Drug control alternative

Essentially, when commencing specific mitigation strategies, there isthe need to have a crucial platform for the evaluation of the rightstrategies more so, the beneficial ones as well as those thatconsider every aspect. Therefore, when focusing on the madesupposition, it is clear that the government has failed in drugs waralleviation since they have employed law enforcement strategy. As perthe supposition, the failure aspect is incurred on the grounds thatbetter practices would have been embraced, and this should help insuccessful containment of drug use (Redonnet, Chollet, Fombonne,Bowes, &amp Melchior, M. (2012). That is, the suggested drug warshould include the involvement of prevention and research strategiesthat use education and social programs for this effectiveness. Thesuggested program is undeniably beneficial, as per the drugcontainment situation, since its overall function directs ateradicating permanent poverty, unemployment, and deterioratinglifestyles.

First, there is the need to appreciate the fact that drug use isendemic to the society, and the use of the right strategies isobligatory. That is, as per the society’s functions, drug abusecontinues to be a menace since its use continues to escalate, despitethe efforts to contain its use. Acting on this ground, the governmentneeds to embrace a containment strategy that assesses the societysituation, rather than embracing tactics that people might tend towonder whether they have any considerations of the community’s drugeffects. For instance, the law enforcement prohibition has primarilyfocused on incarceration of drug offenders. The move has continued tofail since this move has not deterred drug barons from conductingillegal drug trades.

The evidence that alternative strategy to the present law enforcementprohibition might be substantial is founded on diverse grounds thatprove its embrace will continuously lead to failure. For example, thegovernment has invested huge sums of money for illegal drugcontainment. Such a sentiment is made on the notion that the criminalprohibition has consumed approximate $ 150 billion taxpayers moneysince 1981 all in the name of preventing illegal drugs from enteringinto America. However, despite this investment, the entire moveremains futile, since, for every ton seized, the entrance escalatesto hundreds of tons. Such an occurrence has not only deprived thecountry resources for improved functions but has also reduced laborforce with 1.2 million individuals being arrested on drug charges.

On a critical evaluation of the drug war and the law enforcementstrategy, there is a clear indication that alternative tactics arevital as per the process since they are unmistakably beneficial. Thatis, the first move needs to appreciate that the presently illegaldrugs were legal at one time. Therefore, they hold sizeable benefitsto the society. For instance, marijuana can be used in treatingmigraines and cocaine to treat sinusitis. The made claim is just buta platform for improvement since an overall look at the drug warshows that prohibition eradication will not mean an escalation ofdrug use. Instead, the removal of prohibition laws will presentsizeable benefits such as taxing the drug barons, increasing thecountry’s revenues, and help in sensitizing the society regardingits detriments. Additionally, there is the indication that allocatingmoney to law enforcement deprives different sectors the resources,the likes of hospital departments, and with the prohibitionelimination equal resource allocation is guaranteed. Finally, withthe elimination of prohibition laws, quality control is destined tosubstantiate, and this will help reduce the rates of HIV/AIDStransmission among the users (Redonnet, Chollet, Fombonne, Bowes, &ampMelchior, M. (2012).


Against Drug Prohibition.” ACLU.org. American CivilLiberties Union, N.d. Web. 30 June 2016.

Redonnet, B., Chollet, A., Fombonne, E., Bowes, L., &amp Melchior,M. (2012). Tobacco, alcohol, cannabis and other illegal drug useamong young adults: the socioeconomic context. Drug and alcoholdependence, 121(3), 231-239.