Why the War on Drugs Failed: Costs, Effects, and Alternatives
This paper argues that the United States' war on drugs, launched by President Nixon in 1971, has failed to achieve its intended objectives after more than four decades of implementation. Drawing on data from the Drug Policy Alliance, the ACLU, and other sources, the paper traces the history of drug prohibition from Nixon through Clinton, examines its economic and social costs, and identifies key reasons for its failure — including a disproportionate focus on law enforcement over treatment, privacy violations, and racial discrimination. The paper also analyzes the effects of overcriminalization on families and communities, and concludes by recommending decriminalization over legalization, policy reform, and a reallocation of funding toward treatment and education programs.
- Introduction: Thesis: drug war is costly and counterproductive
- The History of the War on Drugs in America: Nixon to Clinton: escalating prohibition policies
- The Cost of the War on Drugs: Trillion-dollar spending with no measurable success
- Why the War on Drugs Failed: Enforcement focus, privacy violations, racial bias
- Effects of the War on Drugs: Economic burden, overcriminalization, family destruction
- Potential Solutions to the Identified Problems: Decriminalization, policy reform, treatment funding
- Conclusion: Call for decriminalization and funding reallocation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Marshals concrete statistical evidence throughout — incarceration figures, funding allocations, and comparative international drug-use rates — giving abstract policy arguments measurable weight.
- Balances historical narrative with analytical argument, tracing the evolution of drug policy across multiple administrations before evaluating why those policies failed.
- Distinguishes carefully between decriminalization and legalization, acknowledging the appeal of legalization while defending a more cautious reform position, which demonstrates nuanced policy reasoning.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a problem-cause-effect-solution structure effectively. It does not simply assert that drug policy has failed; it builds a layered case by identifying the specific mechanisms of failure (enforcement bias, privacy violations, racial discrimination), documenting measurable harms, and then mapping proposed reforms directly onto the identified problems. This logical scaffolding makes the argument easier to evaluate and harder to dismiss.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a thesis-forward introduction, then provides historical context spanning Nixon through Bush. It quantifies the financial cost of the drug war before diagnosing the root causes of its failure. A dedicated effects section covers economic, political (overcriminalization), and social consequences in turn. The solutions section proposes decriminalization, policy adjustment, and funding reallocation, and a concise conclusion restates the core recommendations.
Introduction
The war on drugs has been an unmitigated disaster that has fallen short of its intended objectives, doing nothing but consuming taxpayer money, opening avenues for organized crime, and filling prison systems with mere drug users and possessors while real traffickers and drug lords grow wealthy. Four decades since its launch, violent crime caused by the drug trade continues to be a serious social concern. Four administrations have personally waged a war on drugs, characterized mainly through the criminalization of drugs and other harmful substances, yet these efforts have done little to decrease the availability and use of drugs in America. The country still tops the world in illegal drug use. A report by CNN showed that approximately 500,000 persons were in prison for drug-related crimes in 2012, compared to only 40,000 in 1989 (Branson, 2012). The attempt to prohibit people from consuming drugs by banning them seems not to have stopped drug use — it has only stopped users from obeying the law (Branson, 2012).
The war on drugs, in its entirety, has been costly and counterproductive. There is a pressing need to consider alternative ways of dealing with the drug issue. This paper advocates for the relaxation of drug policy and the shifting of spending from penalization and law enforcement to prevention, treatment, and education.
The History of the War on Drugs in America
The war on drugs was first declared in 1970 by President Nixon after it became apparent that drugs were associated with political dissent, social upheaval, and youthful rebellion (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). Nixon waged his war by introducing measures such as no-knock warrants and mandatory sentencing, and by increasing the presence of federal agencies tasked with drug control (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). Marijuana was placed in Schedule One, the most restrictive drug classification (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015).
Between 1973 and 1977, there was a public outcry for the state to decriminalize marijuana possession and distribution for personal use. Nixon, however, refused to act on it. Eleven states decriminalized marijuana during this period (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). Promises to decriminalize marijuana dominated President Jimmy Carter's 1977 presidential campaign, and in October of that year, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to decriminalize marijuana possession in quantities not exceeding one ounce (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). The decriminalization effort, however, lost momentum soon after.
When Ronald Reagan took over as president, he expanded the war on drugs in a move that saw the number of people arrested and jailed for nonviolent drug-related crimes rise from 50,000 to over 400,000 by the end of 1997 (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). Zero-tolerance policies were adopted during Reagan's administration, and the DARE Drug Education program — premised on the ideology that drug users are a menace who must be removed from society — gained widespread support (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). Congress and the states passed draconian penalties that caused significant prison population growth during this period. A federal ban on funding for syringe access programs was also imposed.
Bill Clinton took office in 1992 and, despite advocating for treatment as an alternative to incarceration during his presidential campaign, perpetuated the draconian zero-tolerance policies of his predecessors. Clinton rejected proposals to end the federal ban on syringe funding and to eliminate the sentencing disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). He did, however, admit in a public interview — just four weeks before leaving office — that the country needed to revise its imprisonment policies for drug users (Drug Policy Alliance, 2015). It was not until President Bush took office that the war on drugs began to lose momentum, as his administration shifted its emphasis somewhat from incarceration toward prevention and treatment.
The Cost of the War on Drugs
The war on drugs has lasted roughly four and a half decades, yet there remains vigorous debate about whether the nation is pursuing it for the right reasons. At the center of the controversy is a simple question: is the war on drugs one that the United States can win? Drugs are harmful — they can devastate a life, a job, a career, and a family. But is it worthwhile to invest enormous resources in a war that has failed to meet its intended objectives after four decades? The United States spends approximately $41 billion every year on the war on drugs (Branson, 2012). Since President Nixon launched the war in 1971, the nation has spent over $1 trillion financing it, yet has little to show beyond a swelling prison population and the distinction of being the world's leader in illegal drug use (Branson, 2012).
What is especially troubling is that despite this aggressive spending, the government has not managed to curtail the use and sale of illegal drugs. Warner (2008) showed that the U.S. had significantly higher rates of drug use compared to countries with more liberal drug policies: 16% of Americans were found to be cocaine users, compared to only 4% of New Zealanders and 1.9% of citizens of the Netherlands (Warner, 2008). Moreover, rates of drug possession and use rose substantially from the 1980s onward, even as the war intensified. On any given night in 2012, approximately 500,000 Americans were behind bars for drug-related offenses — nearly ten times the 1980 total (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). These statistics clearly indicate that the war on drugs has failed to realize its intended objectives and must be replaced with more effective alternatives. The first step toward correcting the situation, however, is understanding why the war failed in the first place.
Why the War on Drugs Failed
There are multiple reasons why the prohibition of drugs failed to realize its intended objectives.
A focus on law enforcement rather than prevention and treatment: Social factors such as poverty, low educational attainment, and lack of effective social programs are recognized risk factors for drug use and abuse. Yet instead of employing strategies of research, education, and prevention geared at addressing unemployment and poverty, the war concentrated on law enforcement — arresting and incarcerating anyone found trafficking or in possession of illegal drugs (Branson, 2012). A substantial portion of funding was allocated to enforcement while treatment programs were consistently overlooked. Addicted drug users in need of treatment were channeled into the criminal justice system, which meant that the demand for illegal drugs remained, giving drug lords a continuing market. In 1993, for instance, only $2.5 billion was allocated to treatment programs compared to $7.8 billion allocated to law enforcement — as a result, only 1.4 million drug users out of a total user population of 2.5 million were able to receive treatment (ACLU, 2015). When people do not receive the treatment they need because the system is preoccupied with punishment and prohibition, they continue to sustain a market for illegal drug trade.
Privacy issues: Another driving factor in the drug war's failure was its susceptibility to privacy invasion, which remains a social concern in the implementation of drug laws today. Civil society objected to the criminal prohibition of drugs because it subjected law-abiding citizens to arrest, prosecution, and at times incarceration for conduct that occurs in private (ACLU, 2015). In doing so, the government violated its citizens' fundamental rights of personal autonomy and privacy, as guaranteed by the Constitution (ACLU, 2015). The underlying principle is that people ought not to be punished if their actions do not harm others, regardless of the harm they may do to themselves (ACLU, 2015).
Racial prejudice and discrimination: Research has shown that criminal prohibition of drugs has facilitated discrimination against people of color (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). Compared to their white counterparts, people of color are more likely to be arrested, searched, frisked, and harshly sentenced (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). Despite making up less than 30% of the total American population, Black and Latino individuals make up 77% and 57% of persons incarcerated in federal and state prisons for drug-related offenses, respectively (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). Black people, who constitute slightly less than 13% of the total population, account for nearly 30% of drug-related arrests and 40% of drug-related incarcerations every year (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). Latinos, who make up only 17% of the population, comprise 20% and 37% of people incarcerated for drug-related offenses in state and federal prisons, respectively (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012).
Mandatory minimum sentences, widely adopted as a zero-tolerance measure by states and the federal government in the 1980s, have contributed greatly to the disproportionate incarceration of people of color for drug-related offenses (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). Research by the Drug Policy Alliance indicates that "prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue a mandatory minimum sentence for black people as for white people charged with the same offence" (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012, p. 2). In 2011, Black and Latino individuals made up 31% and 38%, respectively, of people who received mandatory minimum sentences (Drug Policy Alliance, 2012). The drug war thus failed in part because it encouraged racial prejudice and infringed on minorities' rights to fair and equal treatment.
Conclusion
It is now evident that the war on drugs initiated by President Nixon in 1971 has failed to realize its intended objectives. Four decades since its launch, the country has little to show for it beyond a swelling prison population and an ever-rising rate of illegal drug use. The need to fundamentally change the approach to drug policy is clear. Overcriminalization is a serious and persistent problem in the drug war. To make the fight against drug abuse more effective, stakeholders must develop sound decriminalization policies, adjust funding to emphasize treatment over punishment, and eliminate policies that produce disproportionate incarceration and arrest rates. Only by addressing the structural failures of the current approach can the United States hope to make meaningful progress on the issue of drug abuse.
References
ACLU. (2015). Against drug prohibition. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from https://www.aclu.org/against-drug-prohibition
Branson, R. (2012). War on drugs — a trillion dollar failure. CNN. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs/
California NORML. (2015). Guide to California's marijuana law. California NORML. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from
Dillon, Z. (2012). Symposium on overcriminalization. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(3), 525–527.
Drug Policy Alliance. (2012). The drug war, mass incarceration and race. The Drug Policy Alliance. Retrieved August 6, 2015.
Husak, D. N. (2002). Legalize this: The case for decriminalizing drugs. Verso.
Larkin Jr., P. L. (2012). Public choice theory and overcriminalization. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 36(1), 715–793.
Luna, E. (2012). Prosecutorial decriminalization. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(3), 785–819.
Podgor, S. (2012). Overcriminalization: New approaches to a growing problem. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(3), 529–536.
The Drug Policy Alliance. (2015). A brief history of the drug war. The Drug Policy Alliance. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from
Warner, J. (2008). U.S. leads the world in illegal drug use. CBS News. Retrieved August 6, 2015, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-leads-the-world-in-illegal-drug-use/
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.