The War On Drugs: An Assessment Of Necessity

“The War on Drugs: An Assessment of Necessity”

The War on Drugs is an ongoing American conflict that has been criticized since its inception. The high costs of investigation, incarceration and rehabilitation have lead many to ask the question “Should the U.S. end the War on Drugs?” This paper will compare and contrast both sides of this question by targeting the common pros and cons of ending the war. The following questions will be solicited in an attempt to determine whether the war on drugs should be continued or if an end is near. Is the cost of corrections worth the result of the war? Are the American people getting what they pay for from drug enforcement agencies? How are addicts being medically treated? And what types of crime statistic have resulted from this war? Upon presenting evidence to support both side of this argument, I intend to prove that the war on drugs is working and that it should not end.

The cost of incarceration is a major concern considering that in 2004 nearly twenty percent of all in mates in the United States state prisons were sentenced on drug charges (www. drugwarfacts.org). The total cost of a single inmate per day is estimated at sixty-five dollars, which means that the states spend more than sixteen million dollars a day to house convicted drug offenders and more than 6 billion dollars per year (www. drugwarfacts.org). This number is devastating in the economy of today. While states are reducing funds for education and public services, unfortunately the cost to house and feed drug offenders in prison rises. This argument is both a pro and a con for ending the War on Drugs. On one hand, if the war is ended then people convicted of drug fines could be released on parole and the prisons cost would be lowered allowing money to return to important civil services. On the other hand people see the monetary contributions, and the war imperative, because if we cannot stop drugs from coming into our country then the prison rates will continue to increase.

The cost of drug enforcement agencies is also on the rise. Every year the budget for agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Administration rise (DEA) rise, which is a concern to the public because over twenty billion dollars a year is invested and there still seems to be problems with drugs on the streets (www.usdoj.gov/dea/ statistics.html). Although the crime rat has been reduced over the last ten year, the number of inmates at state and federal prisons is still increasing. Consequently the amount that is spent on corrections pooled with drug enforcement agencies could drastically be cut back if the war was to be ended. However, if these special drug units did not exist then the streets would be crawling with drugs and it is likely that crime rates would increase and the jails would still rise in population.

If the war on drugs was to end an important question is what will be the cost to provide health care for addiction and who will pay the bill. As things are now it is illegal to do drugs and although there are some state funded recovery and addiction services available, the free flow of narcotics through the United State would surely cause an endemic of drug use and increase the rate of serious crimes (Blotner, pp. 141). The Netherlands are the drug legalization capitol of the world. They claim that their position is one of overall health and that through education and government funded drug clinics they can achieve that goal. However, they had a population of merely seventeen million in 1989 and the cost of there program was over 75 million dollars annually (www.levellers.org). The United States has nearly twenty times the amount of people, so it can be imagined that the cost of a system that did not prohibit drug use would cost billions of dollars annually, not to include the initial cost of facilities