The War on Drugs

For about a century, the federal government of the United States has been involved in a variety of activities to combat the production, distribution, and sale of illicit substances, known collectively as the “War on Drugs.” Dealing with a great number of vital issues we face today, the War on Drugs is controversial as it has implications for the size and scope of government, the status of civil liberties, the health of the society, crime, and potentially, the War on Terrorism. Although the question “why, given the realities of its social uselessness, is there a “War on Drugs”?’ carries with it a great weight, it remains unasked, both at the public and governmental levels. This question necessitates sociological answers, which become more complex the deeper one delves into the literature, and reveals more factors which seem to vary over both time and space. Various sociological theories have been applied to explore the War on Drugs, and all have explanatory value but none seem to fully explain it.

Sociologists view the War on Drugs from three major sociological perspectives. Those who subscribe to the Interactionist Theory believe that the drug problem emanates from the relationships people have, rather than from a desire to commit crime. They claim that it should be tackled by addressing the societal factors that cause people to do drugs.

Adherents of the Conflict Theory think that the War on Drugs should be viewed in the context of class warfare. They maintain that the rich elite use the drug laws to oppress the lower class and minorities who are more likely to be involved in the drug trade. The Conflict Theory advocates draw public attention to the statistics that show that a dramatically higher percentage of African-Americans are in prison, as opposed to whites. For instance, in seven states, between 80 and 90 percent of all drug offenders in prison are African-American, and nationwide, 13X as many African-Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses than whites.

Moreover, the Conflict theory can identify the groups that profit from anti-drug legislation, whether it be the economic benefits made by multi-national pharmaceutical companies (as Johns (1991) argues), or symbolic gains made by the dominant social group, or even a moral superiority that often comes entirely at the expense of those who suffer as a result. As soon as these gains are made, unmeant effects of the laws (which may be much more punitive than the laws themselves) are justified through a feeling of mere satisfaction of seeing some of these laws affect only a certain, despised group in society.