In recent decades, illicit drug abuse has become a recurrent phenomenon of many countries of the world with massive socio-economic and human consequences. In May of last year, Bangladesh started a 'war on drugs' after Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina declared a zero-tolerance policy against illegal drugs. This war on drug operations confiscated thousands of vanilla-scented, pink-coloured pills of "yaba" -- which derives its name from a Thai word that means a "crazy medicine". Mostly transported illegally from the Myanmar to the local market, yaba is the current choice of the drug of Bangladeshi youths. In this operation, a few thousand low-level distributors were arrested and dozens died. However, on February 16, 2019, there had been a display of success of operation where 102 yaba dealers surrendered to the law enforcement agents. Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal presided over the ceremony and received them with flowers.
This public display of the commitment of the government to help rehabilitate the wrongdoers is commendable and should be appreciated. However, one also must recognise that the contemporary addiction problem is a highly complicated socio-economic phenomenon with tremendous psychological consequences with extensive ties with the global geopolitical environment. Having one ceremony and rehabilitating a few hundred and at the same time continuing 'zero tolerance' policy by simply targeting the supply chain and trafficking process would only help drag the war for decades.
ORIGIN OF WAR ON DRUGS: 'War on drugs' as a policy of a government was first introduced in the US by President Richard M. Nixon in 1971 to address addiction problems primarily by following the law enforcement strategies. Flooding prisons by following 'zero tolerance' policy and spending billions of dollars over the decades the US could not still declare a victory. As Bangladesh has begun a similar 'war on drugs' in its soil emphasising the law enforcement strategies and 'zero tolerance' policy, a half a century-long history of the US 'war on drugs' could shed some lights to the policymakers in figuring out which directions they want to take in the war on drugs policies. This article briefly describes the major policy decisions taken by the US administrations to carry out its declared war on drugs and their consequences to make a point for the countries who have just adopted similar policies to face the addiction-related problems of its citizens.
THE US WAR ON DRUGS: HISTORY AND CONSEQUENCES: The war on drugs ideally began to eradicate addiction and addiction-related problems. To comprehend the dynamics of the war on drugs movement one should have some understanding of the social phenomenon known as addiction which occurs in a society; its nature and character changes over time. It existed in ancient period, continued through the medieval period to reach the modern period. During ancient and medieval periods, it was limited to some selected groups.
Due to the change in the choice of drugs over time, the nature and character of addiction have also changed. Effects of drug addiction in the earlier times were limited to some selected groups of people because the use of drugs was limited to selected groups.
The nature and character of addiction problems the US started addressing since the declaration of war on drugs in 1971, primarily emerged from its own culture. During the late 1890s in the West, especially in Britain and America, "most pharmacies and/or other stores sold opium pills, pure morphine, opium for smoking, coca leaf products, pure cocaine, cocaine cigarettes (like crack today), a variety of beverages containing either alcohol plus opiates or alcohol plus cocaine, and patent medicines whose effective ingredients were opiates" (John Jay Rouse and Bruce D. Johnson, 1991, 183). The excessive use of these products was characterised as a bad habit compared to opiate users of 1970s because the US apparently did not recognise that opiate was an addictive substance. The wounded soldiers of the American Civil War were given opiate-based substance called morphine as pain relief medicine without realising that 400,000 individuals would be hooked with morphine with all its public health consequences.
In the 1890s, the catalogue of Sears and Roebuck, one of the largest US departmental store, included an offer for a syringe and small amount of cocaine for $1.50 (cocaine use had not yet been outlawed).
The West fought two Opium Wars in China and brought massive consequences on the Chinese population. During California gold rush and the railway lines constructions the Chinese migrant workers brought their opiate addiction habits to the mainland US. A cultural conducive condition was created for the spread of addictive behaviour.
And in the 1960s, the addiction problem of America took a different dimension as hippy's flower child movement took hold among the middle-class families.
Flooding prisons with non-violent individuals: In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan reinforced and expanded many of Nixon's War on Drugs policies emphasising on control and elimination of illegal trade and supplies. In 1984, his wife Nancy Reagan launched the "Just Say No" campaign. President Reagan's war on drugs started flooding prisons with non-violent individuals for simple drug charges and that tradition has continued in the US. Reagan administration took away the discretionary privilege of court and pushed mandatory sentencing for simple drug law infractions.
As a result of the war on drugs policy, drug law violations have been the main driver of new admissions to US prison for decades. Drug offenders in prisons and jails have increased by 1100 per cent since 1980. Nearly a half-million (493,800) persons are now in state or federal prison or local jail for drug offences, compared to an estimated 41,100 in 1980.
The war on drugs that began in 1971 is still continuing. An analysis by Brookings Institution found that there were more than 3.0 million admissions to prison for offences between 1993 and 2009 in the United States. There were more than 1.5 million drug arrests in 2016. The vast majority -- more than 80 per cent -- were for possession of drugs only.
Privatisation of prison: The war on drugs helped grow the idea of privatisation of prison and several Wall Street investment firms are currently profiting from the increasing prison population.
The War on Drugs movement went further than just apprehending and putting people in jails for drug possession and sales charges; it wanted to destroy the production and the distribution process.
The US government used the military to destroy opium poppy plants cultivated by many countries as cash crops. The US undertook military operations across many countries to destroy poppy cultivations. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Myanmar have earned notoriety as major suppliers of world heroin consumption.
Going after drugs cartels, producers, distributors, and street pushers was not very effective in terms of reducing demand for drug compared to money spent on law enforcement.
Drug epidemic: Drug abuse problem is a different kind of problem called addiction problem and the nature and character of dependency vary based on the substance abused. According to psychologists, it spreads much like a communicable disease. That is, users are "contagious," and some of those with whom they come into contact become "infected" (Musto, 1999). The idea of a drug epidemic captures the fact that drug use is a learned behaviour, transmitted from one person to another, with the infected (user) transmitting the disease to vulnerable individuals.
The diffusion of a new drug includes three stages: a) early stage, b) interaction process and c) maturity stage. That is, a new drug diffuses slowly at first, then rises rapidly, and finally, slows and levels off. Viewing addiction as an infectious disease provides insights into the course of an addiction outbreak and the most effective approach to prevent further spreading. Instead, the US approached the addiction problem from a criminal justice control perspective.
Like many European countries, the US government did not embrace the demand and the harm reduction strategies in its overall drug abuse fighting policies. Its policy with high emphasis on criminal justice strategies brought limited success.
Moreover, the war on drugs the US began in the early 1970s is still not over. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse, more than 130 people in the United States die every day, after overdosing on opioids. The misuse of an addiction to opioids -- including prescription pain relievers, heroin, and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl -- is a serious national crisis that affects public health as well as social and economic welfare.
Trump rehashes a business-as-usual global strategy: President Donald Trump has acknowledged the drug addiction problems in the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September 2018, with a plan for "effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem." He rehashed a business-as-usual global strategy, centred on law enforcement that would crack down on drug trafficking, eradicate narcotics production, and "reduce demand" (The Nation, December 26, 2018). On October 26, 2017, Trump announced that his Administration was declaring the opioid crisis a national Public Health Emergency under federal law, effective immediately. "I am directing all executive agencies to use every appropriate emergency authority to fight the opioid crisis," the President said.
Though the current movement against illicit drug abuse is officially termed as Public Health Emergency, Trump called it a "fight". This is probably because of the emphasis on law enforcement strategies the US is used to.
The emphasis on law enforcement efforts has continued for decades with some major breaking news: repatriation of a Mexican drug kingpin, El Chapo to US; his conviction on February 12, 2019 for running an industrial-scale smuggling operation after a three-month trial packed with Hollywood-style tales of grisly killings, political payoffs, cocaine hidden in jalapeno cans, jewel-encrusted guns and a naked escape with his mistress through a tunnel. This was great news for those who support criminal justice measures as most effective means to control drug. This major criminal justice success against drug kingpin will have a major impact on the popular war on drug movement.
BANGLADESH CONTEXT: Similarly, the recent success of law enforcement agencies in Bangladesh is motivating some drug dealers to surrender, and has led to the rounding-up of many low-level drug operatives and elimination of some dangerous actors. This should not, however, blind the administration to only continue the criminal justice strategies.
The history of the US war on drugs suggests that sheer law enforcement strategy is not good enough to address the addiction problem of a community; this, instead, needs a multipronged strategy along with criminal justice strategy.
This multipronged strategy should include: (1) a long-term plan to understand the socio-economic factors forcing some youths to become addicts; (2) a long-term plan to find what economic factors are pushing many to take street pushers' jobs to make a leavins; (3) a long-term criminal justice investigative unit to identify the kingpins of drug business; (4) a long-term strategy to develop educational institution-based addiction prevention programmes; (5) a long-term strategy to develop addiction intervention programmes for current addicts. All these strategies eventually will reduce demand, harm, and supply of drugs too.
The UN has declared to host an international summit on drugs-related problems sometime in 2019. The government of Bangladesh needs a clear understanding of the country's addiction problem so that it may put into perspective its anti-drug strategy on the world stage when the UN hosts an international summit on drugs-related problems sometime this year.
Dr Mokerrom Hossain is Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Virginia State University (VSU), USA and Chairman Bangladesh Institute of Crime and Justice Studies (BICJS)
