This paper evaluates the United States' policy on illegal drugs as defined by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which pursues three goals: preventing drug use before it starts, treating existing users, and disrupting drug markets. Drawing on data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the paper notes that the policy's effects have been mixed — some drug categories declining in use while others rise. Despite these inconsistent outcomes, the paper argues that the policy generates meaningful social benefits including public awareness, community reintegration of addicts, and supply-side disruption, and that the absence of any such policy would pose serious risks to social stability.
According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the United States' policy on illegal drugs is threefold: stopping drug use before it starts, healing the country's drug users, and disrupting the market. The United States' war on drugs has been ongoing for at least the last three decades. Given the duration of this effort, some have questioned its effectiveness, wondering whether the money spent is truly making a difference and producing measurable results.
In reality, the effects of this policy on illegal drugs have been mixed. According to a study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) covering current and emerging trends in drug abuse across 21 major U.S. metropolitan areas, some drugs are decreasing in use while others are increasing. For example, the study found that crack cocaine accounted for a substantially greater percentage of primary treatment admissions than powder cocaine in all surveyed sites. However, indicators suggest that crack use has decreased as powder cocaine has become more available in certain areas.
"Awareness, treatment, and supply disruption as achievements"
"Counterfactual argument for maintaining drug policy"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.