Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The war on drugs cause and effect
America's war on drugs
The war on drugs cause and effect
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The war on drugs cause and effect
The “Drug War” along the border of Mexico and the United States is one of the longest coordinated engagements of law enforcement (who have accepted the aid of the Mexican military) in both countries’ history (Winslow, 2015). The history of this unofficial war is extraordinarily complicated; rife with both political and criminal players, violence, corruption, bad policy, and controversy. Its importance to America and Mexico cannot be underestimated, especially in its role in legislation, law enforcement techniques, and public opinion. The sheer size and scope of the war surpasses general understandings of battlefields and skirmishes; but it is obvious where the most “warfare” is occurring—the border (Pacheco, 2009). To explore all of these concepts would take substantial time; so in favor of brevity and efficiency this paper will attempt to provide the reader with a general overview of the current situation, and then go into depth about several subjects: the history, the key participants, the drugs at issue, the range of the war across Mexico (at current date), political controversies accompanying, and proposed solutions by experts. To put current day events into context, one should first glance at the history behind the Drug War. Payan contended in his article The Drug War and the U.S.-Mexico Border: The State of Affairs that the roots of the drug war stem from the resentment policymakers had towards the counterculture revolution of the late 60’s. Mind-altering drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin were in great demand, and many small gangs in Mexico had taken advantage of the opportunity. Nixon saw the rising clamor from conservatives against the trafficking and use of these substances; so he instituted the DEA, coin... ... middle of paper ... ...3/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=fc2f2fad-9bc3-4172-b521-6917fa15c2e7%40sessionmgr13&vid=4&hid=7 Payan, T. (2006). The Drug War and the U.S.-Mexico Border: The State of Affairs. South Atlantic Quarterly, 105(4), 863-880. doi:10.1215/00382876-2006-006. Web. 4 Oct. 2015. http://libproxy.wcjc.cc.tx.us:2253/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1e7fd309-7c13-410d-92f4-45d5d11968f1%40sessionmgr11&vid=16&hid=12 Vance, L. M. (2011). The Other Unconstitutional War. New American, 27(21), 20-24. Web. 4 Oct. 2015. http://libproxy.wcjc.cc.tx.us:2253/ehost/detail?sid=e07d566c-eb43-4b0b-bb3c-df8a4aedcd7a%40sessionmgr111&vid=3&hid=123&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=67789567 Winslow, Don. America's war on drugs is empowering Mexico's drug cartels CNN. June 28, 2015, Web. 4 Oct. 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/28/opinions/winslow-drug-war-folly/
In the Documentary “Mexico’s Drug Cartel War”, it displays a systematic approach of drugs and violence. The Drug War has been going on since the United States had a devastating impact on Mexico after the recession where it nearly doubled its interest payments. Mexico could not afford the interest payments but did have many agricultural imports. This created the trade between the United States and the land owned by the two million farmers. It spread the slums to Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez to work in maquiladoras (assembly plants just across the border) (Jacobin, 2015). This paper will focus on explaining how drugs are related to violence in Mexico, how drug enforcement policies influence the relationship between drugs and violence, and how battle for control in their own country.
In one portion of the documentary, we see an excerpt from one of President Richard Nixon’s speeches on how he feels about America’s ongoing battle with drug abuse. In the speech, he declared that this so called “war” with drug addiction needed to be handled while proclaiming that drug abuse was “America’s public enemy number one”. Years later, the war on drugs has only become even more of a controversial issue in the United States with the consequences spanning and reaching particular groups and hinting that they are more so involved than others.
Rostow, Eugene V., "Great Cases Make Bad Law: The War Powers Act" (1972). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2143.
The war over drug routes and power between rival cartels has left Mexico in a bloody war. The violence occurring throughout the country only seems to escalate. In part, the United States has a role in this war because of the exploitation of weapons. Unfortunately, a lot of people are being killed every day because of the drug war. Action from Mexico must be taken swiftly to avoid any further casualties by collaborating with the United States on how to stop the smuggling of guns, building trust between the community and the police, and deciding on a plan to the help the economy for their citizens.
Over the last several decades, violence has consumed and transformed Mexico. Since the rise of dozens of Mexican cartels, the Mexican government has constantly been fighting an ongoing war with these criminal organizations. The cartel organizations have a primary purpose of managing and controlling illegal drug trafficking operations in Central America and South America to the United States. Violence on a massive and brutal scale has emerged due to the nature of the illegal drug trade. Because the drug trade is vastly widespread, cartels are often fighting one another and competing in business. Mexican authorities count at least 12 major cartels, but also talk of an untold numbers of smaller splinter groups. (Taipei Times). Five cartels from Mexico have risen to become the extremely powerful amongst all the drug organizations operating in Mexico. The Guadalajara Cartel, the Sinaloa Cartel, the Tijuana Cartel, the Juarez Cartel, and the Gulf Cartel. These organizations, along with other distinguished Mexican cartels, have plagued Mexico with violence, terror, and fear due to the essence and nature of illegal drug trafficking.
The current “War on Drugs” involves skirmishes in an arena with two fronts: The consumer and the manufacturer. The successes and failures of the battle are not clearly identified without first looking at how the battle can be ultimately won. When it comes to cocaine, the problem of punishing the whole instead of the individual is hard to define. Many countries use the raw ingredient, the coca plant, as part of a social and cultural structure. The only way to win the “War on Drugs” is to focus war efforts on fighting the manufacturer of the finished cocaine product.
The war on drug not only change the structure of the criminal justice system, it also change the ways that police officers, prosecutors and judges do their jobs. Even worse, the way politicians address crime. The tough stand on drugs started during the Nixon presidency, most of the resources was focus on medical treatment rather than punishment. Although it was a better strategy and alternative than the drug war policies that exist today, it was a very divisive issue between the conservatives and the liberals. The war on drug ignited during the Reagan administration, two third of the financial resources were being spent on law enforcement. In addition, the end of the cold war left the United States with weaponry and resources that needed to be repurposed. As a result, small town were given high power grade artilleries and weaponry, and means to form specialized tactical units such as SWAT teams in case of unusual event. To maintain and justify the need for these new expenditures, SWAT teams are used in any drug warran...
The war on drugs began with the presidential term of President Nixon in the 1970s. According to drugpolicy.org, “He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs.”
“[The war on drugs] has created a multibillion-dollar black market, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of government officials throughout the world,” noted Eric Schlosser in his essay, “A People’s Democratic Platform”, which presents a case for decriminalizing controlled substances. Government policies regarding drugs are more focused towards illegalization rather than revitalization. Schlosser identifies a few of the crippling side effects of the current drug policy put in place by the Richard Nixon administration in the 1970s to prohibit drug use and the violence and destruction that ensue from it (Schlosser 3). Ironically, not only is drug use as prevalent as ever, drug-related crime has also become a staple of our society. In fact, the policy of the criminalization of drugs has fostered a steady increase in crime over the past several decades. This research will aim to critically analyze the impact of government statutes regarding drugs on the society as a whole.
The United States has a long history of intervention in the affairs of one it’s southern neighbor, Latin America. The war on drugs has been no exception. An investigation of US relations with Latin America in the period from 1820 to 1960, reveals the war on drugs to be a convenient extension of an almost 200 year-old policy. This investigation focuses on the commercial and political objectives of the US in fighting a war on drugs in Latin America. These objectives explain why the failing drug policy persisted despite its overwhelming failure to decrease drug production or trafficking. These objectives also explain why the US has recently exchanged a war on drugs for the war on terrorism.
Over the last decade, Southwest border violence has elevated into a national security concern. Much of the violence appears to stem from the competing growth and distribution networks that many powerful Mexican drug cartels exercise today. The unfortunate byproduct of this criminality reaches many citizens of the Mexican border communities in the form of indiscriminate street gang shootings, stabbings, and hangings which equated to approximately 6,500 deaths in 2009 alone (AllGov, 2012). That same danger which now extends across the border regions of New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California has the potential for alarming escalation. Yet, despite the violence, evermore-brazen behavior continues to grow, as does America’s appetite for drugs. Even though drug-related violence mandates that law enforcement agencies focus on supply reduction, the Office of National Drug Control Policy should shift its present policy formulation efforts to only drug demand reduction because treatment and prevention efforts are inadequate and strategy has evolved little over the last three decades.
Beith, Malcolm. (2013, September 24). The current state of Mexico's many drug cartels. CTC Sentinal
The Mexican-American border barriers were originally built as part of a three-pronged approach to diminish illicit contraband, drug smuggling, and illegal immigrants. This operation would curtail drug transport routes from Central America. Three headquarters were established along the Unites States border: operation gatekeeper in California, Operation Hold-the-Line in Texas, and Operation Safeguard in Arizona. These strategically placed headquarters have done an outstanding job securing our borders the past decade, however with drug smuggling on the rise, they require much more support from the government. Regrettably, adversaries of the barriers claim that they are more of a political gambit to instigate foreign affairs and a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. These opponents see the United States-Mexico barrier as an unsuccessful deterrent to illegal immigrants and unwanted drugs that ultimately and inaptly endangers the security and wellbeing of immigrants seeking refuge in the States.
In 1971 on June 17, President Richard Nixon delivered a special message to the Congress on drug abuse prevention and control. During the presentation, Nixon made it clear that the United States was at war with this idea of drug abuse. What baffled Americans then, and still baffles Americans today, is that we are at war with our own nation with drugs; it is not some foreign affair like the media tends to focus on with Mexico. Nixon stated that at the time of his speech, what was implemented to control drug abuse was not working…“The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency. I intend to take every step necessary to deal with this emergency, including asking the Congress for an amendment to my 1972 budget to provide an additional $155 million to carry out these steps. This will provide a total of $371 million for programs to control drug abuse in America.”(Wolleey and Peters) Since the publicizing of the term “War on Drugs” in 1971, it has been used by many political candidates in elections over the years. In the movie, it was stated, “ every war begins with propaganda …[and] the war on drugs has never been actually on drugs… [Additionally] drug laws are shaped less by scientific facts, but more by political [reasoning].” (Jarecki) The movie, The House I Live In, directly relates to certain themes and terminology that were discussed in Martin and Nakayama’s Intercultural Communication in Contexts book, that have been used in class. Through the analyzing and comparing of The House I Live In and Intercultural Communication in Contexts an individual can begin to localize the ideals behind this everlasting war on drugs; some ideals focus on terms from the text like ethnocentrism, diversity training, and culture while ...
The "War on Drugs" Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1986. Kennedy, X.J., Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron, eds. The Bedford Reader. 6th ed. of the book.