In summary, the criticism of the War on Drugs in a nutshell points to the failure to achieve its goals, its significant social and economic costs, and its negative impact on public health and human rights. All of it is because of the few most powerful banks laundering money for the drug cartels.
Hundreds of thousands of directly violent deaths, tens of millions of deaths related to drug use, incredible incarceration rate, nearly failed states, high rate of drug use, enormous money spending, refugee and migrant crises, torture, and displacement. All of this criticism of the War on Drugs makes it an absolutely ineffective failure.
History of the War on Drugs
Early efforts to control drug use in the United States began in the early 20th century with legislation like the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, which effectively criminalized opiates and coca products. This was followed by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. It regulated and taxed the production, distribution, and use of marijuana, leading to its gradual criminalization.
The modern War on Drugs formally began in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1971, Nixon declared drug abuse “public enemy number one,” marking the formal launch of the War on Drugs.
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 introduced mandatory minimum sentences and increased penalties for drug offenses. This period also saw the rise of the crack cocaine epidemic in urban areas, which heightened media attention and public fear, driving more aggressive drug policies and enforcement practices.
The rise of crack cocaine in urban areas led to heightened media attention and public fear, driving more aggressive drug policies and enforcement practices.
In the 1990s, the tough-on-crime approach continued under the Clinton administration.
By the end of the decade, the prison population had soared, largely due to drug-related offenses. While it disproportionately affected African American and Latino communities.
The rise in opioid addiction and overdoses shifted some focus toward public health approaches and highlighted the limitations of punitive measures.
The Wars on Drugs directly attributed violent deaths
The Mexican Drug War, which escalated in 2006 when President Felipe Calderón deployed the military to combat drug cartels, has resulted in over 300,000 homicides related to organized crime. This includes cartel members, law enforcement officers, and countless innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.
In Colombia, the decades of conflict involving the government, paramilitary groups, and drug cartels like the Medellín and Cali cartels. It led to tens of thousands of deaths. The violence peaked during the 1980s and 1990s but continues to claim lives today.
In the Philippines, since President Rodrigo Duterte launched his anti-drug campaign in 2016, it is estimated that over 12,000 people have been killed in extrajudicial killings. Human rights organizations suggest the number could be much higher, with many victims being low-level offenders or innocents.
Also, Afghanistan has experienced violence related to both the Taliban’s involvement in the drug trade and counter-narcotics operations by international and Afghan forces, resulting in numerous casualties.
The total number of violent deaths related to the War on Drugs globally can be roughly at around 500,000.
Deaths attributed to drug depedence
According to UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), there were an estimated 585,000 drug-related deaths worldwide in 2017 alone. This figure includes overdoses, as well as deaths due to drug-related health conditions like HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.
We can have a conservative estimate of 500,000 drug-related deaths globally per year over the past few decades. This would amount to roughly 20 million deaths worldwide since the early 1970s.
Why make drugs legal? Because everything else has failed
Of course, drug use would rise if the War on Drugs ceased to exist. But if we implement significant health initiatives, drug use will actually decrease.
The issue is that all the violence, incarcerated people, torture, and nearly failed states cease to be.
My criticism of the War on Drugs lies in the fact that there wouldn’t be laced drugs (which are even more dangerous), everything would be transparent. The governments would ban any form of marketing.
The health system would save money as the caring for the addicts would be limited.
People would get their criminal records clean, and get out of prison and countries would be stabilized without a huge refugee wave. And we would save a lot of money.
The criminal behavior prevalent in drug addicts would be limited.
Why the US doesn’t want to end it? The usual suspects
There is substantial literature describing the huge influence the Big Banks have on the US judiciary, executive, and legislative power. You may object there is no problem with it. But yes, it is.
The IMF has suggested that the global illegal drug trade may represent up to 1% of global GDP. That would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars annually.
According to the UNODC’s World Drug Report, the global illicit drug market was estimated to be worth around $500 billion to $600 billion annually in 2019.
Some independent researchers and organizations have provided higher estimates. The global drug trade could be worth over $1 trillion annually. We must consider additional factors such as money laundering, corruption, and associated criminal activities.
The Big Banks owned by the super-rich families somehow must be involved in the unbelieveable amount of money that is involved in the drug trade.
HSBC reached a settlement with U.S. authorities for $1.9 billion over allegations of money laundering. It involved Mexican drug cartels and entities with ties to terrorism in 2012.
In 2010, Wachovia agreed to pay $160 million to settle allegations that it had laundered hundreds of millions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels.
In 2012, Standard Chartered reached a settlement with U.S. authorities for $667 million over allegations of violating sanctions and facilitating money laundering (including transactions involving Iran and other sanctioned countries).
These are just examples. But the issue is that it is the US that rules the world, so without Uncle Sam, nobody can legalize drugs.
Despite the War on Drugs being basically a complete failure, the US won’t stop it.
What could possibly change it?
The civic society must take steps even though you may consider it a utopia. Maybe if the same game players were assured that they get the money, something would be moved.
We shouldn’t be content with just criticism of the War on Drugs, but make moves and change something.
Conclusion of the criticism of the War on Drugs in a nutshell
The drug problem is deeply-seated, making people die, damaging their organs. And it allows organized crime to make money we cannot even imagine.
However, repression is not only a solution but the really bad way of how to make the problem worse.
People (as voters) should not only be aware of the fact. But make viable moves to change the whole situation upside-down.
Leave a Reply