How the United States War on Drugs Creates a Social Injustice

How the United States War on Drugs Creates a Social Injustice
Name
Institution affiliation
Abstract
Scholars define social justice as the acts of conforming to the natural law by all persons irrespective of race, ethnic origin, gender, possessions, religion etc. This natural rule also imposes a social responsibility and role that ensures that individuals work together for the benefit of everyone in that particular niche. Any act that is on the contrary amount to societal injustices and are therefore deemed as shear violation of human rights. The US is one of the countries that have been on the limelight for fueling such injustices through its eradication of drugs. See, this crusade raises some questions regarding whether it is meant to benefit or harm. In fact, vast sources have indeed affirmed that this is purely segregation based and only pervasively targets the minority races and other crime prone individuals. This work therefore explores the extensive areas under the umbrella of drug use in the US in an attempt to offer sound solutions and decisions on the issues revolving around this seemed complex and multi-sector problem. In effect, it discusses racism as the basis for the deep-seated injustices in the sector. The paper also explores the role of organized, powerful drug gangs who are mostly liable for the burden, but go uncharged because of being from a particular society. The paper concludes that, the US can only successfully fight this menace of drugs through ‘instilling more progressive, people centered, and just policies’ (ACLU, 2001, p.

1).
Key words: Gangs, injustice, US, Society, racial minorities, the police, federal, black Americans.
Introduction
For the longest time, the US has continued to pursue rigorous and aggressive drug eradication mechanists with an aim of curtailing the use, the supply, and the spread of harmful and illegal drugs. The cost- benefit analysis of these measures rather remains hotly contested seeing as the crimes continue to soar despite the unimaginable state budget allocation for the field. Sadly, the US has little to show for these efforts despite decades of significant effort. Indeed, Williams (2016, p.1), argues that, ‘it has destroyed lives, torn families apart, filled our jails and prisons and hijacked countless futures of black and brown youth’. Despite the stringent rules engaged following the fight, thousands of youths continue to succumb to deaths resulting from the use of heroine and opioud and this trend only threatens to maintain an upward spiral if nothing is done. Indeed, in a recent letter, world leaders like Bernie Sanders have urged the US government to put an end to the disastrous war. It recently comes to everyone’s attention that this ostensibly fought war is only waged against minority communities especially the black Americans. A research by ACLU (2001, p1) concludes that, ‘we are incarcerating African-American men at a rate approximately four times the rate of incarceration of black men in South Africa under apartheid’. Relative to the black society’s few numbers in the community, they continue to face ruthless arrests, convictions, and uncalled-for incarcerations for these crimes. These trends continue to hike with the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, promising only to tighten and worsen the measures. The US government continues to create a social injustice by waging an unsuccessful war on racial minorities like the black Americans through forceful arrests, exaggerated convictions and jail sentences on the basis of saving them from crime and addiction therefore, to curb this grave injustice, it must set laws which partly legalize the substances and ensure fair prosecution.
Causes
Discriminatory acts
Police officers and other concerned individuals have been untroubled by this occurrence because they deem the acts as a racial cleansing aimed at protecting the culprits from addiction, crime, and violence. They embrace the tough-on-crime philosophies that they argue help solve the needs of the financially unstable urban people. While one would wonder how this strictness is an act of help, it is clear that the notion of blacks being of a notorious criminal nature guides them. It is no wonder that today; the jails are over flooded with Black American youths charged with petty crimes like possession, use, and local distribution. Just like their courts counterparts, the police have continued to use the same theory of ill intent to wrongly charge any suspected black American of an unquestionable character.
The US defies International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)
The (ICERD) requires states to protect their citizens against ‘an unjustifiable disparate impact on a racial or ethnic group, regardless of whether there is any intent to discriminate against that group’ (Fellner, 2009, p.1). However, the US defies the requirements of this organization seeing as it continues to associate crimes to the blacks. Instead of ensuring, that its public institutions, authorities, as well as courts adhere to the non-discriminatory closure, it instead continues to create and amend laws that perpetuate such violent crimes. The country in question is unable to eliminate its conservative policies that have an unpardonable racially disparate effect hiding under the deluded argument that the acts are not accompanied by a discriminative intent.
Anyone can abuse drugs
When police officers are asked to envisage the people who abuse drugs, they only envisage a Bronx-based black American youth who never went to school. This deluded though, if you ask me, is the root cause of this injustice. However, no one cares to consider the truth stated in the statistics. A 2006 survey report of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) concluded that at least 49 percent whites and 42 percent black aged 15 years and above have possessed and used an illegal commodity in their lifetimes. Worse still, SAMHSA concludes that approximately 2,400,600 African Americans as opposed to the 18, 000,000 whites have ingested cocaine at a point in their lives. Be that as may, the blacks still hit the headlines daily as jailed, shot, and so on and so forth, for crimes related to drugs. This sums as an injustice to that particular society as they only amount to a small proportion of drug users. If the definition of drug abuse is to go by, many people should face jail term, but these unprivileged blacks serve as the sacrificial lambs, targeted and tortured, because they are needy, and prone to crime.
Compare and contrast federal and state laws regarding drug use
Similarities
Both states and federal organs of the government strive to instill laws which will further the study regarding the case in question. A similar law that both ensure is arresting of people proven to be in possession of these products. In both cases, the police collect plausible evidence that is sufficient to prove that indeed, the individual in question is in the possession of them. Another law regards the arrest of people possessing and with intent to distribute. Both organs also employ undercover techniques to identify people who plant, conspire, and distribute such illegal substances. In both cases, the suspect faces conviction and later prosecution.
Effective methodology
Minimize the harshness and the manhandling
Experts from both sectors agree that the most merited way of dealing with these people is curbing the excessive force. According to Williams (2016, p. 45), ‘ it is possible to draw back the harsh, punitive criminalization of drugs in America without ending up at full commercial legalization and gravely risking public health’. The police are resulting to undercover methods of unearthing these cartels instead of arresting and incarcerating mere traffickers. For all anyone knows, these poor, racial minority males are only the distributors, so one would wonder what good it does to arrest them while the completely powerful, well-connected cartel continues to thrive under international leadership.
Smart prohibition, decriminalization, and smart legalization
Another way through which both sectors believe can effectively deals with the issue of drug is through removing the law of criminalization from the department but still maintain rightful ways of drug prohibition and legal drugs regulation. Smart prohibition will, according to Mark Kleinman focus on maintaining gains in the particular field through imposing penalties for problematic behaviors among individuals involved in drugs. For instance, the police could track these addicts and punish them for behaviors like petty theft that generate finances to fund for their drugs. Punishments like banning one from accessing student loans are considerable enough to minimize the habit and well suited for that crime. With such, such culprits can only opt to reform other than rebel. Smart legalization on the other hand will see to the government allow the use and dispatch of certain harmless drugs while deeming others illegal. For instance, it can specify certain nonprofit organizations, or government entities to be in charge of the business . By so doing, people will distribute things like marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, and hallucinogens thus helping generate income while keeping drug use at a controllable level. For instance, the 24/7 Dakota based sobriety program has proved to minimize alcohol use as it revokes a person’s right to drink prior to significant drink related crimes like drunken driving.
Differences
Both organs differ as regards investigation and jurisdiction. Federal institutions are usually large scale and thus span beyond national borders. On the other hand, state bodies are only specific to that particular state. For instance, Virginia requires that the police should incarcerate only the distributors as opposed to the users of cocaine and heroin.
Another area where the difference comes in is the case of charges. For the former, the offender faces stricter penalties and punishments. For instance, drug trafficking attracts an exorbitant charge as opposed to ownership. The latter on the other hand offers lenient charges to the criminal. The state courts, responsible for dispensing the verdict, are always lenient depending on the crime committed.
Penalty
The penalty for the state ones is comparatively lenient as in cases of petty crimes like the use of intoxicants, the court may order for probation, juvenile court supervision or few days of imprisonment. On the other hand, the later imposes severe convictions on the criminal. For instance, most of these federal courts settle for stuff and mandatory sentences that are usually lengthy.
How communities relate with law enforcers during these legalizations
Violence
Many a times, we have heard of terms like resisting arrest or violation of police officers. Since minorities have already established a mentality that the police only hunt them for harassment, they in turn form gangs that fight back the police. Most of these arrests are never peaceful as the street boys gang up against the rowdy police in an attempt to secure themselves. Others even resist arrest and attempt to run away only to die devastatingly due to inevitable gunshots from the police. Police, in their desperate effort to catch witnesses, result to bribery, thus attracting harshness from the particular people they are hunting down.
Conclusion
As CNN recently reported, the infamous American war on drugs is merely war on people. The country has set policies that include elimination and criminalization thus encouraging arrest. As it stands, 47 percent of the extremely large prison population in the US composes of drug related offenders. The government fails in fighting drugs because of their superficial, misguided and unjust policies. Instead of fighting conspirators, and international drug chains, the country chooses to focus on the unknowing black distributor and user on the streets by the mere virtue of having a criminal intent. This amounts to an unfair dispensation of justice because instead of protecting everyone against violent arrests and undeserving incarcerations, the system harshly leaves out the people of color. As it stands, it is still unclear as to which drug eradication policy works for all stakeholders in the industry to ensure a safe coexistence between legal officers, the minorities, and the rest of the society. However, research states that anything short of legalization stands to fail miserably seeing, as these controlling cartels are power-driven. Rebellious stakeholders in the drug business only threaten to weaken the economy thus an all-inclusive formula seems the panacea to the issue. The US drug war creates an unjust arena because it directs its measures on a particular minority group therefore, to end the menace, it should embrace more just and inclusive means like legalization, fair judgment, and criminalization.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY l 1033 ACLU. (2001, August 1). The Drug War is the New Jim Crow. Retrieved February 4, 2018, from https://www.aclu.org/other/drug-war-new-jim-crow
Fellner, J. (2009, June 19). Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States. Stanford Law and Policy Review , pp. 1-2.
Lyman, M. D. (2011). Drugs in Society: Causes, Concepts, and Control, Anderson Publishing (sixth ed.). New York: Anderson Publishing.
Williams, M. K. (2016, September 22). The war on drugs is a war on people. Retrieved Feb 4, 2018, from https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/22/opinions/war-on-drugs-michael-k-williams/index.html