Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Review of Related Literature
Review of Related Literature
2009
Andrew Kilcer
William Sager
Recommended Citation
Jakubiec, David; Kilcer, Andrew; and Sager, William, "The War on drugs" (2009). RIT: College of Liberal Arts 2009,Accessed from
http://scholarworks.rit.edu/article/1662
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized
administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected].
The War on Drugs
Introduction
America is in an epic battle, not against a foreign country but to keep you and every other citizen
from putting a certain list of chemicals in your body. Since President Nixon, this battle has been
labeled "The War on Drugs". This battle is extremely expensive: total cost to local, state and
federal government equals $19.2 billion a year. In a country of approximately 300 million that
equates to $64 per person (Elsner, p. 22). All of these resources are used in an effort to keep
people from getting high. What do Americans get for 64 dollars a year; they get "4,348 [drug
related] arrests a day, or one every 20 seconds" (Elsner, 2006, p. 20). All these arrests contribute
to America's enormous inmate population of over 2 million (p. 13). For each of those inmates,
the government spends $34,000 a year to have the honor of keeping them as wards of the state
(p. 16).
Like all wars, the War on Drugs is obsessed with catching the ring leader, or big fish.
This obsession has had international and domestic reproductions. The Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) when first formed, operated all mostly entirely domestic. It now
maintains agents in over 40 countries (Cooper, 95). Back home, police agencies seize billions of
dollars in "illegal" private assets, and in most cases pocket the profit. The largest impact from
the War on Drugs is by far the isolation and classification of minorities as second-class citizens.
African Americans now account for 40 percent of the prison population while only 12 percent of
The roots to America's War on drugs lie deep in the history of the 20th century and some
even from before. The first real global drug confrontation took place well back in the 1780s and
up until the mid 1900s was between Great Britain and China (Brook, 2000, p. 31). During those
years the British East India Company formed the modern equivalent of the Columbian drug
cartel. The East India Company began official control of the opium smuggling trade between
India and China in 1781 in an effort to maintain "stable financial footing during the American
revolutionary war" (p. 32). Opium importation to China eventually reached over 9.5 million
pounds in 1850 (McAllister, 2002, p. 13). The fact that opiates where banned throughout China
eventually lead to the Opium Wars in the 1840s and again in the 1850s. By the late 1800s,
Britain had grown weary of its never-ending struggle with China and in 1911 attended The
America had bought right in to Asia's opium problem when it gained control of the
Philippines following the Spanish American War (McAllister, 2002, p. 27). The Philippines
maintained a government regulated opium market, that "offended American moral sensibilities,
particularly among temperance advocates and supporters of missionary activities" (p. 27).
Washington quickly implemented a policy of "suppression, excepting medical needs" for the
Philippines (p. 27). If anything the Philippines made America even more acute to the perceived
"evils" of Narcotics (p. 28). This eventually led to President Roosevelt to call for The Hague
Conventions.
The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914
Back home, America's response to the Hague conference was the passage of The
Harrison Narcotics Act 1914 (McAllister, 2000, p. 35). This law changed the way Americans
dealt with narcotics forever. The act required all distributors of drugs to apply for a tax stamp (p.
35). Crafted by Hamilton Wright, the act was originally intended as a revenue generator.
However, it was quickly used to reign in sales for addiction purposes, which were not viewed as
medically necessary under the act (p. 35). From the Harrison Narcotics Act, drugs drifted in and
out of American focus throughout the roaring 20s. It was not until the 1930s in the middle of the
Great Depression that America would make its next big move against drug use.
During the 1930s, the federal government reorganized its various drug polices under a
new agency called the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) (Isralowitz, 2002, p. 89). This new
agency was to be headed by Harry Anslinger, who in 1934 embarked on campaign to rid the
country of marijuana. Interestingly, Anslinger until that year showed no interest in wishing to
control marijuana (p. 133). Anslinger used a combination of spreading unfound claims against
marijuana though propaganda, and playing on the public's fear of minorities, by associating
marijuana use with "lower-class Mexican Americans and African Americans who had initiated
use of the drug and made the drug even more dangerous to the white middle-class" (p. 134).
This public fear allowed Anslinger to secure the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937,
which levied a tax on marijuana, making it nearly financially impossible to obtain legally. All in
all, the price of a marijuana cigarette "increased 6 to 12 times to about a dollar" (p. 134). This
Nixon's Perception
While running for president in 1968, Nixon like all presidents needed to stand apart from
his opponents, and his case for doing so was America's unknown drug "problem" (Musto, p. 38).
Due to the social upheavals of the 1960s, by the end of 1968 heroin use among college students
had risen from 3.2 to 5.14 percent (p. 38). Among high school students, use had risen from less
than 1 percent to 3.3 percent (p. 38). In addition, marijuana use from 1960 to 1966 had increased
threefold among eighteen to twenty-four year olds (p. 38). While drug use, particularly
marijuana use, was increasing in the United States, it was dwarfed in the public's eye by other
more pressing concerns, primarily the Vietnam War (p. 39). In the beginning of May 1969, in a
White House survey on domestic issues, only 3 percent listed drugs as a issue of importance (p.
39).
Nixon realized that in the political environment of the late 1960s and 1970s getting major
new legislation on drugs was going to be difficult to say the least (p. 40). Nixon announced his
"War on Drugs" during a special address to Congress on "Control of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs" (p. 60). This was to be followed the introduction of Senate bill 2637 and an enormous
political battle that followed in its wake (p. 60). The bill had three main purposes: "[1] provide
more meaningful regulation over legitimate sources of drugs, [2] to strengthen law enforcement
against illicit drug traffic, and [3] to eliminate some of the inconsistencies in the present
regulation of drugs (p. 61). While Congress was debating his bill, Nixon focused his efforts on
items that existed already under executive power. Primarily on foreign policy with countries that
exported narcotics, and law enforcement though the various federal and state agencies (p. 41).
Operation Intercept
Operation Intercept began in September 1969 in response to the events of the summer
months, which included "Woodstock" where an estimated 90 percent of the some 400,000
present where smoking pot at the event (p. 64). Intercept was originally to include forbidding
military personal from visiting Tijuana and other Mexican border towns. However, after a copy
of Operation Intercept was leaked to the press on September 9th and several meetings with
Mexican officials this portion of the operation was never enacted (p. 64). On September 21,
Operation Intercept officially went into effect, despite enormous public opposition. Customs
agents by October 6th of that year had seized over 1,830 pounds of marijuana, as well as various
other drugs from vehicular search alone (p. 65). Another 165 pounds were sized from the marine
searches as well as over 1,000 pounds intercepted on airplanes (p. 66). Intercept however highly
degraded Washington-Mexican relations, as well as being unpopular in border towns (p. 67).
This resulted in "Operation Cooperation," in which the Mexican government promised to crack
down on its side of the border if US Customs relaxed its search measures (p. 67).
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was officially established July 1, 1973 and
quickly got off to "a less-than-propitious beginning" (p. 145). The "overall policy of the DEA to
pursue major players in the illicit drug trade evaporated as individual agents still operated on the
assumption that their own success depended on number of arrests made and quantity of drugs
seized" (p. 145). This resulted in large infighting, as officers raced to fill the newly formed but
not yet filled administrative positions in the agency (p. 147). Upon its creation, the DEA was
supposed to work closely with US Customs as well as the Justice Department. However, due to
confrontation between different mangers brought from the two respective departments, this
seemed like a dream (p. 149). The DEA and Customs in particular continued to butt heads until
December 1975 with a signing of "a memorandum of understanding" between the two agencies
(p. 151).
The Gerald Ford Change-Over
Upon Nixon's resignation and taking office on August 9, 1974, Ford inherited a mess not
only in a country but also among his cabinet, including the newly formed Drug Enforcement
Administration (p. 143). One of the primary reasons was the fact that public opinion was
focused on other issues facing the country. "There were also disagreements between the Justice
Department and the Treasury Department about the value of IRS involvement in tax fraud
investigations of people suspected of drug trafficking" (p. 143). The infighting, along with
lacking public support for drugs controls, caused Fords administration to create the White Paper
on Drug Abuse. The White Papers officially shifted policy towards minimizing the negative
"During the early 1980s, cocaine abuse in the United States maintained epidemic status.
Estimates from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse indicate that in 1994 there were
1.4 million active cocaine users in the United States" (Isralowitz, 2002, p. 109). In the late 1970s
and into the early 1980s, America was introduced to a new form of cocaine: "Crack" (p. 110).
"When heated, the crystals make a popping sound, and this characteristic sound is the origin of
the term crack" (p. 110). The impact of crack in terms of dollar amount was substantial; cocaine
along with crack were particularly popular with women, leading to the term "crack baby" for the
children they bore while addicted to the substance (p. 111). National estimates place total health
and care cost for all crack babies in the 1990s at $2.5 billion (p. 111). With the image of crack
babies and the apparent millions of crack addicts, media frenzy ensured, allowing President
Reagan and latter President H. W. Bush to secure millions for their war on drug (p. 111).
emphasis on supply side enforcement never seen before (Cooper, 2002). "80 percent of the $1.3
billion 1982 drug budget was earmarked for programs intend to reduce the supply of banned
substances"(Cooper, 2002). Overall under Reagan funding for the "war on drugs" doubled "from
$800 million in 1981 to $1.9 billion" by 1987 (Cooper, 2002). "Gradually, it turned into a real
war involving the U.S. Customs Service, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Department of Defense,
95). The DEA in particular increased its operations to "more than 40 foreign countries" (p.95).
George H. W. Bush
President Reagans successor, President H. W. Bush, continued the policy of massive military
and law enforcement involvement to stop supply side narcotics (Cherry, 2002, p. 64). "The Bush
plan was to increase military and other law enforcement efforts in the Andean region to stop
cocaine production at its source"(p.64). The Andean region lies along the western coast of South
America. Bushs operations, particularly in Colombia, did little to stem the flow of coca leaves;
if anything it just shifted production from large farms to smaller ones (p.64). In addition to
Colombia Bush's administration focused its efforts on the small country of Panama (p.64).
Panama's leader, Manuel Noriega, was wanted on charges of drug smuggling and money-
laundering (p.64). Eventually on December 20, 1989 President Bush authorized Operation Just
Cause, which subsequently resulted in the invasion of Panama and the capture of President
Noriega. America was now directly taking over entire countries in the name of controlling the
spread of narcotics.
Pyrrhic victory: winning the battle, but losing the war; with profits and news of massive drugs
busts used as a money motive and political campaign strategy with a hidden agenda that has
enslaved the lower socioeconomic classes and minorities via institutionalization. Drug policies
have changed from rehabilitation based measures to deterrence; changing in cycles with varying
political agendas. Policy involved with the War on Drugs has caused more of a multifaceted
social schism (between law enforcement and minorities; whites and blacks; social classes),
The War on Drugs is skewed in terms of its varying degrees of justice for the poor and
the rich. Crimes committed in different environments are treated differently: from urban open air
drug markets to international money laundering scandals. Those who are most likely to get away
with drug related crimes are those at the top of the economic class system. The only way to
effectively get away with mass sale of illicit drugs is to be able to effectively launder resources
and profits. This is something that is improbable and unlikely for the poor.
The War on Drugs has augmented domestic society by increasing the discretion and
power of the police. Internationally it has promoted imperialism with our presence in major drug
producing countries around the globe. Internationally the problem is contained and displaced:
happening in a vicious cycle- moving from place to place as resources focus on certain hot spot
regions at different times. The Balloon Effect of containment is described in the World Drug
Report 2008 as squeezing (by tighter controls) in one place produces a swelling (namely, an
increase) in another place, though the net effect may be an overall reduction (World Drug
Report 2008, p.216). Markets shift as interdiction effects one illicit market at a time. For policies
to be true success all aspects of the drug trade must be contained simultaneously- something that
The change that needs to be made in the International Drug War is not only the
development of new markets for foreign lands whose primary Gross Domestic Product stems
from opium or cocaine production; but the concern for public health, and enforcement of the
laws on an even level- not the continued advantages for cartels and other mafia members of the
majority who have laundered large sums of money. Lastly, the stigma relating to drug abuse in
the Western civilized world must be relinquished. By prohibiting drug use we have created an
illegal Black Market that is alive and well. We must now effectively control and contain it and
have failed. If its decreased the global spread of the epidemic-we have failed. If its containing
key drug production areas- we have succeeded. If winning the War on Drugs mean enforcing
strict and unjust laws on addicts who have little social mobility or legitimate means for work- we
have won. Unfortunately, the system has proven to be successful abroad at containment in key
production areas and has failed at fighting the drug problem in America.
Public Opinion
Public opinion is neither in favor of the abolition of drugs nor in support of the War on
Drugs. In a July 2002 poll 84% of participants supported spending on treatment programs and
the survey were from culturally diverse backgrounds and were nearly even split between sexes.
The participants came from the highly populated cities of N.Y.C., Philadelphia, L.A., Chicago,
and Houston (Lock, Timberlake, & Rasinski, 2002, p.385). People from urban settings are more
greatly affected by the open-air drug market; their street corners are more often used as
distribution centers. The social effects of drugs and drug sales are augmented by households that
are headed by a single parent because of the skewed minority incarceration rate since the
enactment of harsh drug laws, e.g. Rockefeller Drug Laws and mandatory minimums.
Cracking down on the drug trade and the violent subcategories of criminals and gang
to control them more effectively, southern states enacted a series of laws targeting African-
Americans for differential punishments (Alexander, R., Gyamerah,J.,1997, p.108). Drug laws
control people and unequally punish users or suspected users with searches and seizures, drug
testing at work, sentencing disparities with mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenses, and
The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act was an act passed by both houses as a get tough on
crime measure. It called for mandatory minimums to be put in place. According to Eric E.
Sterling, Esq., counsel to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary from 1979 to 1989, a
that must be served when a person is convicted of a particular crime (Sterling, Eric E., Esq.,
1999). The unjust part of the mandatory minimums isnt the fact that harsh sentences are being
put in place for nonviolent drug offenses, but the sentences are determined by the amount of the
substance held by the offender at the time of the arrest. There is a great inequality between the
amount of crack and the amount of powder cocaine that can land you a 5-year sentence. For a
first time offender 5 grams of crack cocaine will get you 5 years without parole. The same 5 year
sentence is doled out for 500 grams of powder cocaine (Sterling, Eric E., Esq. 1999). The 100:1
ratio in cocaine sentencing harshly punishes crack offenders. Crack offenders are most
commonly found in urban areas- due to the relative potency and low cost of the drug mixture.
Cocaine is predominately used by white people as a symbol of high status. Drug Law inequality
existed in legislation- and went unchanged for over twenty years! This is evidence of the racial
Even if drug policies dont have the blatant intention of placing minorities under the
control of the lawmakers and the majority, they have been effective in skewing punishment.
Drug policy has maintained inequality in society- keeping minorities subjected to institutional
The imbalance of this War on Drugs has allowed for minorities to become easier
targets for law enforcement. Incarceration rates are skyrocketing; communities are ruined in
violent turf wars, and once again the racial majority (white, middle class, Anglo-Americans) has
control of the minority class because of domestic policies. This is modern day slavery. There is a
hidden agenda, even if it is unintentional it is still a reality, there is profit being made by the
government (police agencies in particular), and the overwhelming sense of control of African-
Americans that take up nearly three quarters of the national prison population. The static quo is
being maintained as whites excel, i.e. they are socially mobile while the black population
continues to be oppressed.
Fighting crime cannot be something that is oppressive to a nations own people who are
predisposed to lives of crime, due to their lacking of economic stability and opportunity. The
most significant action that can be taken against crime is action designed to eliminate slums and
ghettos, to improve education, provide jobswe shall not have dealt effectively with crime until
we have alleviated the conditions that stimulate it (Tonry, M., 2005, p.85). Crime is known to
grow in areas where the cost of living is low, tax base is weak, education system lacking,
parental oversight is non-existent, et al., just as a virus is known to grow in a warm and moist
environment where it can stagnate, fester, and spread. If there could be more of an emphasis
placed on giving a sense of direction and a diversion from drugs as a need to get by there would
be less of a desire to throw away life with substance distribution and use. Resources should be
pooled for vocational training and education programs and transferred from incarceration (the
Prison Industry). Instead of focusing on rehabilitation and helping drug offenders and users we
have drastically increased the power of the police, implemented military abroad, and expanded
In 1971, the first full-time Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams were assigned to
the Metropolitan Division of the Los Angeles Police Department (Los Angeles Police
Department, 2006). The brainchild of Inspector Darryl Gates, SWAT teams were an integration
of military tactics and equipment designed to respond to situations beyond the capabilities of
traditional patrol officers. However, by the 1990s, SWAT teams were increasingly used to serve
search warrants for drug dealers and users (Kopel, 2000, p. 44). The development of SWAT was
one of the first indications of the militarization of police forces in the United States (US). One of
the largest negative effects of the War on Drugs on American law enforcement is militarization.
Stemming from the Crime Control model of criminal justice, law enforcement militarization
changes the manner that police operate and interact with both citizens and offenders. Spurred by
the War on Drugs, the militarization trend in American law enforcement threatens due process
equipment, tactics, and weapons in policing (p. 185). Although the exchange of gear and ideas
is part of the process, true law enforcement militarization encompasses the mindset,
organization, and motivation of police forces. A legitimate use exists for some paramilitary
developments within the American law enforcement community. Examples pertaining to drug
enforcement include: infrared and night vision technology, computer communications, and
chemical detection devices. However, police militarization goes beyond simple technology and
tactics similarities. Since the early 1970s, the shift towards aggressive drug enforcement shows
that the original, narrow intent of specialized tactical units such as SWAT teams has broadened
into a general law enforcement strategy. King and Maguire (2004) identify militarization as a
major transformational goal, or trend, within American police departments (p. 20).
The United States government has recognized the difference between law enforcement
and the armed forces. In 1878, the US Congress passed the principal legislation regarding the
use of military forces in American law enforcement, the Posse Comitatus Act, also known as 18
U.S.C. 1385. This statute forbids the use of, Any part of the Army or the Air
Force (18 U.S.C. 1385, 2008) for posse comitatus, or common law. In other words, the US
Army, Air Force, and federalized National Guard cannot be used as state law enforcement or
peace officers. The only exception is where police action is specifically authorized by Congress
or the US Constitution.
Harsher drug legislation, along with a seemingly endless media barrage, created a moral panic
against the plague of illicit drugs in American society. Ted Chiricos (2003) defines this
phenomenon as a moral panic. Moral panics occur when intense media coverage of a subject
instills artificial focus and fear into the public (as cited in Bunger et al., 2004, p. 43). Moral
panics intensify the publics fear of crime, and lead to demands for increased judicial and police
power. For example, constant coverage of crack cocaine as the scourge of society in the 1980s
led to a public outcry and the passage of even tougher drug legislation. Police militarization has
benefited from the drug moral panic. When the public is faced with the image of Willie Horton,
or the stereotypical criminal, citizens are more likely to accept a black-clad, tactical police
officer for their defense (Boyes-Watson, 2003, p. 41). Although unpublicized in the media, a
far-reaching effect of the War on Drugs is the drug-exception to the Posse Comitatus Act
(Blackman & Kopel, 1997, section VI). These changes, passed in 1981 and 1988, allow the use
of American armed forces in law enforcement when drugs are involved. Drugs, the new
enemy, formed the catalyst that American law enforcement needed in order to hasten the
process of militarization.
The trend towards more rigid and militarized law enforcement stems from the Crime
Control Model of criminal justice. According to Kraska and Cubellis (1997), Military activity
and war remains a core feature of crime-control ideology (as cited in Blackman & Brandl, 2004,
p. 388). In his book, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968), Herbert Packer outlines the
Crime Control Model of criminal justice. According to Packer, the Crime Control model states
that the most important function of the criminal justice system is the Repression of criminal
conduct (as cited in Bunger, Cole, & Gertz, 2004, p. 13). Consequently, the system strives to
convict, apprehend, and dispose of a high proportion of criminal offenders (p.13). When
applied to policing, the Crime Control Model relates most to the law enforcement function, as
opposed to the order maintenance or service delivery roles (Scott, Personal Communication, RIT
violent riots that occurred in major US cities during the early 1960s, the Commission developed
the War on Crime policy. Under this federally-funded program, the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (LEAA) provided grants to state and local police departments for
more advanced training and equipment. The LEAA cemented the Reform Era of policing, where
law enforcement agencies across the United States embraced rapid response, patrol, and
centralized command and control policies in order to fight crime (p. 185). Financial grants from
the LEAA, many to support drug enforcement, began the large-scale militarization of American
law enforcement.
The War on Drugs led to statutes that increased the ease in which military resources
could be used in order to support domestic law enforcement in the United States. In 1988,
Congress amended US Code 10 U.S.C. 372, which specifies the use of the US military in
homeland policing (Blackman & Kopel, 1997). Regarding the general use of military forces, the
code reads:
a) In General. The Secretary of Defense may, in accordance with other applicable law, make
available any equipment (including associated supplies or spare parts), base facility, or research facility
of the Department of Defense to any Federal, State, or local civilian law enforcement official for law
In essence, 10 U.S.C. 372 permits the use of US military equipment or bases in any law
enforcement situation, not limited to drug-related employment. In April 2008, Congress again
amended the law to include resources dedicated to an, Emergency involving chemical or
The development of the War Model of policing is a result of ideals from the War on
drugs and crime in the 1970s and 1980s. The military model of policing traces its roots to the
early 1950s, when Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) chief William Henry Parker
implemented a war model of policing inside the city (Boyes-Watson, 2003, p. 167). Beginning
in the 1980s, the US military began large-scale adoption of the special operations military model.
American police organizations soon followed with the development of police paramilitary units,
or PPUs (as cited in Blackman & Brandl, 2004, p. 388). Military units routinely train PPUs,
often funded by federal money allocated for the War on Drugs (Kopel, 2000, p. 45). The War
Model of policing builds on the War on Crime concept, and includes military command and
rank structure, boot-camp training, and use of military weapons and tactics. Since its creation,
the quasi-military organization of the War Model has become extremely common in American
The Crime Control Model and police war mentality on crime both contribute to the idea
that police are solely crime fighters. According to researchers Jack Greene and Carl Klockars
(1991), Findings in no way lend support to the headline news vision of police work as a violent
running battle between police and criminals (as citied in Kappeler & Potter, 2005, p. 238). This
myth devalues other vital police roles, such as administrative tasks, service delivery to citizens,
and order maintenance functions (Kappeler & Potter, 2005, p. 237). The myth of police as
crime fighters is dangerous because the myth has become self-perpetuating. In other words,
police begin to believe and act on the concept. The self-realized role of crime fighting is a major
The concept that police officers are soldiers fighting the war on crime, (Boyes-Watson,
2003, p. 169), creates many problems. Due to militarized policing, offenders are often
considered the enemies in the war of law enforcement versus law breakers (Parenti, 1999, p.
18). However, unlike armies or insurgencies, offenders do not wear any uniform or rally under a
common ideology. Thus, the war mentality forces police to employ frequent stereotypes, often
based on race and economic class, in order to identify the enemy in the war on crime and drugs
(Boyes-Watson, 2003, p. 169). Furthermore, according to Kopel (2000), military training is not
synonymous with successful policing because of the different missions of each profession (p.
45).
Police solidarity and sub-culture is also affected by the militarization of police forces.
According to Skolnick (1994), The police, as a result of combined features of their social
situation, tend to develop ways of looking at the world distinctive to themselves, cognitive lenses
through which to see situations and events (as cited in Kappeler & Potter, 2005, p. 258). Thus,
police officers tend to view the world as Cops and Others, or an Us-vs.-Them mentality.
Although the nature of law enforcement creates a certain degree of camaraderie, the intense
loyalty and secrecy created by police socialization mirrors military organizations. The war
mentality of policing magnifies this already present Blue Curtain that separates the police
community and rest of society (Boyes-Watson, 2003, p. 165). Police solidarity can cause
officers to forget that they are also citizens. Unlike active duty military organizations, police
officers do not live on isolated bases, or abide by separate rules of justice. The crime fighter
myth and resulting military organization negatively bias police officers against outsiders, or
other citizens.
It is important to point out that most offenders are also in fact citizens of the United
States, and consequently they still possess civil rights pursuant to the United States Constitution
and Bill of Rights. In the United States, the standard of innocent until proven guilty is
paramount. The militarization of policing facilitates the erroneous categorization of society into
regular citizens and criminals. This quasi-taxonomy stigmatizes convicted offenders and
allows the degradation of civil rights, since criminals are viewed as different from the rest of
society. This phenomenon is called the Not Me Fallacy of criminal behavior (Schreck, Personal
Communication, RIT lecture, September 11, 2008). The Not Me fallacy results in harsher
treatment for convicted offenders. For example, many non-violent felony drug offenders face
the stigma of disenfranchisement, reduced federal financial assistance, and elimination of the
right to own a firearm. According to the US Constitution, even convicted offenders still have a
degree, albeit more limited, of civil rights that must be respected. Unfortunately, police who see
offenders as enemies are often enticed to break the law in order to make arrests, produce
evidence during searches, and obtain information. Carl Klockars refers to this situation as The
Dirty Harry Problem (as cited in Boyes-Watson, 2003, p. 169). The title references the
previously mentioned Hollywood movie by the same name. In the film, the main character, a
police officer, employs illegal methods in order to obtain information concerning a kidnapping.
The War on Drugs has even made it financially beneficial to stretch the law. Asset forfeiture and
property seizure laws allow law enforcement agencies to reap the profits of captured criminal
property. In short, the war mentality of policing diminishes the fact that offenders are fellow
police can lead to a dangerous increase in the use of police power. Unfortunately, an overall
increase in police use of authority will come at a price. Boyes-Watson (2003) refers to this
problem as the Paradox of coercive power (p. 167). The theory states that the use of power
based on rightful authority is inversely proportional to the amount of recognized authority. Thus,
frequent aggressive action (ex: SWAT teams) during drug searches, will undermine police
authority in the future. The 1992 Los Angeles riots are an example of a situation where citizens
refused to accept police authority. As militarized as American police may be, they still rely on
The most recent example of the disastrous results of police militarization is the Waco,
Texas incident of 1993. The event involved a failed raid on the compound of the Branch
Davidians, a religious cult, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) on
February 28, 1993. On April 19, 1993, after a 51-day standoff, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) also failed to successfully control the compound. A resulting fire destroyed
the compound, and 74 Davidian members were killed. The Waco disaster illustrates the ill
effects of law enforcement militarization. Under the drug exception clause of the Posse
Comitatus Act, US military members were deeply involved in the training and equipping of both
the BATF and the FBI Hostage Rescue Team (HRT). In the staging area for the raids, located at
Fort Hood, Texas, US Army advisors conducted raid and close-quarters battle exercises with
both BATF and FBI agents (Blackman & Kopel, 1997). During both agencies operations,
military tactics were used, including building assaults, a helicopter assault flyover, and CS gas
saturation. In addition, military armaments were heavily used, including two M1A1 Abrams
battle tanks. The military training and equipment resulted in an over-aggressive mindset and
execution, which contributed to both the escalation and failure of the raids (Blackman & Kopel,
1997).
Although first developed for a war on crime and drugs, supporters of police
paramilitary units (PPUs) such as the FBI HRT cite another reason for their existence: combating
terrorism. Even in light of the failures at Waco and Ruby Ridge, police tactical units and law
enforcement militarization as a whole continue to increase. The major reason for this trend is the
threat of terrorism to homeland security. Grossman and Klinger (2002) argue that ordinary law
enforcement does not have the capability to defend against a military-style assault from
Islamic terrorism. The law enforcement term for this type of attack is, Active shooter (p. 819).
The authors support the legalization of direct intervention by the US military forces against
persons on US soil, regulated by a probable cause standard for determining if said persons
were acting under foreign terrorism (p. 829). This mindset, along with recent legislative
changes, such as the US Patriot Act and 2008 amendment to 10 U.S.C. 372, suggests that the
militarization of American law enforcement will continue to increase into the 21st Century.
Due to the continuing threat of terrorism, law enforcement militarization will not likely
desist completely. However, several steps can be taken in order to control the unchecked
advance of militarization and its associated negative consequences. First, PPUs such as the FBI
HRT and state/local SWAT teams must narrow and re-focus their role. According to Kraska and
Cubellis (1997), the number of PPUs in agencies serving small jurisdictions grew 157 percent
between 1985 and 1995 (as cited in Barlow & Brandl, 2004, p. 388). Another problem within
police militarization is the increasing use of tactical units for routine patrol tasks and property
searches (Parenti, 1999, p. 18). Between 1985 and 1995, the number of police departments using
PPUs to serve warrants increased by 342 percent, or mathematically exponentially (as cited in
Barlow & Brandl, 2004, p. 395). Police paramilitary units such as SWAT teams can be effective
when employed in their original, narrow function: crisis situations such as hostage incidents or
barricaded gunmen (Parenti, 1999, p. 18). In addition, the American armed services and
domestic law enforcement must coexist, not merge. According to Falcone and Smith (2000), the
military and police can share tactics and techniques without militarization. As an example, the
US Army Military Police Corps (MPC) is very similar in practice and execution to the strategy
of American county sheriffs offices (p. 247). This comparison illustrates a more decentralized
model of law enforcement, as opposed to the traditional military model hierarchy followed in
most large urban departments (p. 254). The operation and shared training by sheriffs offices
and the US Army MPC proves that American armed forces and law enforcement can practice
Law enforcement militarization parallels the Crime Control model of criminal justice.
Amplified by the War on Drugs, militarization is a negative trend in American policing that
destroys police authority and reduces civil rights for the accused. However, due to current
criminal justice polices that support the War on Drugs and GWOT, it is unlikely that police
militarization will decrease in America. In order to stem the tide, police organizations must re-
examine the roles of tactical units and work for partnerships with the community. Without
enforcement.
The DEA has tapped into the valuable resource of asset forfeiture in order to exceed
annual funding. By 1987, the Drug Enforcement Administration was effectively paying for
itself, with seizures exceeding its annual budget. Between 1985 and 1991, the Justice Department
collected more than $1.5 billion in illegal assets. Over the next five years, the Justice Department
almost doubled its incometo $2.7 billion in its Asset Forfeiture FundThe
single-handedly rake funding. No one wants to settle for less, every officer wants the capitalist
American Dream, all the money they can get in the easiest way possible. According to news
reports, Louisiana police engaged in massive pretextual stops, with the seized money diverted to
police department ski trips and other unauthorized uses (Blumenson & Nilsen, 1998, p.83).
Furthering the financial standing of their own agencies, police corruption runs rampant in
Street level drug busts appease the public outcry and fear about the terrors of drug dealers
and user. What the public, i.e. white suburbia, doesnt know is that the real dealers are in their
neighborhoods. The real dealers dont deal in plain view; they take their business indoors, in
cars, at bars, etc. As Senator-scholar Daniel Patrick (1993) has written, Interdiction and drug
busts are probably necessary symbolic acts, but nothing more.(Tonry, M.,2005, p.87).
The need for making multiple arrests and stops is not just a means of giving a false sense
of security to Americans, but for sufficient funds for departments. Every time there is a seizure
of property, the money made from the seizure goes directly to the local department of law
enforcement, as opposed to the federal funding they receive. The more busts made, the more
money the department has for its own private funding. As it is told, One amendment, part of the
1984 bill (on forfeiture), allowed federal law enforcement agencies to retain and use the proceeds
from asset forfeitures, rather than requiring these assets to be deposited in the Treasurys
General Fund(Blumenson & Nilsen,1998, p. 50). Police have been put in a situation where the
more drug arrests they make the more money they have for their department. It is a lot easier to
make an open air arrest in the urban areas than to obtain search warrants, do surveillance, and
track suburban drug dealers. As Heather MacDonald explained in a segment about racial
profiling, Between 1976 and 1994, 64 percent of the homicide victims in drug turf wars were
black, according to a Heritage Foundation analysis of FBI data. Sixty-seven percent of the
perpetrators were black (Macdonald, 2003, p.19). The black population has been enslaved by a
substance that has been out of their control. In the late 1980s crack cocaine was introduced to the
ghettoes and with it came all the crime, i.e. drive-bys, turf wars, and societal damage that is
equivalent to that of a real war. Before locking away lives that could contribute to societys
success, there must be adequate funding for rehabilitation or more programs aimed at giving aid
to the parts of society that are economically disadvantaged and riddled with these problems.
Rehabilitative Approach
Drug busts are a great money making incentive for authorities. With these busts comes
the forfeiture of property and possessions. The majority of funds used for the War on Drugs go
directly to the police work; not to treatment programs that can help thwart the addiction
problems of the petty dealers and users on the streets. These small time dealers and users are
most commonly recidivists a solution for them, as justified by Michael Tonry (2005): Because
use and offending tend to coincide in the lives of drug-using offenders, the most effective and
cost-effective way to deal with such offenders is to get and keep them in well-run treatment
There needs to be more effective solutions to fighting drugs and drug crimes. The first
step should be rehabilitating those who are dependent on illicit and illegal substances. Offenders
and users are one and the same- at least at the smaller levels. For society to attempt to abolish
drug sales we must first be able to effectively cut off drugs at the smallest retail and usage level
and allow for people stuck in the grasp of addictive drugs to be offered the option to get off of
them.
Increased Incarceration Rates
The War on Drugs has only increased the incarceration rate and minority involvement
in the criminal justice system. The government portrays a false sense of security; wanting people
in suburbia and the thriving middle class to think that violent drug users and dealers are being
put away for the safety of the public. There is a feeling that more drugs are off streets, when in
reality there are more and they are of greater potency. If there was such a concern for public
safety there would be more of a focus on alcohol, as it accounts for a number of automobile
accidents, domestic violence occurrences, and addiction. In the federal prisons 25% of the
resident population was drug offenders. By 1992, 58% of the resident population was drug
offenders. In state prisons, 5.7% of inmates in 1979 were drug offenders, a figure that by 1991
had climbed to 21.3% to become the single largest category of prisoners(Tonry, M.,2005,
p.92). The incarceration of minorities allows there to be shackles placed on them by the white
majority. Incarceration is a means of control that is within the bounds of the law with benefits to
white policy makers who win votes for being tough on crime and towns dependent on the
Prison Industry. Policies evolve from the history and the conglomeration of people in power.
Along with the conglomeration of ideals comes a mixed opinion on sentencing, discretion, and
societal reactions to these decisions. This makes its seem like there is an easy objective to
combat (i.e. drugs), when in reality we (society) are incarcerating great numbers of people
involved in victimless crimes instead of getting them the help that they need.
The imbalance in the criminal justice system can be seen after the War on Drugs was
declared and the arrest rates of minorities sky-rocketed. While the numbers of arrested folks of
all colors are rationalized in proportion to their respective populations, it is the incarceration rate
that is much higher and severe for the minorities, specifically African-Americans. As Steven
Cooper wrote, All indicators suggest that blacks and whites use drugs at approximately the
same rate, yet blacks are arrested on drug charges at much higher rates than whites (Cooper,
S.,1998, p.123). The blacks are racially profiled and targeted by law enforcement, not always on
a basis of direct discrimination, but because the arresting officer feels he/she has had success
with a certain race in making drug arrests, i.e. a good collar. Most drug arrests are made at the
discretion of the arresting officer. The belief is that if a pretext stop is made; initiated by a minor
traffic infraction, there will be reasonable suspicion and thus a means for searching the vehicle.
This is highly likely if the suspect fits the so-called thug profile. This profile does not indicate
race, but is suggestive of African-Americans, who, more times than not, wear baggy pants,
backwards caps, dew-rags, undershirts, etc. The imbalance in dealing with the War on Drugs
starts from the point of initial suspicion and profiling to sentencing and incarceration.
With nearly one in three black men under correctional supervision or control it can be
alleged with ease that once again blacks have been disenfranchised, discounted from the realm of
democracy with a political strategy used to make their vote not count. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau Thirteen percent of all adult black men 1.4 million are
black disenfranchisement: 1.4 million black men are disenfranchised compared to 4.6 million
Institutional Oppression
Too much of the Drug War is based upon targeting the wrong roots of the drug problem
in America. Putting the muscle on the street to beat up on small dealers and users isnt the same
as having clinics and rehabilitation centers for addicts and people who live and breathe the drugs
they sell and use. This statement of underfunding is factually supported by the statement that
claims, Out of approximately $15 billion in annual federal Drug War funds, approximately two-
thirds are dedicated to law enforcement and interdiction. Meanwhile the slim budgetary
allotment for the substance abuse (Blumenson, Nilsen, 1998, p.80). If politicians and policy
makers were concerned, and really wanted to put a damper on the use and sale of drugs in the
United States they would realize the drug war is not a war to be fought with physical force, but
with rehabilitation and help for people who are over the edge with addiction and the drug
lifestyle.
As the case usually is, those who are higher up in the social caste system can get away
with more criminal behavior. In New Jersey, for example, a defendant facing a drug kingpin
indictment (twenty-five years to life) obtained a dismissal of that charge and parole eligibility in
five years on a lesser conviction, by agreeing to forfeit $1 million in assets (Blumenson &
Nilsen,1998, p. 37). Another case of authorities taking offerings from hustlers can be found in
the Boston Police Department. In Massachusetts, a recent investigation by journalists found that
on average a payment of $50,000 in drug profits won a 6.3 year reduction in a sentence for
The crime that correlates most directly with drug users and dealers is nowhere near as
harmful to society as the deviance involved with alcohol use. The drug busts affect the urban
culture while alcohol is left legal as an abuse and crime promoter in the suburban areas. This
doesnt disregard the fact that there are still many alcohol abusers in the city, but there are a lot
more drug users (that are caught) in the urban environment. This shows a bias in the system,
allowing drinking to be made legal so that drunks, who act violently, can be punished with fines,
license suspensions, and metaphorical slaps on the wrist, while drug users and sellers are locked
up and arent allowed to see the light of day. Both the drug addict and the alcoholic suffer from a
genetic addiction; a physical and mental addiction to a substance that controls every facet of their
lives.
The War on Drugs is not effectively combating crimealcohol poses more of a threat to
citizens safety than drugs. Alcohol related incidents of crime and accidents are much higher
than those of drug related incidents. More people die in car accidents with intoxicated drivers
than people smoking a joint on the road. That is not advocating the legalization of drugs; its just
blatantly obvious that alcohol has more of an impact on criminal behavior in the United States
than people on drugs. Drunks are to blame for most domestic violence problems and the calling
of Child Protective Services. If the pedophile uncle of the family was stoned hed be more likely
to watch cartoons and take naps vs. the drunken uncle who wants to cop a feel off his young
niece. The effects of alcohol are clearly outlined as having affects (on) attention, cognition, and
perception, resulting in a narrowing of the field of attention/ vision. This, in turn, may lead to
misperceptions of others intentions and a reduction in the ability to solve problems such that an
intoxicated person is more likely to interpret a comment arguments escalate into physical
Like drugs alcohol can have a broken windows effect on a community. Drunks and
drug users loitering can diminish a small communitys sense of pride and appearance, making it
more susceptible to criminal activity. Areas with high outlet density recently have been shown
to be associated with elevated rates of violence (Costanza et al., 2001).In addition, such outlets
no only sell alcohol, but are social magnets that attract undesirable clientele and often become
sites for drug dealing, prostitution, and other illegal activities (Martin, Maxwell,White &
Zhang, 2004,p.20). There are support and rehabilitation programs for alcoholics that seem to
work wonders, due to proper funding and societal support. Instead of keeping drug users as
societal skeletons in the closet, we should support the idea that drug users, like alcoholics, can be
The foreign policy initiatives call for the containment of the means of production followed by the
geographical displacement, i.e. shifting of the global market from places where production is
seen as a cash crop and a means of obtaining wealth, and of course being in a region that is
favorable and fit for growing crops such as opium. This is well discussed on page 216 in the
World Drug Report 2008. The Opium problem has successfully been pushed through Southwest
Asia, from China to Myanmar, and now into Afghanistan (World Drug Report 2008, p.216). This
displacement shift results in a wild goose chase between cartels and international law
enforcement.
One consequence most noted on the global scale was that the control of one markets
production, resulting in the control of both the supply and demand, would result in users having
to switch to another market- a new drug of choice. (World Drug Report 2008, p.216). Certain
markets are easier to control. The comparison was made in the prior mentioned report that
cocaine is easier to control than methamphetamines because the production site and the
consumer region are so far apart, e.g. Colombia and Los Angeles- there is a great span the drugs
produced and distributed in small communities- commonly being seen as a growing problem in
rural America.
The dealers that are being taken off the streets are the small time dealers. They are
arrested on a larger scale. The rate of production of illegal drugs and their distribution has only
increased over the years. Afghanistan alone from 2006 to 2007 had a 17 percent increase in
opium production (World Drug Report 2008). The street-level distributor is the bottom of the
food chain in distribution. They are the peons that have no other means of an income due to
stigma placed on them from institutionalization. Deterrence by itself is not an effective approach
to thwarting the Drug Trade Large-scale arrests have repeatedly been shown to have little or no
effect on the volume of drug trafficking or on retail prices of drugs (Tonry, M.,2005,p.87). The
global illicit drug retail market, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC), was valued at $322 billion (World Drug Report 2005). This would be a major
Despite the ongoing effort of the west to thwart drug production related terrorism in
Afghanistan, the UN Office of Drug Control reports in its World Drug Report 2008 a steady
increase in the production and distribution of Opium in Mesopotamia. (World Drug Report
2008).
Money Laundering
One of the main efforts put forth in the international War on Drugs is the prevention of
defined as: The conversion or transfer of property derived from a criminal offense for the
purpose of concealing, or disguising, the illicit origin of the property. (American Banker, 2008).
Big time drug dealers have an easy time laundering money because not only has the law
been able to protect them, but they can afford the attorneys to do the legal work. The law has, in
Conclusion
The War on Drugs has had enormous repercussions on the American way of life.
Limitations have been placed on the liberty of the individual as well as the community, all in the
name of protecting the population from the evil of narcotics. Militarization has evolved
American police into a quasi-military branch able to operate inside the United States with little
oversight. Most drug enforcement is targeted at the poor, mainly minority populations of
America, who use narcotics. When drugs do get in to the hands of individuals and they are
caught, the full arm of the law is emplaced upon them. Rather than try and rehabilitate addicts,
they are simply warehoused in Americans enormous prison industry. This endless cycle has
When law enforcement fails, American sons are sent to fight wars in foreign lands to
reduce the flow of narcotics into America. Does the failure of our border agents constitute a full
regime change in a legitimate country? Even when full war is not employed, America maintains
a long list of various agencies, which operate essentially as spies in order to assist other
Luckily, the effects of the War on Drugs are reversible, or at least modifiable. While
total legalization of all narcotics is not likely, and would have its own list of repercussions,
moderation is possible. First, the extended use of prisons only hides the problem from the
public, not fixes it. Prison sentences need to be reduced; this could be best accomplished with
Drugs, like guns and alcohol, will always be part of American culture. The question that
remains is how to limit them. Lax controls and one ends up with an epidemic. Strict controls
result in underground markets and enormous law enforcement expenses. A successful balance
needs to be established that limits the most harmful narcotics, rehabilitates those already
addicted, and eliminates racial discrepancies. All of these goals must be accomplished while
Alexander, R., & Gyamerah, J. (1997). Differential Punishing of African Americans Who
Possess Drugs a Just Policy or a Continuation of the Past? In R.J. Lazrus (Ed.),
Reprinted from Journal of Black Studies, 28(1), September 1997, 97-111. Sage
Publications.
Alexandrova, A. (2004). AIDS, Drugs and Society. New York, NY, USA: International
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/rit/Doc?id=10074887&ppg=95.
Bankers Glossary (2008). American Banker. Retrieved on October 21, 2008 from
http://www.thebankingnetwork.com/glossary.html?alpha=M.
Barlow, D., & Brandl, S. (2004). The Police in America: Classic and Contemporary
Readings.Canada: Wadsworth.
Blackman, P., & Kopel, D. (1997). Can Soldiers Be Peace Officers? The Waco Disaster and the
Blumenson, E., & Nilsen, E. (1998). Policing for Profit: the Drug Wars Hidden Economic
Brook, T. (2000). Opium Regimes: China, Britain and Japan, 1839-1952 University of
California Press.
Bunger, Amy, Cole, George F., & Gertz, Marc G. (2004). The Criminal Justice System: Politics
Cooper M. (2000). Drug-Policy Debate: Is there too much emphasis on law enforcement? C.Q.
http://library.cqpress.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre200007
2800
Cooper, S. (2001). A Closer Look at Racial Profiling. In R.J. Lazrus (ed.) Boundaries Readings
in Deviance, Crime and Criminal Justice, 120-126. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
(Reprinted from the June 18, 2001 issue of FASCET by the Foundation for American
Communications).
Elsner, A. (2006) Gates of Injustice, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
Falcone, D., & Smith, B. (2000). The Army Military Police: A Neglected Policing Model.Police
Quarterly, 3, 247-261.
Fellner, J., & Mauer, M. (1998). Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Law
In the United States. Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch & The Sentencing Project,
8. Election statistics cited from the US Census Bureau (1996), Voting and Registration in
Grossman, D., & Klinger, D. (2002). Who Should Deal with Foreign Terrorists on US
Attacksin America. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 25(2), 815-834.
Isralowitz, R. (2002). Drug Use, Policy, and Management. Greenwood Publishing Group Inc.
Kappeler, Victor E., & Potter, Gary W. (2005). The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice
King, W., & Maguire. E. (2004). Trends in the Policing Industry. The ANNALS of the
Kopel, D. (2000). Smash-up Policing. National Review, 52(9), 44-46. Retrieved October 21,
Lock, E., Timberlake, J., & Rasinski, K. (2002). Battle Fatigue: is Public Support Waning for
War-centered Drug Control Strategies? Journal of Crime & Delinquency, 48(3), 380-398.
Los Angeles Police Department (2006). History of S.W.A.T. Retrieved on February 16, 2008,
from http://www.lapdonline.org/metropolitan_division/content_basicview/849
Martin, S., Maxwell, C., White, H., & Zhang, Y. (2004). Trends in Alcohol Use, Cocaine Use,
Routledge.
Musto, D. (2002). Quest for Drug Control: Politics and Federal Policy in a Period of
(Ed.), Boundaries Readings in Deviance, Crime and Criminal Justice (4th ed.), 40,
US Code 10 U.S.C. 372 (2008). Legal Information Institute: Cornell University Law School.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000372----000-.html.
US Code 18 U.S.C. 1385 (2008). Legal Information Institute: Cornell University Law School.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001385----000-.html.
World Drug Report (2008). United States Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved on October