additives^{[citation needed]}. This genre of critics is pessimistic that a system could never be created whereby drugs could be legalized but not be commercially exploited. They often call for reinstated prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, or rather regulatory approaches to curb substance use such as: taxation, advertising bans, retail outlet and venue licensing, control over venue design, drinking curfews, etc.^{[citation needed]} One factor critics point to is the tremendous lobbying power of alcohol and tobacco companies, as well as the large areas of commerce that are already related to illegal drugs, such as t-shirts about drugs, or songs about drugs. These critics also dismiss the idea that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper, pointing to the fact that most brands of alcohol are more expensive than most illegal drugs for an equivalent level of inebriation (this might be true in the USA, UK, Scandinavian, Muslim and some other countries, but is not true in most other countries; also, prescription drugs, as opioids, are much cheaper, when legally bought, than similar illegal drugs)^{[citation needed]}. Many of these critics feel that those involved in the production of certain currently legal drugs such as tobacco and prescription opioids are already profiting off of the addiction of their users. This criticism is directed not only toward the commercial exploitation of physiological addiction, but also of psychological addiction, which in addition to drug use can occur in relation to many types of behavior, for example gambling, overeating and economic consumption^{[citation needed]}. However, the ability of companies to advertise tobacco goods has been severely limited in countries such as Britain, where advertising is banned for Tobacco. A similar measure could easily be applied (and is likley to be) if currently illegal intoxicants were legalised.

Sell-out and loss of 'counterculture'

Allied with the commercial exploitation argument is an argument that legalising any illicit substances will remove their cachet as countercultural substance or symbolic role as a visible shibboleth for revolutionary, rebellious and DIY culture movements, and also dilute any cultural identification with ethnic, religious and ideological groups. While many see this as a pro-legalisation argument (the normalisation of recreational drug-taking being a goal), others envisage a sell-out and corporatisation of the underground culture that revolves around drugs. A common idea is reflected in a statement by legalisation supporter Richard Branson: 'I believe it's a product that should not be too commercialised and is better suited to being marketed by small café-style specialists.' (quoted in a London Evening Standard article), although many doubt the strength of countercultural idealism when faced with commercial temptation for corporations such as Virgin to begin selling cannabis.

Illegal drugs as a pragmatic counterweight to global trade imbalances

Illicit drugs constitute a strong revenue stream for developing countries, with relatively few exposures to Western-dominated free market competition. This is reflected in the basic economic rationale which drives farmers in developing products (hashish producers in Pakistan/Morocco, cocaine producers in Peru/Colombia/Bolivia) to favour the growing of illegal crops instead of a legal alternative. Prohibition facilitates developing country control of the market by

• ( A ) outlawing the cultivation of the raw agricultural product in Western countries (e.g., cannabis, opium),

• ( B ) adding an element of risk to supply, and consequently a premium on the product price,

• ( C ) freeing suppliers from regulatory control of the product (e.g., taxation, quality controls, tariffs and distribution quotas),

• ( D ) guaranteeing that dominant Western companies cannot step in to oligopolise the market (see oligopoly), and

• ( E ) providing a reason for employing migrant labour (traffickers/suppliers speak another language to law enforcement, and typically have strong cultural ties to the homeland).^{[citation needed]}

Experience from legal trade in comparable third world agricultural products (chocolate, coffee, pineapples, bananas) suggests that developing countries are unlikely to receive a fair share of the profits of the global demand for their domestically-grown products (see unequal exchange), and furthermore that they will be highly exposed to price fluctuations.^{[citation needed]} By removing prohibition, legalising and regulating trade, the argument is that (illegal but local) crime cartels will simply be replaced by (legal but Western) international trade cartels, with little benefit to small producers, and even less empowerment of producing countries in global trade talks. The current prohibition is thus perceived as imperfect (it attracts crime and political corruption, encourages addiction in producer countries, and offers poor ratios between farmgate prices and street sales), yet also the 'least worst' option in terms of providing immigrant employment and ensuring north-south revenue streams. However, it might be interesting to note that the production of Cannabis in Britain has shifted from 10% being homegrown, to 60% being homegrown, which would show that such economic benefits have decreased.^{[citation needed]}

Moral and religious

Some hold the position that consciously altering one's mind or state of consciousness is morally unjustifiable, and or against God's will as the creator of the human mind.`
For example, the Qur'an advises against the use of 'al-khamri' (intoxicants, derived from 'khamara', to cover, i.e. substances that 'cover one's mind' or 'cloud one's judgment'), saying 'in them there is a gross sin, and some benefits for the people. But their sinfulness far outweighs their benefit.' (2:219), and that they are 'abominations of the devil; you shall avoid them, that you may succeed.'

In Judaeo-Christianity, the Bible is famously silent on drugs that are illicit today, though makes frequent mention of wine. Isaiah 5:11-12 was a key quote of the Temperance movement: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the Lord, no respect for the work of his hands".

In Scientology, drugs are viewed as a cause of spiritual damage and bodily contamination, with addiction being an obstacle to self-fulfillment.^{[citation needed]}

In Buddhism, it is considered wrong to use drugs that lead to carelessness or heedlessness (the fifth precept of The Five Precepts).

In secular philosophy, as drug use is largely focused on individual or group leisure, drugtaking is sometimes criticised as a self-centred, non-altruistic or selfish activity, and is subject to similar moral criticism levelled at egoism and hedonism. This subject also brings up the question of how heavily morality should be legislated.^{[citation needed]}

Rebuttals to Arguments for drug prohibition and against legalization/decriminalization

Moral and religious

It could be argued that the previous arguments are argumentum ad ignorantiam, and an appeal to tradition.

Since religious beliefs are based on faith instead of evidence, religious claims are not subject to rational debate.

Some religions do not condemn drug use, and even incorporate it in formal ceremonies. Moreover, some religions explicitly prohibit harming people who are not directly harming others, as one would be if one were enforcing laws against consensual crimes such as drug possession.^{[citation needed]}

Economic

Whilst it must be accepted that the costs of drug related crime and, for countries with a state provided health service, are large, several other factors must be taken into account. Firstly the taxation of these drugs, coupled with the employment opportunites counter ballance a proportion of these costs. Yet, as is shown by tobacco and alcohol, not all the costs are offset. However, a secondary reduction of costs is often passed over - in countries such as Britain, the detrimental health effects of the drugs can actually save the state money, as death at around the age of 60 would greatly decrease social security and retirement payments. Legalisation would also allow far cheaper drugs (heroin and opiates are very cheap to produce), upon which a great deal of taxation could be placed to increase the offsetting of those costs. Moreover, these costs are still being incurred by the illegal use of illicit drugs, but none of it can be recouped as there is no taxation.

A second problem that arises from prohibition is the in-elasticity of demand for illegal drugs. The War on Drugs causes the supply of drugs to decrease; meanwhile, the demand for the drugs stays the same. This causes the price of drugs to increase, yet the amount of drugs sold remains constant, thus generating higher revenue, i.e., profits for suppliers.

Possible compromises

Partial legalization of drugs, or decriminalization, might satisfy both pro and con of this issue, as well as solving many of the problems that drugs cause. In a compromise, drugs would remain illegal, but drug addicts who are non-violent and are convicted for drug possession would go to a drug rehabilitation clinic instead of prison. (Currently, treatment is available for only about 15% of the U.S.'s drug addicts. Now, some people convicted of minor drug offenses may be sentenced to rehabilitation instead of prison.) Drug addicts would then be treated as the diseased, and not treated as criminals. Possession of drugs would be an infraction rather than a felony. Drug dealers, violent drug addicts/possessers and addicts who possess a large quantity of drugs (probably for sale and not personal use) would continue to go to jail as before, as felons.

This would greatly reduce overcrowded prison populations and increase real prison time for serious criminals such as murderers.^{[citation needed]} For example, a murderer who is sentenced 20 years to life, but who only serves 7 actual years due to prison overcrowding, will serve about 10 years of real time when the compromise reduces prison population. By being soft on minor criminals, penalties become harder on major criminals who commit victim crimes.

One solution has been described thus. Decriminalization of drugs would allow addicts to receive medical aid and free drugs from the clinic. Drug addicts would come back to the clinic regularly for the free drugs. Drug dealers would be unable to sell their drugs to addicts who get the drugs for free. The drug dealer would have to move to another country where drugs are illegal in order to sell drugs. With no dealers to catch, police can focus their limited resources on hunting down murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and other serious criminals. The number of robberies would be reduced—formerly committed by addicts who spend the stolen money on drugs. There would be fewer police deaths because there would be no shootouts between drug dealers and police. Drug pushers would not be walking around asking people if they want to buy drugs because they will go to jail, as usual.

Decriminalization has several central problems. Providing addicts with drugs requires additional funding, especially to distinguish recreational users from addicts. Since clinics would be supplied by corporations, this essentially constitute partial legalization. Without the clinic scenario, decriminalization may exacerbate problems. Since the vast majority of negative impact to society stems from black market culture (i.e. organized crime and dealer disputes), prohibition will gain more support. Decriminalization would not eliminate the black market culture. Some claim it may not be morally acceptable to incarcerate people for selling products that are legal to possess, or if not actually legal, only a civil offense.

Critics of partial decriminalization — who may either be on the side of prohibition or legalization — warn that the decriminalization of a soft drug (for example, cannabis) in an area may lead to increased sale of harder drugs (for example, heroin). The problems associated with illegal heroin use — fatalities, muggings, burglaries, use of infected needles — would rise in the area, possibly leading the authorities to conclude that the full legalization of cannabis would exacerbate the situation. (Although in the Netherlands, the opposite idea has been taken—as decriminalization of cannabis has been used as a tactic to separate 'soft' and 'hard' drug markets) Furthermore, in the case of cannabis decriminalization the sale of the drug would still be illegal, and revenue from it would still go into the pockets of criminals instead of the government's treasury (although in the Netherlands for instance, shops selling marijuana still pay income taxes on the product—despite marijuana being technically illegal).^{[citation needed]}

War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is an initiative undertaken by the United States with the assistance of participating countries, intended to "combat" the illegal drug trade — to curb supply and diminish demand for certain psychoactive substances deemed harmful. This initiative includes a set of laws and policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of targeted substances.

History

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. This section has been tagged since June 2007.

In its broadest sense, the War on Drugs could be considered to have started in 1880, when the U.S. and China completed an agreement (see Opium wars) that prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries. The United States alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933 is the most widely known historical period of drug prohibition. The term itself, however, was coined in 1971 by Richard Nixon to describe a new set of initiatives designed to enhance drug prohibition.

The first recorded instance of the United States enacting a ban on the domestic distribution of drugs is the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. This act was presented and passed as a method of regulating the production and distribution of opiate-containing substances under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, but a section of the act was later interpreted by law enforcement officials for the purpose of prosecuting doctors who prescribe opiates to addicts.

In 1925 United States supported regulation of cannbis as a drug in the International Opium Convention.

Alcohol prohibition in the U.S. first appeared under numerous provincial bans and was eventually codified under a federal constitutional amendment in 1919, having been approved by 36 of the 48 U.S. states. The amendment remains the only major act of prohibition to be repealed, having been struck down by a later constitutional amendment in 1933.

In 1937, congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. Presented as a $1 nuisance tax on the distribution of marijuana, this act required anyone distributing the drug to maintain and submit a detailed account of his or her transactions, including inspections, affidavits, and private information regarding the parties involved. This law, however, was something of a "Catch 22," as obtaining a tax stamp required individuals to first present their goods, which was an action tantamount to confession. No marijuana tax stamps were ever produced. This act was passed by Congress on the basis of testimony and public perception that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, and death.

The 1951 Boggs Act increased penalties fourfold; five years later, the 1956 Daniel Act increased penalties by a factor of eight over those specified in the Boggs Act. Although by this time there was adequate testimony to refute the claim that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, or death, the rationalizations for these laws shifted in focus to the proposition that marijuana use led to the use of heroin, creating the gateway drug theory.

Nixon's modern-day War on Drugs began in 1969. He characterized the abuse of illicit substances as "public enemy number one in the United States" at a press conference given on June 17th, 1971.PBS War on Drugs Under Nixon, the U.S. Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. This legislation is the foundation on which the modern drug war exists. Responsibility for enforcement of this new law was given to the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and then in 1973 to the newly formed Drug Enforcement Administration.

In 1988, towards the close of the Reagan administration, the Office of National Drug Control Policy was created for central coordination of drug-related legislative, security, diplomatic, research and health policy throughout the government. In recognition of his central role, the director of ONDCP is commonly known as the Drug Czar. The position was raised to cabinet-level status by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Cost

The U.S. government estimates the cost of the War on Drugs by calculating the funds used in attempting to control the supply of illegal drugs, in paying government employees involved in waging the war, and to satisfy rehabilitation costs. This total was estimated by the U.S. government's cost report on drug control to be roughly $12 billion in 2005. Additionally, in a separate report, the U.S. government reports that the cost of incarcerating drug law offenders was $30.1 billion — $9.1 billion for police protection, $4.5 billion for legal adjudication, and $11.0 billion for state and federal corrections. In total, roughly $45.5 billion was spent in 2005 for these factors. The socioeconomic costs, as well as the individual costs (i.e., the personal disadvantages in income and career), caused by the incarceration of millions of people are not included in this number. Nor are the many real wars fought in the name of the "War on Drugs" included.

In 1998 the total cost of drug abuse in America was estimated at $143.4 billion. This number, however, includes indirect costs and includes some costs of drug policy enforcement, and so is not directly comparable.

Effects

Drug use has increased in all categories since prohibition. Since 1937, the use of marijuana, once an activity seemingly limited to Mexican immigrants and jazz musicians, has become one undertaken by 20-37% of the youth of the United States. Between 1972 and 1988 the use of cocaine increased more than fivefold. The usage patterns of the current two most prevalent drugs, methamphetamine and ecstasy, have shown similar gains. From the perspective of decreasing the prevalence of the use of drugs, the War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure.

A number of economically-depressed Colombian farmers in several remote areas of their country began to turn to what became a new, illicit cash crop for its high resale value and cheap manufacturing process. Local coca cultivation, however, remained comparatively rare in Colombia until the mid-1990s. Drug traffickers originally imported most coca base from traditional producers in Peru and Bolivia for processing in Colombia, continuing to do so until eradication efforts in those countries resulted in a "balloon effect."

Despite the Reagan administration's high-profile public pronouncements, secretly, many senior officials of the Reagan administration illegally trained and armed the Nicaraguan Contras, which they funded by the shipment of large quantities of cocaine into the United States using U.S. government aircraft and U.S. military facilities.. Funding for the Contras was also obtained through the illegal sale of weaponry to Iran. When this practice was discovered and condemned in the media, it was referred to as the Iran-Contra affair, but the large cocaine shipments into the US to fund the Administration's illegal foreign policy agenda were much less known.

Another milestone occurred in 1996, when 56% of California voters voted for Proposition 215, legalizing the growing and use of marijuana for medical purposes. This created significant legal and policy tensions between the federal and state governments. Courts have since decided that neither this nor any similar acts will protect users from federal prosecution.^{[citation needed]}

Regardless of public opinion, marijuana could be the single most targeted drug in the drug war. It constitutes almost half of all drug arrests, and between 1990-2002, out of the overall drug arrests, 82% of the increase was for marijuana. In this same time period, New York experienced an increase of 2,640% for marijuana possession arrests.^{[citation needed]}

As of 2006, marijuana has become the United States of America's biggest cash crop.

United States domestic policy

For U.S. public policy purposes, drug abuse is any personal use of a drug contrary to law. The definition includes otherwise-legal pharmaceuticals if they are obtained by illegal means or used for non-medicinal purposes. This differs from what mental health professionals classify as drug abuse per the DSM-IV, which is defined as more problematic drug misuse, both of which are different from drug use.

In 1994, it was reported that the War on Drugs results in the incarceration of one million Americans each year. Of the related drug arrests, about 225,000 are for simple possession of marijuana, the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes was rising 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%. The United States has a higher proportion of its population incarcerated than any other country in the world for which reliable statistics are available, reaching a total of 2.2 million inmates in the U.S. in 2005. The U.S. Dept. of Justice, reporting on the effects of state initiatives, has stated that, from 1990 through 2000, "the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates."

United States foreign policy

The United States has also initiated a number of military actions as part of its War on Drugs, such as the 1989 invasion of Panama codenamed Operation Just Cause involving 25,000 American troops. The U.S. alleged that Gen. Manuel Noriega, head of government of Panama, was involved in drug trafficking in Panama. As part of Plan Colombia, the U.S. has funded coca eradication through private contractors such as DynCorp and helped train the Colombian armed forces to eradicate coca and fight left-wing guerrillas such as the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and right-wing paramilitaries such as the AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia), both of which have been accused of participating in the illegal drug trade in their areas of influence.

In 2000, the Clinton administration initially waived all but one of the human rights conditions attached to Plan Colombia, considering such aid as crucial to national security at the time. Subsequently, the U.S. government certified that the Colombian government had taken steps to improve respect for human rights and to prosecute abusers among its security forces. The U.S. has later denied aid to individual Colombian military units accused of such abuses, such as the Palanquero Air Force base and the Army's XVII Brigade. Opponents of aid given to the Colombian military as part of the War on Drugs argue that the U.S. and Colombian governments primarily focus on fighting the guerrillas, devoting less attention to the paramilitaries although these have a greater degree of participation in the illicit drug industry. Critics argue that Human Rights Watch, congressional committees and other entities have documented the existence of connections between members of the Colombian military and the AUC, and that Colombian military personnel have committed human rights abuses which would make them ineligible for U.S. aid under current laws.

In January 2007, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales met in Mexico with his counterpart Eduardo Medina-Mora Icaza to discuss ways to stem growing drug-related violence in Mexican border towns associated with the illegal drug trade to America. More than 2,000 Mexicans died in gangland-style killings in 2006, prompting a petition by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to open new offices in Nuevo Laredo, Matamoros, and Nogales. The requested expansion would bring the total number of Mexican offices to 11 and increase the number of DEA agents from 81 to nearly 100.

U.S. government reports admit to cocaine trafficking

The U.S. government has not been consistent in its drug policy. A lawsuit filed in 1986 by two journalists represented by the Christic Institute, alleged that the CIA and other parties were engaged in criminal acts, including financing the purchase of arms with the proceeds of cocaine sales. The suit was dismissed; several of the named participants subsequently sued the Christic Institute for libel and won.

Senator John Kerry's 1988 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links, which was released on April 13, 1989, concluded that members of the U.S. State Department "who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers." The report went on to say that "the Contra drug links included...payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb published reports in the San Jose Mercury News, and later in his book Dark Alliance, detailing how Contras had distributed crack cocaine into Los Angeles to fund weapons purchases. These reports were initially attacked by various other newspapers, which attempted to debunk the link, citing official reports that apparently cleared the CIA.

The Wall Street Journal reported on January 29, 1997 on activities at the Mena, Arkansas airport allegedly involved then-governor Bill Clinton in a coverup of illegal drug-trading activity. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to state:

One of the most successful drug informants in U.S. history, smuggler Barry Seal, based his air operation at Mena. At the height of his career he was importing as much as 1,000 pounds of cocaine per month, and had a personal fortune estimated at more than $50 million. After becoming an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, he worked at least once with the CIA, in a Sandinista drug sting. One of his planes—with an Arkansas pilot at the wheel and Eugene Hasenfus in the cargo bay—was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of Contra supplies.

In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that the National Security Council was aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the Justice Department Inspector General also came to similar conclusions.

Criticism

Legality

In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution, Libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the Constitution. Alcohol prohibition required amending the Constitution, because this was not a power granted to the federal government. Hager asserts if this is true, then marijuana prohibition should likewise require a Constitutional amendment.

Federalist argument

In her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that drug prohibition is an improper usurpation of the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the power to prohibit should be reserved by the states. In the same case, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a stronger dissent expressing the similar idea.

Substantive due process

There is the argument that the War on Drugs in United States violates the implicit rights within the substantive due process doctrine, that the drug laws achieve no reasonable state interest while arbitrarily restrict a person's liberty under the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment. One proponent of this notion being attorney Warren Redlich.

The substantive due process is sometimes used in medical marijuana cases. NORML once wrote in a amicus brief on United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative that the right to use medical marijuana to save one's life is within the rights established by the substantive due process. However, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas did not accept the argument and ruled against the medical marijuana dispensaries.

Some opponents of the substantive due process doctrine who support the War on Drugs have also noted that the doctrine can potentially lead to the invalidation of drug laws.

Efficacy

Richard Davenport-Hines, in his book The Pursuit of Oblivion (W.W. Norton & Company, 2001), criticized the efficacy of the War on Drugs by pointing out:

10-15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt.

Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru from 1990-2000, described U.S. foreign drug policy as "failed" on grounds that "for 10 years, there has been a considerable sum invested by the Peruvian government and another sum on the part of the American government, and this has not led to a reduction in the supply of coca leaf offered for sale. Rather, in the 10 years from 1980 to 1990, it grew 10-fold."

Critics often note that during alcohol prohibition, alcohol use initially fell but began to increase as early as 1922. It's been extrapolated that even if prohibition hadn't been repealed in 1933, alcohol consumption would have quickly surpassed pre-prohibition levels [18]. They argue that the War on Drugs uses similar measures and is no more effective. In the six years from 2000-2006, the USA spent $4.7 billion on "Plan Colombia," an effort to eradicate coca production in South America. The main result of this effort was to shift coca production into more remote areas, the overall acreage cultivated for coca in Colombia at the end of the six years was the same, and cultivation in the neighbouring countries of Peru and Bolivia actually increased.

Similar lack of efficacy is observed in other countries pursuing similar policies. In 1994, 28.5% of Canadians reported having consumed illicit drugs in their life; by 2004, that figure had risen to 45%. 73% of the $368 million spent by the Canadian government on targeting illicit drugs in 2004-2005 went toward law enforcement rather than treatment, prevention or harm reduction.

Except for high-dependency drugs (such as heroin, cocaine, crack, etc.) there is little correlation between the use of drugs and crime, except in so far as the possession and cultivation of drugs are crimes. ^{[citation needed]}

Hindrance to legitimate research

The scientific community has criticized U.S. drug policy as being "outdated," and a hindrance to legitimate medical and scientific research efforts. For example, the U.S. government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug (having no medicinal value) is contradicted by the journal Nature Medicine:

"the endocannabinoid system has an important role in nearly every important paradigm of pain, in memory, in neurodegeneration and in inflammation;" although this quote refers to endogenous cannabinoids (cannabinoids made from the body itself and not taken in from the outside of the body), research on cannabinoids from secondary sources such as the cannabis plant has shown them to have legitimate medical uses.

Racial inequities in prosecution

The social consequences of the drug war have been widely criticized by such organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union as being racially biased against minorities and disproportionately responsible for the exploding United States prison population. According to a report commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, and released in March 2006 by the Justice Policy Institute, America's "Drug-Free Zones" are ineffective at keeping youths away from drugs, and instead create strong racial disparities in the judicial system.

Environmental consequences

Environmental consequences of the drug war, resulting from US-backed aerial fumigation of drug-growing operations in third world countries, have been criticized as detrimental to some of the world's most fragile ecosystems; the same aerial fumigation practices are further credited with causing health problems in local populations.

Impact on Growers

The US's coca eradication policy has been criticised for its negative impact on the livelihood of coca growers in South America. In many areas of South America the coca leaf has traditionally been chewed and used in tea and for religious and medicinal purposes by locals. For this reason many insist that the illegality of traditional coca cultivation is unjust. In many areas the US government and military has forced the eradication of coca without providing for any meaningful alternate crop for farmers. The status of coca and coca growers has become an intense political issue in several countries, particularly in Bolivia, where the president, Evo Morales, a former coca growers union leader, has promised to legalise the traditional cultivation and use of coca.

Propaganda cover for paramilitary operations

The epithet "War on Drugs" has been condemned as being propaganda to justify military or paramilitary operations under the guise of a noble cause; in particular, Noam Chomsky points out that the term is an example of synecdoche referring to operations against suspected producers, traders and/or users of certain substances. This form of language is similar to that used in other initiatives such as Lyndon B. Johnson's "war on poverty" and George W. Bush's "War on Terrorism." The word "war" is used to invoke a state of emergency, although the target of the war isn't anything against which standard military tactics are effective.

Government's war against the people

In their book Multitude, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri oppose the view that the use of the term "war" is only metaphorical: they analyse the War on Drugs as part of a global war of a biopolitical nature. Like the War on Terrorism, the War on Drugs is a true war, waged by the US government against its own people.

War on drugs as cyclic creation of a permanent underclass

Since illegal drug use has been blamed for feeding the growth of the underclass, this has caused prohibitionists to call for further increases in certain drug-crime penalties, even though some of these disrupt opportunities for drug users to advance in society in socially acceptable ways. It has been argued by Blumenson and Nilsen that this causes a vicious cycle: since penalties for drug crimes among youth almost always involve semi-permanent removal from opportunities for education, and later involve creation of criminal records which make employment far more difficult, that the "war on drugs" has in fact resulted in the creation of a permanent underclass of people who have few education or job opportunities, often as a result of being punished for drug offenses which in turn have resulted from attempts to earn a living in spite of having no education or job opportunities.

Gateway drug infrastructure

Illegal drugs that are perceived as being less dangerous tend to gain more widespread popularity than drugs perceived as more dangerous. An example would be the relationship of marijuana, seen as a less dangerous drug, and crack cocaine, seen as a more dangerous drug. People are more willing to experiment with marijuana than crack because the consequences are less severe. But because both are illegal, both require a black market infrastructure for distribution. Because marijuana is popular, it creates a network of people for this black market distribution infrastructure that is larger than would be present if only crack were illegal, and marijuana were decriminalized. In this manner, the criminalization of multiple drugs serve as a gateway of access to those drugs which are seen as more dangerous.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Eva Bertram, ed., Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial, University of California Press, 1996, ISBN 0-520-20309-7.
• James P. Gray, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs Temple University Press, 2001, ISBN 1-56639-859-2.
• Richard Lawrence Miller, Drug Warriors and Their Prey, Praeger, 1996, ISBN 0-275-95042-5.
• Don Baum, Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, Little Brown & Co., 1996, ISBN 0-316-08412-3.
• Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Lawrence Hill Books, 1991, ISBN 1-55652-126-X.
• Clarence Lusane and Dennis Desmond, Pipe Dream Blues: Racism and the War on Drugs, South End Press, 1991, ISBN 0-89608-411-6.
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Colombian Survey, June 2005.
• Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, March 2004.
• EMCDDA - Decriminalisation in Europe? Recent developments in legal approaches to drug use.
• The case for legalisation, The Economist, Jul. 26 2001.
• The Senlis Council, international think tank on drug policy reform.
• European coalition for Just and effective drugs policies
• Drug Legalization, Criminalization, and Harm Reduction. David Boaz. CATO Institute. 16 June 1999. 2 Feb. 2004
• Zero Tolerance
• Cannabis. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth Edition. 2000. Rpt. in Dictionary.com 25 Mar 2004
• War on Drugs. Mary H. Cooper. Congressional Quarterly 13 Mar. 1993: 243-258. SIRS. 1 Feb. 2004.
• An interview with pro-legalization Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman
• The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman
• The Cult of Pharmacology: How America Became the World's Most Troubled Drug Culture by Richard DeGrandpre, Duke University Press, 2006.
• "Toward a Policy on Drugs: Decriminalization? Legalization?" Currie, Elliot. Dissent. 1993. Rpt. in "Drug Use Should Be Decriminalized." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 55-64.
• "How Legalization Would Cut Crime." Duke, Steven B. Los Angeles Times. 21 Dec. 1993. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Reduce Crime." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 115-117.
• Rolles S. Kushlick D. Jay M. 2004 "After the War on Drugs, Options for Control" Transform Drug Policy Foundation
• America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against Drugs. Duke, Steven B. and Albert C. Gross. New York: Putnam Books, 1993. Rpt. In "Legalizing Drugs Would Benefit the United States." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 32-48.
• "Legalization Madness." Inciardi, James A. and Christine A. Saum. Public Interest 123 (1996): 72-82. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Increase Violent Crime." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 142-150.
• "Poll Shows Most Russians Against Legalization of Soft Drugs." ITAR-TASS. BBC Monitoring 26 June 2003. Newsbank. 1 Feb 2004.
• Jaffer, Mehru, "U.N. Firm Against Legalization of Drugs." Inter Press Service 17 Apr. 2003. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [19].
• Kane, Joseph P. "The Challenge of Legalizing Drugs." America 8 Aug. 1992. Rpt. in "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Health and Society. 2nd ed., Eileen L. Daniel, ed., Guilford, CT.: Dushkin Publishing Group, 1996: 154-158.
• Luna, Claire. "Orange County Judge Gray, a Drug-War Foe, Will Run for Senate Now a Libertarian, the Longtime Advocate of Legalization Will Challenge Boxer in 2004." Los Angeles Times 20 Nov. 2003: B3. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [20].
• Lynch, Gerald W. "Legalizing Drugs Is Not the Solution." America 13 Feb. 1993. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Not Reduce Crime." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 110-113.
• McGrath, Matt. "Economic Considerations on the Legalization of Cannabis." Tufts 13 Dec. 1994. 30 July 1997. [21]. Rpt. in "Marijuana Should Be Legalized." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 112-130.
• McNeely, Jennifer. "Methadone Maintenance Treatment." Lindesmith Center 1997. Rpt. in "Methadone Is an Effective Treatment for Heroin Addiction." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 91-95.
• McWilliams, Peter. Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. Los Angeles, CA. : Prelude Press, 1996 (full text)
• Mendez, Julia de Cruz and Ralf Winkler. "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937." Jan. 1996. 24 Mar. 2004 [22].
• Paulin, Alastair. "Taxation Without Legalization." Mother Jones June 2003: 26. Newsbank. 1 Feb. 2004 [23].
• Riga, Peter J. "The Drug War Is a Crime: Let's Try Decriminalization." Commonweal. 16 July 1993. Rpt. in "Legalization Would Help Solve the Nation's Drug Problem." At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. Karin L. Swisher, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1996: 52-54.
• Rodriguez, L. Jacabo. "Time to End the Drug War." CATO Institute 13 Dec. 1997. 23 Feb. 2004 [24].
• "Should We Re-Legalize Drugs?" United States Libertarian Party. 22 Feb. 2004 [25].
• Thornton, Mark. "Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure." CATO Institute 17 July 1991. 24 Mar. 2004 [26].
• Wink, Walter. "Getting Off Drugs: The Legalization Potion." Friends Journal Feb. 1996. Rpt. in "Illegal Drugs Should Be Legalized." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 107-114.
• Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "Great Idea for Ruining Kids." U.S. News & World Report 24 Feb. 1997. Rpt. in "Legalizing Drugs Would Increase Drug Use." Current Controversies: Illegal Drugs. Charles P. Cozic, ed., San Diego, CA.: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1998: 151-152.
• Leavitt, Fred. (2003) The REAL Drug Abusers. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Armentano, Paul. "Drug War Mythology" in You Are Being Lied To. China: The Disinformation Company Ltd., 2001. Pages 234-240
• Goldstein, P.J., Brownstein, H.H., Ryan, P.J. & Bellucci, P.A., "Crack and Homicide in New York City: A Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence," in Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 113-130.
• Simpson, John, 'Rethinking the war on drugs', BBC News, 7 October 2005.
• Marijuana 'top cash crop in US', BBC News, 19 December 2006.

External links

• Re-thinking drug control policy - Historical perspectives and conceptual tools by Peter Cohen
• Policy from a harm reduction perspective (journal article)
• Global drug prohibition: its uses and crises (journal article)
• Self-administration behavior is maintained by the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana in squirrel monkeys (journal article)
• Should cannabis be taxed and regulated? (journal article)
• Learning from history: a review of David Bewley-Taylor’s The United States and International Drug Control, 1909–1997 (journal article)
• Shifting the main purposes of drug control: from suppression to regulation of use
• Setting goals for drug policy: harm or use reduction?
• Prohibition, pragmatism and drug policy repatriation
• Challenging the UN drug control conventions: problems and possibilities
• The Economics of Drug Legalization
• Britain on drugs (journal article)

• Drug War Facts
• Students for Sensible Drug Policy
• Drug Policy Alliance
• National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
• Fifteen Years to Life
• EMCDDA - Decriminalisation in Europe? Recent developments in legal approaches to drug use.
• European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD)
• The Media Awareness Project
• Frontline: drug wars by PBS
• 10 Downing Street's Strategy Unit Drugs Report
• War on drugs Part I: Winners, documentary (50 min) explaining 'War on Drugs' by Tegenlicht of VPRO Dutch television. After short introduction in Dutch (1 min), English spoken. Broadband internet needed.
• War on drugs Part II: Losers, documentary (50 min) showing downside of the 'War on Drugs' by Tegenlicht of VPRO Dutch television. After short introduction in Dutch (1 min), English spoken. Broadband internet needed.
• DrugSense
• Smoked Out
• American Drug War
• The Committee on Unjust Sentencing
• Transform Drug Policy Foundation
• After the War on Drugs: Options for Control (Report)
• Partnership for Drug Freedom in America
• The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman
• Network Against Prohibition
• National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
• Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)
• Free from the Nightmare of Prohibition by Harry Browne
• War on Drugs - How government drug war policies promote violence, destroy liberty and actually increase drug abuse.
• Prohibition news page - Alcohol and Drugs History Society

• Background Q&A by the Council on Foreign Relations: "The Forgotten Drug War"
• United Nations - Drug Programme
• Geopium: Geopolitics of Illicit Drugs in Asia (English and French)
• Dagga brings riches to new drug barons
• Publication on hashish production and trafficking in Morocco (December 2005)
• The smuggling culture
• Illegal Drugs in America: A Modern History from the U.S. DOJ
• Office of National Drug Control Policy - Steroids
• The South American Cocaine Trade
• Tricks of the Trade: Tracing meth's route into Kitsap County
• Tips for Travelers to South Asia
• Saudi Arabia Basics
• Network Against Prohibition
• United Nations World Drug Report
• Pulse Check: Drug Markets and Chronic Users in 25 of America's Largest Cities (January 2004)
• Illicit drug issues by country, by the CIA
• Market Size for various illegal drugs.
• Afghanistan's narcotics-fuelled insurgency Story from Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst
• UNODC Makes the Case for Ending Cannabis Prohibition, Inadvertently
• European Commission - 'Combating Drugs' information
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime / Drug Supply Reduction
• Pompidou Group - Cooperation Group to Combat Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in Drugs
• Clandestine labs FAQ at Erowid
• Asia Death Penalty blog focuses on the death penalty in Asia, including its widespread use for drug offences
• Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report on high-harm-causing drugs
• World Customs Organization
• Guardia di Finanza
• The Narco News Bulletin - Reporting on the Drug War and Democracy from Latin America
• http://www.drugdealer.co.uk

• Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy Full text of major government commission reports on the drug laws from around the world over the last 100 years
• Historical Research on the Drug War Full text of numerous full histories of the drug war and thousands of original historical documents
• National Drug Threat Assessment 2006 from the United States Department of Justice
• War On Drugs: Legislation in the 108th Congress and Related Developments, a 2003 report (in PDF format) from the Congressional Research Service via the State Department website
• Review of the War on Drugs
• Gabriel Chin, Race, the War on Drugs and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction, 6 Journal of Race, Gender & Justice 253 (2002)
• Drug War Facts
• Drug War Distortions
• November Coalition - Working to end drug war injustice
• The Anti-drugwar Over 100 years of Headlines
• Wasted in the War on Drugs report by Citizens Against Government Waste
• Cato Institute Drug Prohibition Research
• The Media Awareness Project
• excellent war on drug ducumentation on video.google.com
• Nobel Prize in Economics winner Milton Friedman interviewed about his opposition to the War on Drugs
• Lawful Arrest FAQ
• The Prison Industrial Complex War on Drugs Documentary
• Another documentary film, The Damage Done
• War on Drugs - How government drug war policies promote violence, destroy liberty and actually increase drug abuse.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Illegal_drug_trade  ^history
• Prohibition_(drugs)  ^history
• Arguments_for_and_against_drug_prohibition  ^history
• War_on_Drugs  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Drug trafficking"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.