        I had constantly heard about the dangers of drugs from my parents, but it wasn’t until I was ten years old when I saw them firsthand. I went to Alcoholics Anonymous daily with my dad, and would play outside with other kids. One night he told me to stay inside. I remember hearing shouting and police sirens and wondering what was going on, but no one was answering my questions. On the way home my dad tried to explain the situation as appropriately as possible, but there was no getting around the point. He told me that the crazy man outside was using drugs, and that the program that worked so well for him, didn’t work the same for everyone. After this point, the drug abuse in the world started to become more apparent to me. I started to recognize the signs of abuse, and saw far too many people on the streets exhibiting them. It wasn’t before long that I began to question why I kept seeing these people and why they weren’t getting the proper help. In middle school I first learned about the War on Drugs, and slowly put the pieces of the puzzle together. It was not a single problem, but a multitude that had grown worse with almost every new piece of legislation. I decided to look into how methods used in fighting this war could be effectively revised in order to create both social and public health progress in society instead of treating drug abuse as only one of the two and in turn not fully solving the problem.

The War on Drugs was first coined by President Richard Nixon in the 1970s, though many anti-drug laws had been enacted before. President Ronald Reagan followed by escalating the importance of ridding the nation of drugs with a hard-line stance. Anti-drug enforcement spending increased and the US demonized drug culture (Cooper 7). Drug arrests are the largest category of arrests in the country, and it is clear that the methods introduced during the beginning of the War on Drugs haven’t helped the problem. Drug laws were consistently aimed at minorities, and soon the public began to associate certain minority groups with dangerous drugs. This made it easier for politicians to target those who disagreed with their policies. Sadly, these ideals are now ingrained in the minds of many Americans. The best example of this is crack and cocaine. Crack and cocaine are essentially the same drug, with crack simply being a smokeable version of cocaine. But, the prison sentences for crack have historically been much higher than those for cocaine, solely because cocaine was predominantly used by rich, white people, while crack was more common in poor, black communities. Politicians and the American public have viewed the War on Drugs as a social problem rather than a health issue, and the reform policies still in use reflect that.

Throughout high school I researched the War on Drugs and the policies centered around it on my own. I found the whole thing interesting and constantly wanted to learn more about the politics behind the policies. About halfway through high school, I had a reason to become personally invested in it. My parents told me about my uncle, who up until that point I thought had just moved away and couldn’t easily come visit. They sat me down and told me he had been in and out of prison for drug offenses, and that he was finally sober long enough to move into a halfway house where we could see him. I was shocked, especially since our family dinners consisted of me constantly sharing new research I found and they had said nothing on the topic. I wondered why my dad could be treated so easily for alcohol abuse and why my uncle had to suffer.

This is a problem that needs to be looked at through many different angles. Drug abuse starts from a young age. Children are taught to “just say no”, but other actions need to be taken. Anti-drug campaigns are not reaching children, and parents are not fully equipped to successfully tell their kids how dangerous drugs are. One study showed that teenagers exposed to anti-drug ads were either more or no less likely to use drugs than teenagers not exposed (Crawford 6). Simply telling kids to say no without going more in depth about why will never have a positive success rate, but government efforts in the marketing sector have not progressed. Drug companies are becoming more socially aware, and it is getting harder to compete with them. I know plenty of teenagers who constantly tell me about their personal drug use, but don’t believe they will fall victim to abuse because they’ve either only heard good things about their drug of choice or didn’t have a proper drug education. This saddens me, because I know that they’re going to end up in the same abuse cycle as thousands of others, and that their lack of education is the first step to making them a casualty of the War on Drugs.

I was lucky enough to take American Foreign Policy my senior year of high school, and we studied the drug epidemic worldwide, beginning with America. Ethan Nadelmann’s Ted Talk, Why We Need to End the War on Drugs, and the documentary The House I Live In were our two main sources.  These are two pieces of media that make the solution to War on Drugs seem very simple. Most of the money worldwide that goes into “preventing” drug abuse, goes towards agencies that punish drug abusers instead of helping them (Nadelmann). Doing this creates a perpetual cycle. Abusers end up in jail, have withdrawals, and once they are free have no idea what to do with their life besides continue to abuse drugs. The simple solution to this would be to put more money into treatment and prevention programs, but for some reason this is not what happens. If this did happen, the number of drug abusers would go down because repeat offenders would finally get the help they need. If the number of drug abusers go down, politicians cannot use the War on Drugs as a reason for passing legislation that satisfies their own political agenda, such as targeting minorities. So although the solution to this problem seems simple, there is a complex web behind it.

Black women are disproportionately targeted with drug laws. Police use “broken window” policies on them, which means they strictly enforce minor crimes in hope that it will lead to them preventing major crimes or that the women will break under pressure and lead them to higher position drug dealers (Ritchie). And by “strictly enforcing minor crimes”, I mean that they are unfairly beaten and violated in the small chance that they will have valuable information for the police. This seems incredibly unfair to me, as there are much more important things police can be doing to stop the dealing of drugs. Instead of cracking down on these women, police should be investigating the reasons they’re committing these crimes. It could be that they need money to take care of their family or they’re in an abusive relationship where their boyfriend is forcing them to partake in these activities. It could also be that they are drug abusers themselves and this is how they’re making enough money or making connections to get their next supply. If police focused on this issue and how to solve it, they would be making an effective change starting from the bottom down.

There are lots of ways the government and policing agencies can control drug abuse. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, determining why people deal drugs can stop the steady supply of drugs available that leads to eventual addiction. As Gary L. Fisher claims in his book, Rethinking Our War on Drugs, “substance abuse is part of a larger societal problem and substance abuse prevention should not be isolated from this reality” (Fisher 124). Prevention is the first step in stopping abuse. But prevention does not simply telling people to “just say no”. Prevention includes giving kids a better education and ensuring families have access to affordable housing and necessities so they don’t end up selling drugs for cash. And while this seems like it’s just helping those dealing, if there wasn’t a steady stream of people willing to deal, the drugs would not be available as easily. Prevention includes warning kids about the true dangers of drugs and not trying to hide the truth. Prevention includes de-stigmatizing the idea of drug addiction. But today’s government is only going backwards.

When President Trump was elected, people were concerned for a multitude of things. I planned to keep an eye on how this administration’s conservative viewpoints affected the War on Drugs in the country. Attorney General Jeff Sessions believes that the only way to fight this problem is to revert back to Nixon-era policies. He believes that a hard-line stance, including strict laws and mandatory minimum sentences, is what America needs in order to make it’s people feel safe and to create a properly functioning judicial system (Horwitz). If this approach worked so well, why has there constantly been a drug problem in the United States? There is proof that this approach doesn’t work. Portugal has a similar drug crisis to the United States, but has shifted its focus from the criminalization of drug users to treatment and education, while still sending drug dealers to jail (Kristof). This places the blame on those who deserve it instead of those who have fallen victim. Portugal focuses less on completely stopping abuse and more on keeping abusers alive and preventing future addicts. The U.S., however is not progressing. It is stuck on this idea that “supply equals users” and does give enough attention to current addicts as it does to suppliers (Pembleton). But if the U.S. can control the abusers, there will be no one for dealers to supply.

In doing all of this research, I clearly see why the system failed my uncle. He passed away in 2014 due to a drug related accident, because he had not gotten proper treatment. Although he was out of jail, he was not properly educated. He received no job training, no course on how to integrate himself back into society, and didn’t know a life without drugs. My dad told me that I shouldn’t expect my uncle to be around for long because he was already in the system. I was lucky that my dad found a way out, but it was not all his doing. Alcohol abuse has become a topic that more people are willing to talk about. The government isn’t blaming the constant supply of alcohol as the reason people are alcoholics, they are recognizing it as a legitimate disease. This is encouraging to people with alcoholism. They are given a place to talk about their problems and a program to help. For some reason, drug addicts do not receive the same treatment. My cousin is also a struggling drug addict, and she has two kids that have had terrible lives due to her addiction. She’s about 20 years older than me and grew up surrounded by uncles who all had an addiction problem. My dad tells me that these addictions “run in the family”, which is why he attempted to isolate me from them as much as possible. 

When I see people using drugs for fun and talking about it lightly, I realize that they didn’t grow up knowing all of the dangers. I think that’s why I’m so aware of this problem. I got a proper education. Not from the government, not from my schools, but from someone who had experienced the dangerous effects firsthand. That’s not how I want people to learn. The only way to create progress in society and finally win the War on Drugs is to have the government educate people and implement better prevention programs and fully fund treatment and rehabilitation services in prison. Hiding the truth may profit the politicians, but society in the long run deserves much better than that. 
