war on drugs

{{See also|History of United States drug prohibition|Legal history of cannabis in the United States}}Drugs in the US were largely unregulated until the early 20th century. Opium had been used to relieve pain since the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), particularly in the treatment of soldiers during wartime. In the 1800s, the international opium trade was large-scale enterprise: Britain, and to a lesser degree the other European colonial powers and the US, gained immense profits from selling opium in China and southeast Asia; two opium wars were fought mid-century by Britain and allies against China to ensure the trade continued to serve millions of Chinese opium users.{{Cite web |title=A Century of International Drug Control |url=https://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2008/WDR2008_100years_drug_control_origins.pdf |access-date=May 28, 2024 |website=UN Office on Drugs and Crime}} In America, the use of opiates in the civilian population began to increase dramatically,{{cite web |last=Trickey |first=Erick |date=Jan 4, 2018 |title=Inside the Story of America's 19th-Century Opiate Addiction |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-story-americas-19th-century-opiate-addiction-180967673/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190105045835/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-story-americas-19th-century-opiate-addiction-180967673/ |archive-date=January 5, 2019 |access-date=Dec 25, 2023 |website=The Smithsonian}} and cocaine use became prevalent.{{Cite journal |last=Das |first=G |date=April 1993 |title=Cocaine abuse in North America: a milestone in history |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8473543/ |journal=Journal of Clinical Pharmacology |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=296–310 |doi=10.1002/j.1552-4604.1993.tb04661.x |pmid=8473543 |s2cid=9120504 |via=PubMed}}{{Cite web |date=Aug 21, 2018 |title=Cocaine |url=https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-cocaine |access-date=Dec 15, 2023 |website=History.com}} Alcohol consumption steadily grew, as did the temperance movement, well-supported by the middle class, promoting moderation or abstinence.{{cite book |last=Rorabaugh |first=W.J. |title=The Alcohol Republic: An American Tradition |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1981 |isbn=978-0-1950-2990-1 |pages=20–21}}{{Cite book |last1=Aaron |first1=Paul |last2=Musto |first2=David |date=1981 |title=Temperance and Prohibition in America: A Historical Overview |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216414/ |access-date=Feb 11, 2024 |via=National Library of Medicine|publisher=National Academies Press (US) }} The practice of smoking cannabis began to be noticed in the early 1900s.{{Cite web |title=Marijuana Timeline |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html |access-date=Dec 15, 2023 |website=PBS Frontline}} State and local governments began enacting drug laws in the mid-1800s. Under the US Constitution, the authority to control dangerous drugs exists separately at both the federal and state level.{{Cite journal |last=Braun |first=Richard L. |date=January 1991 |title=Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 1990 |url=https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1222&context=clr |journal=Campbell Law Review |volume=13 |issue=3 |page=366}} Federal drug legislation arrived after the turn of the century.

File:Drug_store_sign_for_products_Heroin_and_Aspirin_before_US_Heroin_ban_1924.jpg.]]

The latter half of the 19th century saw a ramping up of opiate use in America. Early in the century, morphine had been isolated from opium, decades later, heroin was created from morphine, each more potent than the previous form.{{cite web |date=June 10, 2019 |title=Heroin, Morphine and Opiates |url=https://www.history.com/topics/crime/history-of-heroin-morphine-and-opiates |accessdate=March 28, 2021 |publisher=history.com}}{{cite book |last1=Courtwright |first1=David T. |author-link1=:de:David Todd Courtwright |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GHqV3elHYvMC&pg=PA36 |title=Forces of habit drugs and the making of the modern world |date=2009 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0674029903 |edition= |location=Cambridge, MA |pages=36–37 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170908135509/https://books.google.com/books?id=GHqV3elHYvMC&pg=PA36 |archive-date=8 September 2017 |url-status=live |name-list-style=vanc |df=dmy-all}} With the invention of the hypodermic syringe, introduced in America mid-century, opiates were easily administered and became a preferred medical treatment. During the Civil War (1861–1865), millions of doses of opiates were distributed to sick and wounded soldiers, addicting some; domestic poppy fields were planted in an attempt to meet shortages (the crops proved to be of poor quality).{{Cite journal |last=Lewy |first=Jonathan |date=2014 |title=The Army Disease: Drug Addiction and the Civil War |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26098368 |journal=War in History |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=102–119 |doi=10.1177/0968344513504724 |jstor=26098368 |issn=0968-3445 |quote=The Union, having access to world trade and poppies grown abroad, suffered from very little shortage in either opium or morphine. The Federal Army consumed approximately 10 million opium pills and over 80 tons of opium powder and tinctures. ... The Confederacy, in comparison, attempted to grow poppy fields to supply its armies, but the crops proved inferior, with very little morphine content. Consequently, the South relied on smugglers from the North and blockade-runners to replenish medical stores.|url-access=subscription }} In the civilian population, physicians treated opiates like a wonder drug, prescribing them widely, for chronic pain, irritable babies, asthma, bronchitis, insomnia, "nervous conditions", hysteria, menstrual cramps, morning sickness, gastrointestinal disease, "vapors", and on.{{cite news |author=The Editorial Board |date=April 21, 2018 |title=Opinion – An Opioid Crisis Foretold |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/opinion/an-opioid-crisis-foretold.html |url-status=live |access-date=January 21, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190122044505/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/21/opinion/an-opioid-crisis-foretold.html |archive-date=January 22, 2019}}{{cite web |title=The United States War on Drugs |url=https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/paradox/htele.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190106162025/https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/paradox/htele.html |archive-date=January 6, 2019 |access-date=January 21, 2019 |website=web.stanford.edu}}

Drugs were also sold over-the-counter as home remedies, and in refreshments. Laudanum, a powdered opium solution, was commonly found in the home medicine cabinet. Heroin was available as a cough syrup.{{cite book |last=Cockburn |first=Alexander |url=https://archive.org/details/whiteoutciadrugs00cock |title=Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press |author2=Jeffrey St. Clair |publisher=Verso |year=1998 |isbn=1-85984-139-2 |url-access=registration}}{{cite web |last=Johnston |first=Ann Dowsett |date=15 November 2013 |title='Drink' and 'Her Best-Kept Secret' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/books/review/drink-and-her-best-kept-secret.html |access-date=9 August 2023 |website=The New York Times |quote=In 1897, the Sears, Roebuck catalog offered a kit with a syringe, two needles, two vials of heroin and a handy carrying case for $1.50.}}{{Cite web |last=McKendry |first=Joe |date=March 2019 |title=Sears Once Sold Heroin |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/sears-roebuck-bayer-heroin/580441/ |access-date=Dec 25, 2023 |work=The Atlantic |quote=For $1.50, Americans around the turn of the century could place an order through a Sears, Roebuck catalog and receive a syringe, two needles, and two vials of Bayer Heroin, all in a handsome carrying case.}} Cocaine was introduced as a surgical anesthetic, and more popularly as a pick-me-up, found in soft drinks, cigarettes, blended with wine, in snuff, and other forms. Brand names appeared: Coca-Cola contained cocaine until 1903;{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Ella |date=July 25, 2021 |title=Fact check: Cocaine in Coke? Soda once contained drug but likely much less than post claims |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/25/fact-check-coke-once-contained-cocaine-but-likely-less-than-claimed/8008325002/ |access-date=May 30, 2024 |website=USA Today}} Bayer created the trademark name "Heroin" for their diamorphine product.{{Cite web |title=Felix Hoffmann |url=https://www.sciencehistory.org/education/scientific-biographies/felix-hoffmann/ |access-date=May 30, 2024 |website=Science History Institute}} In the 1890s, the Sears & Roebuck catalog, distributed to millions of American homes, offered a syringe and a small amount of heroin for $1.50.

The 1880s saw opiate addiction surge among among housewives, doctors, and Civil War veterans,{{Cite journal |last1=Golub |first1=Andrew |last2=Bennett |first2=Alex S. |last3=Elliott |first3=Luther |date=Mar 30, 2015 |title=Beyond America's War on Drugs: Developing Public Policy to Navigate the Prevailing Pharmacological Revolution |journal=Aims Public Health |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=142–160 |doi=10.3934/publichealth.2015.1.142 |pmid=25893215 |pmc=4398966 }} creating America's "first opioid crisis."{{Cite web |last=Little |first=Becky |date=Sep 13, 2023 |title=How Civil War Medicine Led to America's First Opioid Crisis |url=https://www.history.com/news/civil-war-medicine-opioid-addiction |access-date=Feb 27, 2024 |website=History.com}}{{Cite news |last=Ruane |first=Michael E. |date=December 1, 2021 |title=America's first opioid crisis grew out of the carnage of the Civil War |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/12/01/opioid-crisis-civil-war-addiction/ |access-date=Feb 27, 2024 |newspaper=Washington Post}} By the end of the century, an estimated one in 200 Americans were addicted to opiates, 60% of them women, typically white and middle- to upper-class. Medical journals of the later 1800s were replete with warnings against overprescription. As medical advances like the x-ray, vaccines, and germ theory presented better treatment options, prescribed opiate use began to decline. Meanwhile, opium smoking remained popular among Chinese immigrant laborers, thousands of whom had arrived during the California gold rush; opium dens were established in Chinatowns in cities and towns across America. The public face of opiate use began to change, from affluent white Americans, to "Chinese, gamblers, and prostitutes."{{Cite web |last=Chasin |first=Alexandra |date=Apr 14, 2017 |title=The Man Who Declared War On Drugs |url=https://www.wnyc.org/story/man-who-declared-war-drugs/ |access-date=May 15, 2024 |website=WNYC |quote=From the late 19th century into the 20th, most opiate addicts were middle-aged middle and upper class women but, as would happen ever after, the new drug laws were far more about race than drugs. So as itinerant workers and urban African Americans became another visible group of drug users, the laws grew harsher.}}

During this period, states and municipalities began enacting laws banning or regulating certain drugs.{{Cite web |date=May 31, 2017 |title=War on Drugs |url=https://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-war-on-drugs |access-date=Dec 8, 2023 |website=History.com}} In Pennsylvania, an anti-morphine law was passed in 1860.Whitford and Yates. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda 36 In 1875, San Francisco enacted an anti-opium ordinance, vigorously enforced, imposing stiff fines and jail for visiting opium dens. The rationale held that "many women and young girls, as well as young men of a respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." The law catered to resentment towards the Chinese laborer population who were being accused of taking jobs; other uses of opiates or other drugs were unaffected. Similar laws were enacted in other states and cities. The federal government became involved, selectively raising the import tariff on the smoking grade of opium. None of these measures proved effective in significantly reducing opium use{{Cite web |last=Brecher |first=Edward M. |date=1972 |title=Licit and Illicit Drugs: The Consumers' Union Report on Narcotics, Stimulants, Depressants, Inhalants, Hallucinogens, and Marijuana – Including Caffeine, Nicotine, and Alcohol |url=https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu6.htm |access-date=Feb 10, 2024 |website=Consumers Union}} (the anti-Chinese fervor led to Congress halting Chinese laborer immigration for 10 years with the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882{{Cite journal |last=Lee |first=Erika |date=2002 |title=The Chinese Exclusion Example: Race, Immigration, and American Gatekeeping, 1882–1924 |journal=Journal of American Ethnic History |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=36–62 |doi=10.2307/27502847 |jstor=27502847 |s2cid=157999472}}). In the following years, opioids, cocaine, and cannabis were associated with various ethnic minorities and targeted in other local jurisdictions.

In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act, also known as the Wiley Act, addressed problems with tainted and adulterated food in the growing industrial food system, and with drug quality, by mandating ingredient labels and prohibiting false or misleading labeling. For drugs, a listing of active ingredients was required; a set of drugs deemed addictive or dangerous, that included opium, morphine, cocaine, caffeine, and cannabis, was specified. Oversight of the act was assigned to the US Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Chemistry, which evolved into the Food and Drug Administration in 1930.{{cite web |author=Swann, John P. |date=April 24, 2019 |title=The 1906 Food and Drugs Act and Its Enforcement |url=https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/changes-science-law-and-regulatory-authorities/part-i-1906-food-and-drugs-act-and-its-enforcement |access-date=May 23, 2023 |series=FDA History – Part I |publisher=U.S. Food and Drug Administration}}{{Cite web |last=Powers |first=Kristin |date=September 14, 2022 |title=A History of Research: 1906 Pure Food & Drug Act – The Birth of the FDA |url=https://obgyn.wustl.edu/a-history-of-research-1906-pure-food-drug-act-the-birth-of-the-fda/ |access-date=May 3, 2024 |website=Washington University School of Medicine}}

File:PSM V88 D092 Police destroying illegal drugs in Los Angeles 1916.png, 1916]]

On February 9, 1909, the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act, "to prohibit the importation and use of opium for other than medicinal purposes", became the first US federal law to ban the non-medical use of a substance.{{cite web |title=Opium prohibition law in library of congress |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/60th-congress/session-2/c60s2ch100.pdf |access-date=14 May 2019 |website=Library of Congress}}{{Cite web |title=Opium and Narcotic Laws |url=https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/opium-and-narcotic-laws |access-date=Dec 8, 2023 |website=Office of Justice Programs}} This was soon followed by the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, that regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and coca products.{{cite web |title=Opium Throughout History |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060923053042/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html |archive-date=September 23, 2006 |access-date=October 8, 2010 |publisher=PBS Frontline}}{{cite web |title=Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, 1914 |url=http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1910/harrisonact.htm |access-date=2013-11-18 |publisher=Drug Reform Coordination Network}} Amending the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act, the Anti-Heroin Act of 1924 specifically outlawed the manufacture, importation and sale of heroin.

During World War I (1914–1918), soldiers were commonly treated with morphine, giving rise to addiction among veterans.{{Cite web |last=Kamieński |first=Łukasz |date=March 7, 2019 |title=Drugs |url=https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/drugs |access-date=Mar 25, 2024 |website=International Encyclopedia of the First World}} An international wartime focus on military use of opiates and cocaine for medical treatment and performance enhancement, and concern over potential abuse, led to the global adoption of the International Opium Convention, through its incorporation into the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, with administration by the newly established League of Nations. The treaty, originally formulated in 1912 but not widely implemented, became the basis of current international drug control policy.{{Cite journal |last=Berridge |first=Virginia |date=November 22, 2014 |title=Drugs, alcohol, and the First World War |url=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2962234-0/fulltext |access-date=Mar 13, 2024 |journal=The Lancet |volume=384 |issue=9957 |pages=1840–1841 |doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62234-0 |pmid=25478609 |quote=International drug control had been discussed before the war, but a global system was unlikely. ... The Hague Convention of 1912 was the product of this expanded geographical concern. The decision at the Hague that opium, morphine, and cocaine and their use should be confined to "legitimate medical purposes" was central to future international drug control. ... The German Government ... insisted that all 34 participating powers had to ratify the Hague Convention before it could come into force. The convention thus had an "all or nothing" aspect that had not been initially intended. ... The war changed the situation. ... Article 295 of the peace settlement enacted through the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 brought the Hague Convention into operation and gave the newly established League of Nations general supervision over international narcotics agreements.|url-access=subscription }}{{Cite web |date=2009 |title=A Century of International Drug Control |url=https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Studies/100_Years_of_Drug_Control.pdf |access-date=Mar 26, 2024 |website=United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime |page=7}} It was initially concerned with regulating the free trade of drugs, without affecting production or use. The US, one of the most prohibitionist countries, felt these provisions did not go far enough in restricting drugs.{{Cite web |last1=Armenta |first1=Amira |last2=Jelsma |first2=Martin |date=Oct 8, 2015 |title=The UN Drug Control Conventions – A Primer |url=https://www.tni.org/en/publication/the-un-drug-control-conventions |access-date=May 21, 2024 |website=Transnational Institute}}

In 1919, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified, prohibiting the manufacture, sale and transportation of "intoxicating liquors", with exceptions for religious and medical use. To enforce the amendment, Congress passed the National Prohibition Act, also known as the Volstead Act. By the 1930s, the policy was seen as a failure: production and consumption of alcohol persisted, organized crime flourished in the alcohol black market, and tax revenue, particularly needed after the start of the Great Depression in 1929, was lost. Prohibition was repealed by passage of the 21st Amendment in 1933, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945) asking Americans not to abuse "this return to personal freedom."{{Cite web |last=Klein |first=Christopher |date=Mar 28, 2023 |title=The Night Prohibition Ended |url=https://www.history.com/news/the-night-prohibition-ended |access-date=Mar 11, 2024 |website=History.com}}

In 1922, the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act broadened federal regulation of opiates and coca products by prohibiting import and export for non-medical use,{{cite web |title=Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act Law & Legal Definition |url=http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/narcotic-drug-import-and-export-act/ |accessdate=9 November 2012 |publisher=definitions.uslegal.com}} and established the Federal Narcotics Control Board (FNCB) to administrate.{{cite web |title=Drugs, The Law, and The Future |url=http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/180/law.html |accessdate=9 November 2012 |publisher=www.umsl.edu}}

File:Closer_U.S.-Canada_Marihuana_(Marijuana)_control_discussed._Washington,_D.C.,_March_24._Closer_cooperation_in_the_control_of_the_use_of_marihuana_weed_is_expected_to_be_the_outcome_of_a_LCCN2016873283.jpg and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Stephen B. Gibbons (1938)|alt=Harry Anslinger discussing cannabis control with Canadian narcotics chief Charles Henry Ludovic Sharman and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Stephen B. Gibbons (1938)]]

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was established as an agency of the US Department of the Treasury by an act of June 14, 1930,{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/170.html#170.3 |title=Records of the Drug Enforcement Administration DEA |publisher=Archives.gov |access-date=March 27, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110521222056/http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/170.html#170.3 |archive-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live }} with Harry J. Anslinger appointed as commissioner, a position he held for 32 years, until 1962.{{cite book |last=Filan |first=Kenaz |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vDL9JQr_cCMC&q=Harry%20J.%20Anslinger&pg=PA64 |title=The Power of the Poppy: Harnessing Nature's Most Dangerous Plant Ally |date= 2011 |publisher=Park Street Press |isbn=978-1-59477-399-0 |location=Rochester, Vt. |page=64}} Anslinger supported Prohibition and the criminalization of all drugs, and spearheaded anti-drug policy campaigns.{{cite news |last=Krebs |first=Albin |date=18 November 1975 |title=Harry J. Anslinger Dies at 83; Hard-Hitting Foe of Narcotics |volume=CXXIV |page=40 |newspaper=The New York Times |issue=236 |editor1-last=Sulzberger Sr. |editor1-first=Arthur Ochs |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1975/11/18/archives/harry-j-anslinger-dies-at-83-hardhitting-foe-of-narcotics-us.html |access-date=10 September 2021 |quote=Harry J. Anslinger, an implacable, hard-hitting foe of drug pushers and users during the 32 years he was the Treasury Department's Commissioner of Narcotics, died Friday in Hollidaysburg, Pa. His age was 83. |editor1-link=Punch Sulzberger}} He did not support a public health and treatment approach, instead urging courts to "jail offenders, then throw away the key." He has been characterized as the first architect of the punitive war on drugs.{{Cite web |last=Adams |first=Cydney |date=November 17, 2016 |title=The man behind the marijuana ban for all the wrong reasons |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-anslinger-the-man-behind-the-marijuana-ban/ |access-date=Mar 17, 2024 |website=CBS News}}{{cite book |last=Chasin |first=Alexandra |author-link=Alexandra Chasin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=imUpDQAAQBAJ |title=Assassin of Youth: A Kaleidoscopic History of Harry J. Anslinger's War on Drugs |date=2016 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=9780226276977 |publication-place=Chicago |doi=10.7208/chicago/9780226277028.001.0001 |lccn=2016011027 |access-date=10 September 2021 |via=Google Books}}{{Cite magazine |last1=Halpern |first1=John H. |last2=Blistein |first2=David |date=Aug 12, 2019 |title=America's War on Drugs Has Treated People Unequally Since Its Beginning |url=https://time.com/5638316/war-on-drugs-opium-history/ |access-date=March 16, 2024 |magazine=TIME |quote=Between 1930 and 1962, Anslinger established the standards that continue to serve as basic tools of the trade for America's drug enforcement, such as dramatic drug busts, harsh penalties and questionable data. There remains serious disagreement in scholarly as well as political circles about how successful Anslinger really was in reducing drug sales and use in America, though he achieved several significant legislative victories, including the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act, which fostered collaboration between federal agents and police in different states (each of which had its own specific laws).}} According to a report prepared for the Senate of Canada, Anslinger was "utterly devoted to prohibition and the control of drug supplies at the source" and is "widely recognized as having had one of the more powerful impacts on the development of US drug policy, and, by extension, international drug control into the early 1970s."{{Cite web |last=Sinha |first=Jay |date=21 February 2001 |title=The History and Development of the Leading International Drug Control Conventions |url=https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/committee/371/ille/library/history-e#G.%20The%201946%20Lake%20Success%20Protocol |access-date=May 15, 2024 |website=Senate of Canada}}

During his three decades heading the FBN, Anslinger zealously and effectively pursued harsh drug penalties, with a particular focus on cannabis. He used his stature as the head of a federal agency to draft legislation, discredit critics, discount medical opinion and scientific findings, and convince lawmakers. Publicly, he used the media and speaking engagements to introduce hyperbolic messages about the evils of drug use.{{Cite web |last=Moynihan |first=Colin |date=August 10, 2020 |title=An Exhibition Tells the Story of a Drug War Leader, but Not All of It |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/arts/design/Anslinger-drug-czar-exhibition.html |url-access=subscription |access-date=Mar 17, 2024 |website=New York Times}} In the 1930s, he referred to a collection of news reports of horrific crimes, making unsubstantiated claims attributing them to drugs, particularly cannabis. He announced that youth become "slaves" to cannabis, "continuing addiction until they deteriorate mentally, become insane, turn to violent crime and murder." He promoted a racialized view of drug use, saying that blacks and Latinos were the primary abusers. In Congressional testimony, he declared "of all the offenses committed against the laws of this country, the narcotic addict is the most frequent offender."{{Cite web |date=April 7, 2022 |title=The Evolution of Marijuana as a Controlled Substance and the Federal-State Policy Gap |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44782/6 |access-date=Apr 17, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service |page=2}} He was also an effective administrator and diplomat, attending international drug conferences and steadily expanding the FBN's influence.{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Benjamin T. |date=June 2021 |title=Why we should remember Richard Nixon's war on drugs |url=https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/why-remember-nixon-war-drugs/ |access-date=Jan 6, 2024 |website=History Extra}}

In 1935, the New York Times reported on President Roosevelt's public support of the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act under the headline, "Roosevelt Asks Narcotic War Aid".{{cite web |url=http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/History/e1930/rooseveltasks.htm |title=Roosvelt Asks Narcotics War Aid, 1935 |publisher=Druglibrary.net |access-date=March 27, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723103650/http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/History/e1930/rooseveltasks.htm |archive-date=July 23, 2011 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/208464 |title=Letter to the World Narcotic Defense Association. March 21, 1935 |publisher=Presidency.ucsb.edu |access-date=March 27, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120203072730/http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15024 |archive-date=February 3, 2012 |url-status=live }} The Uniform Law Commission developed the act to address the 1914 Harrison Act's lack of state-level enforcement provisions, creating a model law reflecting the Harrison Act that states could adopt to replace the existing patchwork of state laws. Anslinger and the FBN were centrally involved in drafting the act, and in convincing states to adopt it.{{Cite web |date=1972 |title=Marihuana – A Signal of Misunderstanding (First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse) |url=https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm |access-date=Mar 16, 2024 |website=Schaffer Library of Drug Policy |at=[https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2_4.htm Drafting the Uniform Act] |ref=signal}}

With the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,For repeal, see section 1101(b)(3), Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236, 1292 (Oct. 27, 1970) (repealing the Marihuana Tax Act which had been codified in Subchapter A of Chapter 39 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954). federal law reflected state law{{snd}}by 1936, the non-medical use of cannabis had been banned in every state.{{cite book |last1=Booth |first1=Martin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O7AoY6ljSygC |title=Cannabis: A History |date=2005 |publisher=St. Martin's Press |isbn=978-0-312-42494-7 |location=New York}}{{Cite journal |last1=Galliher |first1=John F. |last2=Walker |first2=Allynn |date=1977 |title=The Puzzle of the Social Origins of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/800089 |journal=Social Problems |volume=24 |issue=3 |pages=367–376 |doi=10.2307/800089 |jstor=800089 |url-access=subscription }} That year, the first two arrests for tax non-payment under the act, for possession of a quarter-ounce (7g), and trafficking of four pounds (1.8 kg), resulted in sentences of nearly 18 months and four years respectively.{{cite web |author=Glick, Daniel |date=December 6, 2016 |title=80 Years Ago This Week, Marijuana Prohibition Began With These Arrests |url=https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/drug-war-prisoners-1-2-true-story-moses-sam-two-denver-drifters-became-cannabis-pioneers |accessdate= |work=Leafly}} The American Medical Association (AMA) had opposed the tax act on grounds that it unduly affected the medical use of cannabis. The AMA's legislative counsel, a physician, testified that the claims about cannabis addiction, violence and overdoses were not supported by evidence.{{cite web |title=Statement of Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Counsel, American Medical Association |url=http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/hemp/taxact/woodward.htm |access-date=2006-03-25}}Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 75c 2s. HR6906. Library of Congress transcript. July 12, 1937 Scholars have posited that the act was orchestrated by powerful business interests – Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family – to head off cheap competition to pulp and timber and plastics from the hemp industry.{{Refn|Various sources discussed this claim.{{Cite book |last1=French |first1=Laurence |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4ozF1Yg-c4MC&pg=PA129 |title=NAFTA & neocolonialism: comparative criminal, human & social justice |last2=Manzanárez |first2=Magdaleno |publisher=University Press of America |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7618-2890-7 |page=129 |access-date=May 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191228064135/https://books.google.com/books?id=4ozF1Yg-c4MC&pg=PA129 |archive-date=December 28, 2019 |url-status=live}}Earlywine, 2005: [https://books.google.com/books?id=r9wPbxMAG8cC&pg=PA24 p. 24] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110080209/https://books.google.com/books?id=r9wPbxMAG8cC&pg=PA24|date=January 10, 2016}}Peet, 2004: [https://books.google.com/books?id=uC0_YznYjScC&pg=PA55 p. 55]{{Cite book |last=Evans |first=Sterling |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_wFkZgyuGFAC&pg=PA27 |title=Bound in twine: the history and ecology of the henequen-wheat complex for Mexico and the American and Canadian Plains, 1880–1950 |publisher=Texas A&M University Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-1-58544-596-7 |page=27 |access-date=March 6, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424191430/https://books.google.com/books?id=_wFkZgyuGFAC&pg=PA27 |archive-date=April 24, 2016 |url-status=live}}{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/borderlandsofame00ster |title=The borderlands of the American and Canadian Wests: essays on regional history of the forty-ninth parallel |publisher=University of Nebraska Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-8032-1826-0 |editor=Evans, Sterling |page=[https://archive.org/details/borderlandsofame00ster/page/199 199] |url-access=registration}}{{cite book |author=Gerber, Rudolph Joseph |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WMOdI9pC-gEC&pg=PA7 |title=Legalizing marijuana: drug policy reform and prohibition politics |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-275-97448-0 |page=7 |access-date=March 6, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108200703/https://books.google.com/books?id=WMOdI9pC-gEC&pg=PA7 |archive-date=January 8, 2016 |url-status=live}}{{cite book |author=Earleywine, Mitchell |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=r9wPbxMAG8cC&pg=PA231 |title=Understanding marijuana: a new look at the scientific evidence |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-19-518295-8 |page=231 |access-date=March 6, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108200703/https://books.google.com/books?id=r9wPbxMAG8cC&pg=PA231 |archive-date=January 8, 2016 |url-status=live}}{{cite book |author1=Robinson, Matthew B. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dwGpsNjv_1kC&pg=PA12 |title=Lies, damned lies, and drug war statistics: a critical analysis of claims made by the office of National Drug Control Policy |author2=Scherlen, Renee G. |publisher=SUNY Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-7914-6975-0 |page=12 |access-date=March 6, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108200703/https://books.google.com/books?id=dwGpsNjv_1kC&pg=PA12 |archive-date=January 8, 2016 |url-status=live |name-list-style=amp}}{{cite book |author=Rowe, Thomas C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=v1tz6nP6fdwC&pg=PA26 |title=Federal narcotics laws and the war on drugs: money down a rat hole |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-0789028082 |page=26 |access-date=March 6, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108200703/https://books.google.com/books?id=v1tz6nP6fdwC&pg=PA26 |archive-date=January 8, 2016 |url-status=live}}{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FtgYAAAAIAAJ&q=hearst+hemp |title=Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement: Federal |publisher=Sage |year=2005 |isbn=978-0761926498 |editor=Sullivan, Larry E. |page=747 |access-date=March 6, 2016 |display-editors=etal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160108200703/https://books.google.com/books?id=FtgYAAAAIAAJ&q=hearst+hemp&dq=hearst+hemp |archive-date=January 8, 2016 |url-status=live}}{{cite book |author=Lusane, Clarence |author-link=Clarence Lusane |url=https://archive.org/details/pipedreambluesra00lusa |title=Pipe dream blues: racism and the war on drugs |publisher=South End Press |year=1991 |isbn=978-0896084100 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/pipedreambluesra00lusa/page/37 37]–38 |url-access=registration}}{{cite web |title=Was there a conspiracy to outlaw hemp because it was a threat to theDuPonts and other industrial interests? |url=http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/hemp_conspiracy.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402154536/http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/hemp_conspiracy.htm |archive-date=April 2, 2015 |access-date=March 17, 2015}}

Despite media reports at the time touting hemp as the new wonder fiber, harvesting and processing technology weren't sufficiently developed to compete commercially.{{cite web |last=LH |first=Dewey |date=1943 |title=Fiber production in the western hemisphere |url=https://archive.org/stream/fiberproductioni518dewe#page/66/mode/2up |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160313011333/https://archive.org/stream/fiberproductioni518dewe#page/66/mode/2up |archive-date=March 13, 2016 |access-date=February 25, 2015 |publisher=United States Printing Office, Washington, DC |page=67}}{{cite web |last1=Fortenbery |first1=T. Randall |last2=Bennett |first2=Michael |date=July 2001 |title=Is Industrial Hemp Worth Further Study in the US? A Survey of the Literature |url=http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap443.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304041408/http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap443.pdf |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |access-date=June 25, 2014 |website=Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison |page=25}}|group=note}} After the act, cannabis research and medical testing became rare.{{Cite web |date=Dec 20, 2019 |title=Did You Know... Marijuana Was Once a Legal Cross-Border Import? |url=https://www.cbp.gov/about/history/did-you-know/marijuana |access-date=May 1, 2024 |website=US Customs and Border Protection}}

In 1939, New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, an opponent of the Marihuana Tax Act, formed the LaGuardia Committee to conduct the first US in-depth study of cannabis use. The report, produced by the New York Academy of Medicine and released in 1944, systematically contradicted government claims, finding that cannabis is not physically addictive, and its use does not lead to using other drugs or to crime.{{Cite web |last=Downs |first=David |date=April 19, 2016 |title=The Science behind the DEA's Long War on Marijuana |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-the-dea-s-long-war-on-marijuana/ |access-date=Jan 31, 2024 |website=Scientific American}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/History/murd3.htm|title=Hemp Around Their Necks by Harry Anslinger|website=www.druglibrary.net}} The FBN's Anslinger branded the study "unscientific", denounced all involved, and disrupted other cannabis studies at the time.Jack Herer. 1985. The Emperor Wears No Clothes. Ah Ha Publishing, Van Nuys, CA.

In the late 1930s, questions emerged from League of Nations' Opium Advisory Committee concerning the focus on drug prohibition over public health measures such as mental health treatment, drug dispensaries and education. Anslinger, backed by his Canadian counterpart and policy ally, Charles Henry Ludovic Sharman, successfully argued against this view, and kept the focus on increasing global prohibition and supply control measures.

While narcotics were under the jurisdiction of the FBN, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 required the FDA to ensure that non-narcotic drugs were labeled for safe use. The act determined that certain drugs, including amphetamines, commercialized in the later 1930s, and barbiturates, were unsafe to use without medical supervision and could only be obtained by doctor's prescription. This marked the beginning of the federal distinction between over-the-counter and prescription drugs (clarified in the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951).{{Cite journal |last=Swann |first=J.P. |date=Jan–Feb 1997 |title=Drug abuse control under FDA, 1938–1968. |url=https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/64508 |journal=Public Health Reports |volume=112 |issue=1 |pages=82–86 |pmid=9018295 |pmc=1381845 |via=Centers for Disease Control and Prevention}}

File:Syrette.jpg.]]

During World War II (1939–1945), in addition to the widespread use of morphine, amphetamines entered military use to combat fatigue and improve morale. In the US, the Benzedrine brand was widely used in the military, and quickly became popular in the public for a variety of medical and recreational applications. Beginning in 1943, American soldiers could buy Benzedrine directly from the army on demand.{{Cite web |last=Racine |first=Nicholas |date=Spring 2019 |title=Blood, Meth, and Tears: The Super Soldiers of World War II |url=https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=madrush |access-date=Apr 7, 2024 |website=James Madison University}}{{Cite web |last=Holland |first=James |date=Jun 25, 2019 |title=World War Speed |url=https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/preview-world-war-speed/4337/ |access-date=Apr 7, 2024 |website=PBS}} Post-war, amphetamines were promoted as mood elevators and diet pills to great success; by 1945, an estimated 750 million tablets a year were being produced in the US, enough to provide a million people with a daily supply, a trend that grew during the 1950s and 1960s.{{Cite web |last=Hicks |first=Jesse |date=Apr 15, 2012 |title=Fast Times: The Life, Death, and Rebirth of Amphetamine |url=https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/fast-times-the-life-death-and-rebirth-of-amphetamine/ |access-date=Apr 7, 2024 |website=Science History Institute}}{{Cite web |last=Blakemore |first=Erin |date=October 27, 2017 |title=A Speedy History of America's Addiction to Amphetamine |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/speedy-history-americas-addiction-amphetamine-180966989/ |access-date=Apr 7, 2024 |website=Smithsonian Magazine}}

Having failed to preserve world peace, the League of Nations ended post-war, transferring responsibilities to its successor, the United Nations. Anslinger, supported by Sharman, successfully campaigned to ensure that law enforcement and the prohibitionist view remained central to international drug policy. With the 1946 Lake Success Protocol, he helped to make sure that law enforcement was represented on the UN's new drug policy Supervisory Body (today's International Narcotics Control Board), and that it did not fall under a public health-oriented agency like the WHO.

In the early 1950s, responding to "white suburban grassroots movements" concerned about dealers preying on teenagers, liberal politicians at state level cracked down on drugs. California, Illinois, and New York passed the first mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses; Congress followed with the Boggs Act of 1951, creating the first federal mandatory minimums for drugs.{{Cite magazine |last=Lassiter |first=Matthew D. |date=Dec 7, 2023 |title=America's War on Drugs Has Always Been Bipartisan{{snd}}and Unwinnable |url=https://time.com/6340590/drug-war-politics-history/ |access-date=Dec 21, 2023 |magazine=Time |quote=The modern drug war began in the 1950s, with liberals{{snd}}not conservatives{{snd}}leading the charge. In California, the epicenter of the early war on narcotics, white suburban grassroots movements prodded liberal politicians like Governor Pat Brown into action. They blamed "pushers," usually perceived and depicted as people of color, and demanded that elected officials crack down on the drug supply. Legislators in California, Illinois, and New York responded by passing the nation's first mandatory-minimum sentencing laws in an effort to save teenagers from these traffickers.}}{{Cite book |last=Courtwright |first=David T. |author-link=:de:David Todd Courtwright |date=1992 |title=A Century of American Narcotic Policy |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234755/ |access-date=Mar 13, 2024 |publisher=National Academies Press}} The act unified penalties for the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act and the Marihuana Tax Act, effectively criminalizing cannabis. Anslinger testified in favor of the inclusion of cannabis, describing a "stepping-stone" path leading from cannabis to harder drugs and crime.{{Cite web |date=March 1972 |title=Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding |url=https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2_7.htm |access-date=May 1, 2024 |website=Shaffer Drug Library}} First-offense possession of cannabis carried a 2–10 year minimum and a fine of up to $20,000.{{cite news |title=Marijuana timeline |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html |access-date=2014-07-31 |work=PBS}} This marked a change in Congress's approach to mandatory minimums, increasing their number, severity, and the crimes they covered. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, reporting in 2012: "Before 1951, mandatory minimum penalties typically punished offenses concerning treason, murder, piracy, rape, slave trafficking, internal revenue collection, and counterfeiting. Today, the majority of convictions under statutes carrying mandatory minimum penalties relate to controlled substances, firearms, identity theft, and child sex offenses.".{{Cite journal |last=United States Sentencing Commission |date=2012 |title=Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System |url=https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-minimum-penalties/20111031-rtc-pdf/Chapter_02.pdf |journal=Federal Sentencing Reporter |volume=24 |issue=3 |page=28 |quote=As detailed herein, beginning in 1951, Congress changed how it used mandatory minimum penalties in three significant ways. First, Congress enacted more mandatory minimum penalties. Second, Congress expanded its use of mandatory minimum penalties to offenses not traditionally covered by such penalties. Before 1951, mandatory minimum penalties typically punished offenses concerning treason, murder, piracy, rape, slave trafficking, internal revenue collection, and counterfeiting. Today, the majority of convictions under statutes carrying mandatory minimum penalties relate to controlled substances, firearms, identity theft, and child sex offenses. Third, the mandatory minimum penalties most commonly used today are generally lengthier than mandatory minimum penalties in earlier eras.}}

In 1961, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs became the first of three UN treaties that together form the legal framework for international drug control, and require that domestic drug laws in member countries comply with the conventions. The Single Convention unified existing international drug agreements,{{Cite web |last=Hilotin-Lee, J.D. |first=Lyle Therese A. |date=October 20, 2023 |title=The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs |url=https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/the-single-convention-on-narcotic-drugs.html |access-date=Dec 15, 2023 |website=FindLaw}} and limited possession and use of opiates, cannabis and cocaine to "medicinal and scientific purposes", prohibiting recreational use. Sixty-four countries initially joined; it was ratified and came into force in the US in 1967. The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 added synthetic, prescription and hallucinogenic drugs. The Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 addressed international drug trafficking and "criminalized the entire drug market chain, from cultivation/production to shipment, sale, and possession."{{Cite journal |last1=Lines |first1=Rick |last2=Elliott |first2=Richard |last3=Julie |first3=Hannah |last4=Rebecca |first4=Schleifer |last5=Tenu |first5=Avafia |last6=Damon |first6=Barrett |date=June 2017 |title=The Case for International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Control |journal=Health and Human Rights |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=231–236 |pmc=5473052 |pmid=28630555 |quote=Over time, the punitive nature of the international drug control system also expanded and intensified, with criminal law being used to suppress drug use and drug markets. The third UN drug treaty, the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, criminalized the entire drug market chain, from cultivation/production to shipment, sale, and possession (although this last obligation is subject to significant caveats, giving states leeway to refrain from criminalizing possession of scheduled substances for personal use).}}{{Cite web |last1=Haase |first1=Heather J. |last2=Eyle |first2=Nicolas Edward |last3=Schrimpf |first3=Joshua Raymond |date=August 2012 |title=The International Drug Control Treaties: How Important Are They to U.S. Drug Reform? |url=https://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/InternationalDrugControlTreatiesArticle.pdf |access-date=Apr 24, 2024 |publisher=New York City Bar Association (Committee on Drugs & the Law)}}{{Cite web |title=Treaties |url=https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/index.html |access-date=Dec 15, 2023 |website=United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime}}{{Cite web |title=Conventions |url=https://www.undrugcontrol.info/en/un-drug-control/conventions |access-date=Dec 15, 2023 |website=Transnational Institute}}

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–69) decided that the government needed to make an effort to curtail the social unrest that blanketed the country at the time. He focused on illegal drug use, an approach that was in line with expert opinion on the subject at the time. In the 1960s, it was believed that at least half of the crime in the US was drug-related, and this estimate grew as high as 90% in the next decade.James Inciardi, The War on Drugs IV, ed. 4. (Delaware: Pearson Allyn and Bacon, 2008), 286. He created the Reorganization Plan of 1968 which merged the Bureau of Narcotics and the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control to form the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs within the Department of Justice.Andrew B. Whitford and Jeffrey Yates, Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 40.

The Richard Nixon presidency (1969–74) incorporated his predecessor's anti-drug initiative in a tough-on-crime platform. In his 1968 presidential nomination acceptance speech, Nixon promised, "Our new Attorney General will ... launch a war against organized crime in this country. ... will be an active belligerent against the loan sharks and the numbers racketeers that rob the urban poor. ... will open a new front against the filth peddlers and the narcotics peddlers who are corrupting the lives of the children of this country."{{Cite web |date=Aug 30, 2008 |title="Law and Order" in Richard Nixon 1968 Presidential acceptance speech |url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4612766/law-order-richard-nixon-1968-presidential-acceptance-speech |access-date=Jan 8, 2024 |website=C-SPAN}}{{Cite web |last=Newell |first=Walker |date=26 April 2013 |title=The Legacy of Nixon, Reagan, and Horton: How The Tough On Crime Movement Enabled A New Regime Of Race Influenced Employment Discrimination |url=https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1125583/files/fulltext.pdf |access-date=Feb 8, 2024 |website=Berkeley Journal of African-American Law & Policy}} In a 1969 special message to Congress, he identified drug abuse as "a serious national threat".{{Cite web |date=April 2, 2007 |title=Timeline: America's War on Drugs |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490 |access-date=Dec 5, 2023 |website=NPR}}{{Cite book |last1=Payan |first1=Tony |title=A War that Can't Be Won |last2=Staudt |first2=Kathleen |last3=Kruszewski |first3=Z. Anthony |publisher=University of Arizona Press |year=2013 |page=180}}

On October 27, 1970, Nixon signed into law the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, establishing his approach to drug control. The act largely repealed mandatory minimum sentences:{{Cite journal |last=Gill |first=Molly M. |date=Oct 2008 |title=Correcting Course: Lessons from the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fsr.2008.21.1.55 |journal=Federal Sentencing Reporter |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=55–67 |doi=10.1525/fsr.2008.21.1.55 |jstor=10.1525/fsr.2008.21.1.55 |url-access=subscription }} simple possession was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, the first offense carried a maximum of one year in prison, and judges had the latitude to assign probation, parole or dismissal. Penalties for trafficking were increased, up to life depending on the quantity and type of drug. Funding was authorized for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to provide treatment, rehabilitation and education. Additional federal drug agents were provided, and a "no-knock" power was instituted, that allowed entry into homes without warning to prevent evidence from being destroyed. Licensing and stricter reporting and record-keeping for pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors occurred under the act.{{Cite web |agency=Associated Press |date=October 28, 1970 |title=Nixon Signs Drug Abuse Control Bill |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/10/28/archives/nixon-signs-drug-abuse-control-bill.html |access-date=Dec 13, 2023 |website=New York Times}} Title II of Act, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), helped align US law with the UN Single Convention, with "many of the provisions of the CSA ... enacted by Congress for the specific purpose of ensuring U.S. compliance with the treaty." The CSA's five drug Schedules, an implementation of the Single Convention's four schedule system, categorized drugs based on medical value and potential for abuse.{{Cite web |title=Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations |url=https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/Preliminary_Note_Regarding_Treaty_Considerations.pdf |access-date=May 28, 2024 |website=US Department of Justice}}[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/ Thirty Years of America's Drug War, a Chronology] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110224054034/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/|date=February 24, 2011}}. Frontline (U.S. TV series).

Under the new drug schedules, cannabis was provisionally placed by the administration in the most restrictive Schedule I, "until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."{{cite web |author=Aggarwal, Sunil |date=2010 |title=Cannabis: A Commonwealth Medicinal Plant, Long Suppressed, Now at Risk of Monopolization |url=http://www.cannabinologist.org/Documents/Aggarwal-Macroed1.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151222161017/http://www.cannabinologist.org/Documents/Aggarwal-Macroed1.pdf |archive-date=December 22, 2015 |access-date=13 December 2015 |work=Denver University Law Review |quote=Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue. If those studies make it appropriate for the Attorney General to change the placement of marihuana to a different schedule, he may do so in accordance with the authority provided under section 201 of the bill.}} As mandated by the CSA, Nixon appointed the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, known as the Shafer Commission, to investigate.

On May 27, 1971, after a trip to Vietnam, two congressmen, Morgan F. Murphy (Democrat) and Robert H. Steele (Republican), released a report describing a "rapid increase in heroin addiction within the United States military forces in South Vietnam". They estimated that "as many as 10 to 15 percent of our servicemen are addicted to heroin in one form or another."{{Cite report |last1=Murphy |first1=Morgan F. |last2=Steele |first2=Robert H. |date=May 27, 1971 |title=The World Heroin Problem |url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp73b00296r000300060002-1 |access-date=Dec 14, 2023 |via=Central Intelligence Agency}}[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/dupont.html WGBH educational foundation. Interview with Dr. Robert Dupoint] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170905012229/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/dupont.html|date=September 5, 2017}}. Pbs.org (February 18, 1970).[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490 Timeline: America's War on Drugs] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329060119/https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490|date=March 29, 2018}}. April 2, 2007. NPR. On June 6, a New York Times article, "It's Always A Dead End on 'Scag Alley{{'"}}, cited the Murphy-Steele report in a discussion of heroin addiction. The article stated that, in the US, "the number of addicts is estimated at 200,000 to 250,000, only about one‐tenth of 1 per cent of the population but troublesome out of all proportion." It also noted, "Heroin is not the only drug problem in the United States. 'Speed' pills{{snd}}among them, amphetamines{{snd}}are another problem, and not least in the suburbs where they are taken by the housewife (to cure her of the daily 'blues') and by her husband (to keep his weight down)."{{Cite web |last=Buckley |first=Tom |date=June 6, 1971 |title=It's Always A Dead End on 'Scag Alley' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1971/06/06/archives/its-always-a-dead-end-on-scag-alley-u-s-and-heroin.html |access-date=Dec 14, 2023 |website=The New York Times}}

On June 17, 1971, Nixon presented to Congress a plan for expanded anti-drug abuse measures. He painted a dire picture: "Present efforts to control drug abuse are not sufficient in themselves. The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency. ... If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us." His strategy involved both treatment and interdiction: "I am proposing the appropriation of additional funds to meet the cost of rehabilitating drug users, and I will ask for additional funds to increase our enforcement efforts to further tighten the noose around the necks of drug peddlers, and thereby loosen the noose around the necks of drug users." He singled out heroin and broadened the scope beyond the US: "To wage an effective war against heroin addiction, we must have international cooperation. In order to secure such cooperation, I am initiating a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the control of narcotics traffic."{{Cite web |last=Nixon |first=Richard |date=June 17, 1971 |title=Special Message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control. |url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/special-message-the-congress-drug-abuse-prevention-and-control |access-date=Dec 13, 2023 |publisher=UC Santa Barbara – The American Presidency Project}}

Later the same day, Nixon held a news conference at the White House, where he described drug abuse as "America's public enemy number one." He announced, "In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive. ... This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources of supply ... It will be government wide, pulling together the nine different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational program." Nixon also stated that the problem wouldn't end with the addiction of soldiers in the Vietnam War.{{Cite web |last=Nixon |first=Richard |date=June 17, 1971 |title=Remarks About an Intensified Program for Drug Abuse Prevention and Control |url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-about-intensified-program-for-drug-abuse-prevention-and-control |access-date=Feb 22, 2024 |publisher=UC Santa Barbara – The American Presidency Project}} He pledged to ask Congress for a minimum of $350 million for the anti-drug effort (when he took office in 1969, the federal drug budget was $81 million).{{Cite news |last=Farber |first=David |date=June 17, 2021 |title=The War on Drugs turns 50 today. It's time to make peace. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/17/war-drugs-turns-50-today-its-time-make-peace/ |access-date=Dec 12, 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}

The news media focused on Nixon's militaristic tone, describing his announcement with variations of the phrase "war on drugs". The day after Nixon's press conference, the Chicago Tribune proclaimed, "Nixon Declares War on Narcotics Use in US". In England, The Guardian headlined, "Nixon declares war on drug addicts." The US anti-drug campaign came to be commonly referred to as the war on drugs;{{Cite book |last=Rosino |first=Michael |title=Debating the Drug War: Race, Politics, and the Media |publisher=Routledge |year=2021 |isbn=9781315295176 |publication-date=March 17, 2021 |page=4}} the term also became used to refer to any government's prosecution of a US-style prohibition-based drug policy.{{Cite book |last=Ricordeau |first=Gwenola |title=The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2023 |chapter=War on Drugs |quote=The War on drugs is a prohibition-based policy that combats the production, the trade and consumption of illegal drugs. ... The expression first strictly referred to the United States antidrug policy that began in the 1970s ... But the expression "War on drugs" has also been used in other countries that followed the USA's stance.}}

Facing reelection, with drug control as a campaign centerpiece, Nixon formed the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement (ODALE) in late 1971. ODALE, armed with new federal enforcement powers, began orchestrating drug raids nationwide to improve the administration's watchdog reputation. In a private conversation while helicoptering over Brooklyn, Nixon was reported to have commented, "You and I care about treatment. But those people down there, they want those criminals off the streets." From 1972 to 1973, ODALE performed 6,000 drug arrests in 18 months, the majority of the arrested black.Whitford and Yates. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda 47

In 1972, the Shafer Commission released its report, "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding", comprising a review of the medical literature and a national drug survey. It recommended decriminalization for personal possession and use of small amounts of cannabis, and prohibition only of supply. The conclusion was not acted on by Nixon or by Congress.{{Cite web |date=February 1, 2019 |title=National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse 1971 Poll |url=https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/national-commission-marijuana-and-drug-abuse-1971-poll |access-date=Apr 16, 2024 |publisher=Roper Center}}{{Cite web |last=Downs |first=David |date=Apr 19, 2016 |title=The Science behind the DEA's Long War on Marijuana |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-the-dea-s-long-war-on-marijuana/ |access-date=Apr 16, 2024 |website=Scientific American}} Citing the Shafer report, a lobbying campaign from 1973 to 1978, spearheaded by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), convinced 11 states to decriminalize cannabis for personal use.{{cite thesis |last1=Heddleston |first1=Thomas R. |title=From the Frontlines to the Bottom Line: Medical Marijuana, the War on Drugs, and the Drug Policy Reform Movement |date=June 2012 |publisher=UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1t7220hj |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019053506/http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1t7220hj |archive-date=October 19, 2015 |url-status=live}} Alt URL

In 1973, Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) by an executive order accepted by Congress, to "establish a single unified command to combat an all-out global war on the drug menace."{{Cite web |last=Esquivel-Suárez |first=Fernando |date=August 23, 2018 |title=The Global War on Drugs |url=https://globalsouthstudies.as.virginia.edu/key-issues/global-war-drugs |access-date=Feb 22, 2024 |website=University of Virginia}} The agency was charged with enforcing US controlled substances laws and regulations nationally and internationally, coordinating with federal, state and local agencies and foreign governments, and overseeing legally-produced controlled substances.{{Cite web |title=Drug Enforcement Administration |url=https://www.justice.gov/doj/organization-mission-and-functions-manual-drug-enforcement-administration |access-date=Apr 19, 2024 |website=United States Department of Justice|date=December 6, 2022 }} The DEA absorbed the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, ODALE, and other drug-related federal agencies or personnel from them.

Decades later, a controversial quote attributed to John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic policy advisor, claimed that the war on drugs was fabricated to undermine the anti-war movement and African-Americans. In a 2016 Harper's cover story, Ehrlichman, who died in 1999,{{Cite web |date=February 15, 1999 |title=John D. Ehrlichman Dead At 73 |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-d-ehrlichman-dead-at-73/ |access-date=Jan 6, 2024 |publisher=CBS News}} was quoted from journalist Dan Baum's 1994 interview notes: "... by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."{{cite magazine |last=Baum |first=Dan |date=Apr 2016 |title=Legalize It All |url=https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/ |access-date=Nov 18, 2024 |magazine=Harper's Magazine |quote=The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.}}{{cite web |title=Home – Dan Baum Writer |url=http://www.danbaum.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170126153541/http://www.danbaum.com/ |archive-date=January 26, 2017 |access-date=February 7, 2017 |website=www.danbaum.com}}{{cite web |last=Linkins |first=Jason |date=June 8, 2009 |title=Dan Baum, Fired by New Yorker, Recounting His Story on Twitter |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/dan-baum-fired-by-inew-yo_n_200457.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190219184511/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/dan-baum-fired-by-inew-yo_n_200457.html |archive-date=February 19, 2019 |work=HuffPost |access-date=February 20, 2020}}{{cite web |last=Lopez |first=German |date=March 22, 2016 |title=Nixon official: real reason for the drug war was to criminalize black people and hippies |url=https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170530191049/https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon |archive-date=May 30, 2017 |access-date=June 13, 2017 |website=Vox}} The veracity of the quote was challenged by Ehrlichman's children,{{Cite web |last=LoBianco |first=Tom |date=March 24, 2016 |title=Report: Aide says Nixon's war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies |url=https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html |access-date=Dec 19, 2023 |website=CNN |quote=Ehrlichman died in 1999, but his five children in questioned the veracity of the account. ... 'The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him. ... We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when Dad can no longer respond.'}} and Nixon-era officials.{{Cite web |last=Hanson |first=Hilary |date=Mar 25, 2016 |title=Nixon Aides Suggest Colleague Was Kidding About Drug War Being Designed To Target Black People |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-nixon-drug-war-john-ehrlichman_n_56f58be6e4b0a3721819ec61 |access-date=Dec 19, 2023 |website=HuffPost |quote=[T]hree former Nixon aides say the quote just doesn't sound like Ehrlichman, and if he did say it, he was mistaken. ... 'The comments being attributed to John Ehrlichman in recent news coverage about the Nixon administration's efforts to combat the drug crisis of the 1960's and 70's reflect neither our memory of John nor the administration's approach to that problem,' wrote Jeffrey Donfeld, Jerome H. Jaffe and Robert DuPont in a joint statement ...}} In the end, the increasingly punitive reshaping of US drug policy by later administrations was most responsible for creating some of the conditions Ehrlichman described.{{Cite web |last=Lopez |first=German |date=Mar 29, 2016b |title=Was Nixon's war on drugs a racially motivated crusade? It's a bit more complicated. |url=https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs |access-date=2024-01-06 |website=Vox |language=en |quote=Ehrlichman's claim is likely an oversimplification, according to historians who have studied the period and Nixon's drug policies in particular. There's no doubt Nixon was racist, and ... race could have played one role in Nixon's drug war. ... he [also] personally despised drugs{{snd}}to the point that it's not surprising he would want to rid the world of them. And there's evidence that Ehrlichman felt bitter and betrayed by Nixon after he spent time in prison over the Watergate scandal, so he may have lied. ... More importantly, Nixon's drug policies did not focus on the kind of criminalization that Ehrlichman described. Instead, Nixon's drug war was largely a public health crusade{{snd}}one that would be reshaped into the modern, punitive drug war we know today by later administrations, particularly President Ronald Reagan.}}

In a 2011 commentary, Robert DuPont, Nixon's drug czar, argued that the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Act had represented a degree of drug reform. He noted that the act had rolled back mandatory minimum sentencing and balanced the "long-dominant law enforcement approach to drug policy, known as 'supply reduction'" with an "entirely new and massive commitment to prevention, intervention and treatment, known as 'demand reduction'". Thus, Nixon was not in fact the originator of what came to be called the "war on drugs".[http://www.ibhinc.org/pdfs/IBHCommentaryonGlobalCommissionReport71211.pdf Global Commission on Drug Policy Offers Reckless, Vague Drug Legalization Proposal, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc, July 12, 2011] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726165232/http://ibhinc.org/pdfs/IBHCommentaryonGlobalCommissionReport71211.pdf|date=July 26, 2011}}. (PDF). During Nixon's term, some 70% of federal anti-drug money was spent on demand-side public health measures, and 30% on supply-side interdiction and punishment, a funding ratio not repeated under subsequent administrations.{{Sfn|Lopez|2016b|ps="According to the federal government's budget numbers for anti-drug programs, the 'demand' side of the war on drugs (treatment, education, and prevention) consistently got more funding during Nixon's time in office (1969 to 1974) than the 'supply' side (law enforcement and interdiction). ... Historically, this is a commitment for treating drugs as a public health issue that the federal government has not replicated since the 1970s. (Although President Barack Obama's budget proposal would, for the first time in decades, put a majority of anti-drug spending on the demand side once again.)"}}{{Cite web |last=The Editorial Board |date=Feb 22, 2023 |title=America Has Lost the War On Drugs. What Now? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/opinion/harm-reduction-public-health.html |website=New York Times}}

The war on drugs under the next two presidents, Gerald Ford (1974–77) and Jimmy Carter (1977–81), was essentially a continuation of their predecessors' policies. Carter's campaign platform included decriminalization of cannabis and an end to federal penalties for possession of up to one ounce. In a 1977 "Drug Abuse Message to the Congress", Carter stated, "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself." None of his advocacy was translated into law.{{Cite web |last=Sullum |first=Jacob |date=Jun 17, 2011 |title=Did Jimmy Carter End the War on Drugs? |url=https://reason.com/2011/06/17/did-jimmy-carter-end-the-war-o/ |access-date=Dec 19, 2023 |website=Reason}}{{Cite web |last=Carter |first=Jimmy |date=August 2, 1977 |title=Drug Abuse Message to the Congress |url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/drug-abuse-message-the-congress#axzz1PSLOq2Hj |access-date=Dec 19, 2023 |website=The American Presidency Project – UC Santa Barbara}}

The presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–89) saw an increase in federal focus on interdiction and prosecution. Shortly after his inauguration, Reagan announced, "We're taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts; we're running up a battle flag."Whitford and Yates. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda, 58. From 1980 to 1984, the annual budget of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) drug enforcement units went from $8 million to $95 million.{{cite book |last1=Beckett |first1=Katherine |title=Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics |date=1997 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=0195136268 |edition=1999 Revised |location=London |pages=52–53, 167}}{{cite book |author=((98th Congress, 1st Session)) |title=Federal Budget of United States Government, 1984 |publisher=Federal Reserve of Saint Louis |page=451}} In 1982, Vice President George H. W. Bush and his aides began pushing for the involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US military in drug interdiction efforts.Scott and Marshall, 1991: p. 2

Early in the Reagan term, First Lady Nancy Reagan, with the help of an advertising agency, began her youth-oriented "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign. Propelled by the First Lady's tireless promotional efforts through the 1980s, "Just Say No" entered the American vernacular. Later research found that the campaign had little or no impact on youth drug use.{{Cite web |last=Stuart |first=Tessa |date=Mar 7, 2016 |title=Pop-Culture Legacy of Nancy Reagan's 'Just Say No' Campaign |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/pop-culture-legacy-of-nancy-reagans-just-say-no-campaign-224749/ |access-date=Dec 29, 2023 |website=Rolling Stone}}{{Cite web |last1=Lilienfeld |first1=Scott O. |last2=Arkowitz |first2=Hal |date=Jan 1, 2014 |title=Why "Just Say No" Doesn't Work |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-just-say-no-doesnt-work/ |access-date=Dec 29, 2023 |website=Scientific American}}{{Cite web |date=Aug 21, 2018 |title=Just Say No |url=https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/just-say-no |access-date=Dec 29, 2023 |website=History.com}} One striking change attributed to the effort: public perception of drug abuse as America's most serious problem, in the 2-6% range in 1985, rose to 64% in 1989.{{Cite web |last=Tarricone |first=Jackson |date=Sep 10, 2020 |title=Richard Nixon and the Origins of the War on Drugs |url=https://www.bostonpoliticalreview.org/post/richard-nixon-and-the-origins-of-the-war-on-drugs |access-date=Jan 17, 2024 |website=Boston Political Review}}

In January 1982, Reagan established the South Florida Task Force, chaired by Bush, targeting a surge of cocaine and cannabis entering through the Miami region, and the sharp rise in related crime. The project involved the DEA, the Customs Service, the FBI and other agencies, and Armed Forces ships and planes. It was called the "most ambitious and expensive drug enforcement operation" in US history; critics called it an election year political stunt. By 1986, the task force had made over 15,000 arrests and seized over six million pounds of cannabis and 100,000 pounds of cocaine, doubling cocaine seizures annually{{snd}}administration officials called it Reagan's biggest drug enforcement success. However, law enforcement agents at the time said their impact was minimal; cocaine imports had increased by 10%, to an estimated 75-80% of America's supply. According to the head of the task force's investigative unit, "Law enforcement just can't stop the drugs from coming in." A Bush spokesperson emphasized disrupting smuggling routes rather than seizure quantities as the measure of success."{{Cite web |last=Brinkley |first=Joel |date=Sep 4, 1986 |title=4-Year Fight in Florida 'Just Can't Stop Drugs' |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/04/us/4-year-fight-in-florida-just-can-t-stop-drugs.html |access-date=Apr 24, 2024 |website=New York Times}}{{Cite news |last=Pincus |first=Walter |date=October 7, 1982 |title=War on Florida Drug Smugglers Is Costly, Political, Makes a Dent |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/10/08/war-on-florida-drug-smugglers-is-costly-political-makes-a-dent/11fcc04d-c20b-4176-bed7-06547f1d8675/ |access-date=Apr 24, 2024 |newspaper=Washington Post}}{{Cite web |last=President's Commission on Organized Crime |date=1986 |title=America's Habit: Drug Abuse, Drug Trafficking, & Organized Crime{{snd}}Chapter V Drug Enforcement, Policy, and Reducing Drug Demand |url=https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/govpubs/amhab/amhabc5.htm |access-date=Apr 24, 2024 |website=Shaffer Library of Drug Policy}}

In 1984, Reagan signed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which included harsher penalties for cannabis cultivation, possession, and distribution. It also established equitable sharing, a new civil asset forfeiture program that allowed state and local law enforcement to share the proceeds from asset seizures made in collaboration with federal agencies.{{cite web |last1=Thurmond |first1=Strom |title=S.1762 – 98th Congress (1983–1984): Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/senate-bill/1762 |website=www.congress.gov |access-date=26 June 2019 |date=25 September 1984 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190627002729/https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/senate-bill/1762 |archive-date=June 27, 2019 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |author=JOHN ENDERS (ASSOCIATED PRESS) |date=April 18, 1993 |title=Forfeiture Law Casts a Shadow on Presumption of Innocence : Legal system: Government uses the statute to seize money and property believed to be linked to narcotics trafficking. But critics say it short-circuits the Constitution. |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-04-18-me-24209-story.html |access-date=October 11, 2014 |work=Los Angeles Times |quote=....Prosecutors and law enforcement officials insist the program, included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, is helping them fight the drug war. ... seizures hurt dealers where it counts--in the pocketbook....}} Under the controversial program, up to 80% of seizure proceeds can go to local law enforcement, expanding their budgets. {{As of|2019|pre=By|bare=yes}}, $36.5 billion worth of assets had been seized, much of it drug-related, much of it distributed to state and local agencies.{{Cite web |last=Freivogel |first=William |date=Feb 18, 2019 |title=No Drugs, No Crime and Just Pennies for School: How Police Use Civil Asset Forfeiture |url=https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/no-drugs-no-crime-and-just-pennies-school-how-police-use-civil-asset-forfeiture |access-date=Feb 13, 2024 |website=Pulitzer Center}}

At the same time, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was accused of facilitating the drug trade in Mexico and elsewhere in order to fund anticommunist guerilla forces in Central and South America. A number of former DEA agents, CIA agents, Mexican police officers, and historians contend that the CIA was complicit in the murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena, who discovered and attempted to reveal the CIA's role in the drug trade.{{refn|name=CIAcomplicit|{{cite web |last1=Russell |first1=Tiller |title=The Last Narc (Documentary) |url=https://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Narc-Season-1/dp/B08D1QKRVD |website=The Last Narc (Documentary) |publisher=Amazon Studios |access-date=5 October 2023 |archive-date=August 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200805220639/https://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Narc-Season-1/dp/B08D1QKRVD |url-status=live }}{{cite book |last1=Berrellez |first1=Hector |title=The Last Narc: A Memoir by the DEA's Most Notorious Agent |date=2021 |publisher=Renaissance Literary & Talent |isbn=978-1-950369-32-4 }}{{cite news |last1=Chaparro |first1=Luis |last2=Esquivel |first2=J. Jesus |title=A Camarena lo ejecutó la CIA, no Caro Quintero |url=https://www.proceso.com.mx/reportajes/2013/10/12/camarena-lo-ejecuto-la-cia-no-caro-quintero-124586.html |access-date=5 October 2023 |publisher=Proceso |date=12 October 2013 |archive-date=October 19, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231019170300/https://www.proceso.com.mx/reportajes/2013/10/12/camarena-lo-ejecuto-la-cia-no-caro-quintero-124586.html |url-status=live }}{{cite book |last1=Esquivel |first1=J. Jesus Esquivel |title=La CIA, Camarena y Caro Quintero: la historia secreta |date=2014 |publisher=Grijalbo }}{{cite news |last1=Bowden |first1=Charles |last2=Molloy |first2=Molly |title=Blood on the Corn |url=https://medium.com/@readmatter/blood-on-the-corn-the-complete-story-488f55d4f9ea |access-date=5 October 2023 |publisher=Medium |date=19 November 2014 |archive-date=October 19, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231019170300/https://medium.com/@readmatter/blood-on-the-corn-the-complete-story-488f55d4f9ea |url-status=live }}{{cite book |last1=Bartley |first1=Russell |last2=Bartley |first2=Sylvia |title=Eclipse of the Assassins |date=2015 |publisher=University of Wisconsin Press |url=https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/5402.htm |access-date=5 October 2023 |archive-date=October 19, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231019170300/https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/5402.htm |url-status=live }}{{cite journal |last1=Pansters |first1=Will |title=Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico's Cold War |journal=European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies |date=2017 |volume=103 |issue=103 |pages=143–156 |doi=10.18352/erlacs.10245 |doi-access=free }}}} Between 2013 and 2015, the Mexican newspaper Proceso, journalist Jesús Esquivel, journalists Charles Bowden and Molly Malloy, and historians Russell and Silvia Bartley published investigative reports and books making the same allegation. They wrote that Camarena, like Mexican journalist Manuel Buendía, discovered that the CIA helped organize drug trafficking from Mexico into the United States in order to fund the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua as a part of the Cold War. Historian Wil Pansters explained that US victory in the Cold War was more important to the CIA than the DEA's War on Drugs:{{bq|Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugs-DFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.}}

The CIA has denied allegations of involvement in killing Camarena.{{cite news |last1=Oganesyan |first1=Natalie |title=Former DEA Agent Accuses Amazon of Portraying Him as Murder Accessory in 'The Last Narc' |url=https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/james-kuykendall-lawsuit-amazon-the-last-narc-1234868193/ |access-date=5 October 2023 |publisher=Variety |date=21 December 2020 |archive-date=December 22, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222063516/https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/james-kuykendall-lawsuit-amazon-the-last-narc-1234868193/ |url-status=live }} Historian Benjamin T. Smith said the allegations have "...holes. Big holes." He also calls Russell and Silvia Bartley's investigation "occasionally paranoid" and notes the fact that "Many-including some members of the DEA" dismiss one of the key sources for this (i.e. Lawrence Victor Harrison) as a "crank". However Smith also acknowledged the fact that the case is a "deep, dark hole....[where] Fiction and reality are firmly intertwined."{{cite book |last1=Smith |first1=Benjamin T. |title=The Dope: The Real History of the Mexican Drug Trade| year=2021| publisher=W.W. Norton| isbn=978-1-324-02182-7| pages=358–360}}

As the media focused on the emergence of crack cocaine in the early 1980s, the Reagan administration shored up negative public opinion, encouraging the DEA to emphasize the harmful effects of the drug. Stories of "crack whores" and "crack babies" became commonplace.Michelle Alexander. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. (New York: The New Press, 2010), 51. In mid-1986, crack dominated the news. Time declared crack the issue of the year. Newsweek compared the magnitude of the crack story to Vietnam and Watergate.{{Cite web |last=Gelber |first=Jonathan |date=29 Jun 2021 |title=How Len Bias's death helped launch the US's unjust war on drugs |url=https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/29/len-bias-death-basketball-war-on-drugs |access-date=Dec 18, 2023 |website=The Guardian}} The cocaine overdose deaths of rising basketball star Len Bias, and young NFL football player Don Rogers,{{Cite web|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xbhaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8VkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3461,3972101&dq=don+rogers+died&hl=en|title=The Evening Independent - Google News Archive Search|website=news.google.com}} both in June, received wide coverage. Riding the wave of public fervor, that October Reagan signed into law much harsher sentencing for crack through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, commonly known as the Len Bias law.Whitford and Yates. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda, 61. According to historian Elizabeth Hinton, "[Reagan] led Congress in criminalizing drug users, especially African American drug users, by concentrating and stiffening penalties for the possession of the crystalline rock form of cocaine, known as 'crack', rather than the crystallized methamphetamine that White House officials recognized was as much of a problem among low-income white Americans".Hinton, Elizabeth. "From the War on Crime to the War on Drugs". From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: the Making of Mass Incarceration in America, by Elizabeth Hinton, Harvard University Press, 2017, pp. 307–332.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act appropriated an additional $1.7 billion to drug war funding, and established 29 new mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses (until then, the American legal system had seen 55 minimum sentences in total).Jesse Ventura. American Conspiracies (New York: Skyshore Publishing, 2010), 117. Of particular note, the act made sentences for larger amounts of cocaine 100 times more severe for crack than for the powder form. With the 100:1 ratio, conviction in federal court for possession of 5 grams of crack would receive the same 5-year mandatory minimum as possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine.{{Cite book |last=Elsner |first=Alan |url=https://archive.org/details/gatesofinjustice00elsn/page/20 |title=Gates of Injustice: The Crisis in America's Prisons |publisher=Financial Times Prentice Hall |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-13-142791-4 |location=Saddle River, New Jersey |page=[https://archive.org/details/gatesofinjustice00elsn/page/20 20]}} Debate at the time considered whether crack, generally used by blacks, was more addictive than the powder form, generally used by whites, comparing the effects of snorting powder cocaine with the briefer, more intense high from smoking crack;{{Cite journal |last1=Hatsukami |first1=D.K. |last2=Fischman |first2=M.W. |date=Nov 20, 1996 |title=Crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride. Are the differences myth or reality? JAMA. 1996 Nov 20;276(19):1580-8. PMID: 8918856. |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8918856/ |journal=JAMA |volume=276 |issue=19 |pages=1580–1588 |doi=10.1001/jama.1996.03540190052029 |pmid=8918856 |access-date=Jan 29, 2024 |quote=Cocaine hydrochloride is readily converted to base prior to use. The physiological and psychoactive effects of cocaine are similar regardless of whether it is in the form of cocaine hydrochloride or crack cocaine (cocaine base). However, evidence exists showing a greater abuse liability, greater propensity for dependence, and more severe consequences when cocaine is smoked (cocaine-base) or injected intravenously (cocaine hydrochloride) compared with intranasal use (cocaine hydrochloride). The crucial variables appear to be the immediacy, duration, and magnitude of cocaine's effect, as well as the frequency and amount of cocaine used rather than the form of the cocaine. Furthermore, cocaine hydrochloride used intranasally may be a gateway drug or behavior to using crack cocaine.}} pharmacologically, there is no difference between the two.{{Cite web |title=Cocaine and crack drug profile |url=https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/drug-profiles/cocaine_en#pharmacology |access-date=Jan 29, 2024 |website=European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction}} According to the DEA, at first crack "was not fully appreciated as a major threat because it was primarily being consumed by middle class users who were not associated with cocaine addicts ... However, partly because crack sold for as little as $5 a rock, it ultimately spread to less affluent neighborhoods."{{Cite web |date=2006-08-23 |title=DEA History Book, 1985–1990 |url=https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/1985-1990_p_58-67.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060823024931/http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/history/1985-1990.html |archive-date=August 23, 2006 |access-date=2024-01-29 |website=Drug Enforcement Administration}}

Support for Reagan's drug crime legislation was bipartisan. According to historian Hinton, Democrats supported drug legislation as they had since the Johnson administration, though Reagan was a Republican.

Internationally, the Reagan term saw a huge increase in US military anti-drug activity in other countries. The Department of Defense budget for interdiction increased from $4.9 million in 1982 to $397 million by 1987. The DEA also expanded its foreign presence. Countries were encouraged to adopt the same type of punitive drug approach that was in place in the US, with the threat of economic sanctions for non-compliance. The UN Single Convention provided a legal framework, and in 1988, the Convention against Illicit Traffic expanded that framework, working the US-style punitive approach into international law.{{Cite book |last1=Buxton |first1=Julia |title=The Impact of Global Drug Policy on Women: Shifting the Needle |last2=Burger |first2=Lona |publisher=Emerald Publishing |year=2020 |isbn=978-1-83982-885-0 |pages=9–22 |chapter=International Drug Policy in Context |doi=10.1108/978-1-83982-882-920200003}}

By the end of Reagan's presidency in 1989, illicit drugs were more readily available and cheaper than at the start of his first term in 1981.{{Cite web |last=Foldvary |first=Fred E. |date=Jul 15, 2013 |title=The Foreign Economic Effect of the U.S. War on Drugs |url=https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/13606/Foldvary.pdf |access-date=Aug 7, 2024 |website=Oregon Law Review}}{{additional citations needed|date=April 2025}}

File:George_H._W._Bush_holds_up_a_bag_of_crack_cocaine_during_his_Address_to_the_Nation_on_National_Drug_Control_Strategy.jpg holds up a bag of crack cocaine during his Address to the Nation on National Drug Control Strategy on September 5, 1989.]]

Next to occupy the Oval Office, Reagan protégé and former VP George H. W. Bush (1989–93) maintained the hard line drawn by his predecessor and former boss. In his first prime-time address to the nation, Bush held up a plastic bag of crack "seized a few days ago in a park across the street from the White House" (it was later revealed that DEA agents had to lure the seller to Lafayette Park to make the requested arrest).{{Cite news |last=Isikoff |first=Michael |date=Sep 22, 1989 |title=Drug Buy Set Up For Bush Speech |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/tours/scandal/bushdrug.htm |access-date=Dec 12, 2023 |newspaper=Washington Post}} The administration increased narcotics regulation in the first National Drug Control Strategy, issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in 1989.Tonry. Malign Neglect – Race, Crime and Punishment in America, 91. The director of ONDCP became commonly known as the US drug czar. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 1990–91, Congress included Section 1208{{snd}}the 1208 Program, expanded into the 1033 Program in 1996{{snd}}authorizing the Department of Defense to transfer surplus military equipment that the DoD determined to be "suitable for use in counter-drug activities", to local law enforcement agencies.{{Cite web |last=Wofford |first=Taylor |date=Feb 25, 2016 |title=How America's Police Became an Army: The 1033 Program |url=https://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-army-1033-program-264537 |access-date=May 14, 2024 |website=Newsweek}}

As president, Bill Clinton (1993–2001), seeking to reposition the Democratic Party as tough on crime,{{Cite book |last=From |first=Al |title=The New Democrats and the Return to Power |date=2013 |publisher=St. Martin's Publishing Group |isbn=978-1-137-40144-1 |page=198}} dramatically raised the stakes for drug felonies with his signing of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The act introduced the federal "three-strikes" provision that mandated life imprisonment for violent offenders with two prior convictions for violent crimes or drugs, and provided billions of dollars in funding for states to expand their prison systems and increase law enforcement.{{Cite web |last=Farley |first=Robert |date=April 12, 2016 |title=Bill Clinton and the 1994 Crime Bill |url=https://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-the-1994-crime-bill/ |access-date=Dec 21, 2023 |website=FactCheck.org}} During this period, state and local governments initiated controversial drug policies that demonstrated racial biases, such as the stop-and-frisk police practice in New York City, and state-level "three strikes" felony laws, which began with California in 1994.Michelle Alexander. The New Jim Crow – Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, 92

During the 1990s, opioid use in the US dramatically rose, leading to the ongoing situation commonly called the opioid epidemic. A loose consensus of observers describe three main phases to date: overprescription of legal opioids beginning in the early to mid-1990s; a rise in heroin use in the later 2000s as prescription opioids became more difficult to obtain; and the rise of more powerful fentanyl and other synthetic opioids around the mid-2010s.{{Cite journal |last1=Pembleton |first1=Matthew R. |last2=Weimer |first2=Daniel |title=US Foreign Relations and the New Drug History |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/702690 |journal=The Social History of Alcohol and Drugs |date=2019 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |volume=33 |issue=1|pages=4–12 |doi=10.1086/702690 |url-access=subscription }}{{Cite web |date=January 2020 |title=Fentanyl Flow to the United States |url=https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/DEA_GOV_DIR-008-20%20Fentanyl%20Flow%20in%20the%20United%20States_0.pdf |access-date=Jun 2, 2024 |website=Drug Enforcement Administration}}{{Cite report |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w29983.pdf |title=The Opioid Crisis, Health, Healthcare, and Crime: A Review Of Quasi-Experimental Economic Studies |last1=Maclean |first1=Johanna Catherine |last2=Mallatt |first2=Justine |date=Apr 2022 |publisher=National Bureau of Economic Research |issue=w29983 |doi=10.3386/w29983 |location=Cambridge, MA |language=en |last3=Ruhm |first3=Christopher |last4=Simon |first4=Kosali |ref={{sfnref|Maclean|2022}}}} Prior to 1990s, the use of opioids to treat chronic pain in the US was limited; some scholars suggest there was hesitation to prescribe opioids due to historical problems with addiction dating back to the 1800s. A critical point in the development of the epidemic is often seen as the release in 1996 of OxyContin (oxicodone) by Purdue Pharma, and the subsequent aggressive and deceptive opioid marketing efforts by Purdue and other pharma companies, conducted without sufficient official oversight.{{Sfn|Maclean|2022|p=4}} Thus the problem emerged from within the healthcare system: the DEA initially targeted doctors, pharmacists, pill mills, and pharmaceutical companies. As law enforcement cracked down on the pharmaceutical supply, illicit drug trafficking in opioids grew to meet demand.{{Citation |title=Evidence on Strategies for Addressing the Opioid Epidemic |date=2017-07-13 |work=Pain Management and the Opioid Epidemic: Balancing Societal and Individual Benefits and Risks of Prescription Opioid Use |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK458653/ |access-date=2024-10-13 |publisher=National Academies Press (US) |language=en |last5=Phillips |first5=Jonathan K. |last6=Ford |first6=Morgan A. |last7=Bonnie |first7=Richard J.}}

The George W. Bush (2001–2009) administration maintained the hard line approach.Whitford and Yates. Presidential Rhetoric and the Public Agenda. 72 In a TV interview in February 2001, Bush's new attorney general, John Ashcroft, said about the war on drugs, "I want to renew it. I want to refresh it, relaunch it if you will." In 2001, after 9/11 and the Patriot Act, the DEA began highlighting the tie between drug trafficking and international terrorism, gaining the agency expanded funding to increase its global presence.{{Cite web |last=Beith |first=Malcolm |date=August 29, 2016 |title=The DEA's war on narco-terrorism just got more complicated |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/59e88n/the-dea-war-on-narco-terrorism-just-got-more-complicated |access-date=Feb 13, 2024 |website=Vice}}

File:World prison population 2008.svg. "The information is the latest available in early December 2008. ... Most figures relate to dates between the beginning of 2006 and the end of November 2008." According to the summary on page one there were 2.29 million U.S. inmates and 9.8 million inmates worldwide. The U.S. held 23.4% of the world's inmates. The U.S. total in this report is for December 31, 2007 (see p. 3), and does not include inmates in juvenile detention facilities.[https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6226 Correctional Populations in the United States, 2016] (NCJ 251211). Published April 2018 by U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). By Danielle Kaeble and Mary Cowhig, BJS statisticians. See [https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.pdf PDF]. Appendix table 1 on p. 11 has rates and counts by state. See p. 1 "highlights" section for the "1 in ..." numbers. See table 4 on page 4 for a timeline of nationwide incarceration rates. See appendix table 3 on p. 13, for "Persons held in custody in state or federal prisons or in local jails, 2000, 2010, and 2015–2016". That table also has incarceration rates. See appendix, table 2, p. 12 for the number or persons incarcerated in territorial prisons, military facilities, and jails in Indian country.]]

File:US timeline graphs of number of people incarcerated in jails and prisons.png, 2021.]]

File:No More Drug War - 6316413344.jpg

In mid-2001, a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "The Drug War is the New Jim Crow", tied the vastly disproportionate rate of African American incarceration to the range of rights lost once convicted. It stated that, while "whites and blacks use drugs at almost exactly the same rates ... African-Americans are admitted to state prisons at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than whites, a disparity driven largely by the grossly racial targeting of drug laws." Between federal and state laws, those convicted of even simple possession could lose the right to vote, eligibility for educational assistance including loans and work-study programs, custody of their children, and personal property including homes. The report concluded that the cumulative effect of the war on drugs amounted to "the US apartheid, the new Jim Crow".{{cite web |last=Boyd |first=Graham |year=2001 |title=The Drug War Is the New Jim Cro |url=http://www.aclu.org/other/drug-war-new-jim-crow |work=American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)}} This view was further developed by lawyer and civil rights advocate Michelle Alexander in her 2010 book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.{{cite news|last=Remnick|first= David|title=Ten Years After 'The New Jim Crow.'|newspaper= The New Yorker|date= 17 January 2020|url= http://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/ten-years-after-the-new-jim-crow}}

In the year 2000, the US drug-control budget reached $18.4 billion,Alter, Jonathan. "The War on Addiction". Newsweek, February 12, 2001, pp. 37–43 nearly half of which was spent financing law enforcement while only one-sixth was spent on treatment. In the year 2003, 53% of the requested drug control budget was for enforcement, 29% for treatment, and 18% for prevention.How Goes the "War on Drugs": An Assessment of U.S. Drug Problems and Policy. RAND Corporation Drug Policy Research Center, 2005

During his presidency, Barack Obama (2009–2017) implemented his "tough but smart" approach to the war on drugs. While he claimed that his method differed from those of previous presidents, in reality, his practices were similar.Lassiter, Matthew. "'Tough and Smart' The Resilience of the War on Drugs During the Obama Administration." The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment, edited by Julian E. Zelizer, Princeton University Press, 2018, pp. 162–178. In May 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the ONDCP{{snd}}Obama's drug czar{{snd}}indicated that the Obama administration did not plan to significantly alter drug enforcement policy, but that it would not use the term "war on drugs", considering it to be "counter-productive".{{Cite news |last=Fields |first=Gary |date=May 14, 2009 |title=White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs' |work=The Wall Street Journal |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124225891527617397 |url-status=live |access-date=May 14, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150101124834/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124225891527617397 |archive-date=January 1, 2015}} In August 2010, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law, reducing the 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to 18:1 for pending and future cases.{{Cite web |last=Lampe |first=Joanna R. |date=January 19, 2023 |title=The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 118th Congress |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/r/r45948 |access-date=Mar 28, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service |page=43}}[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080204360.html "The Fair Sentencing Act corrects a long-time wrong in cocaine cases"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171120014727/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080204360.html|date=November 20, 2017}}, The Washington Post, August 3, 2010. Retrieved September 30, 2010.[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01789:@@@L&summ2=m& Bill Summary & Status – 111th Congress (2009–2010) – S.1789 – All Information – THOMAS (Library of Congress)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140922214716/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01789:@@@L&summ2=m&|date=September 22, 2014}}. Thomas.loc.gov. In 2013, Obama's Justice Department issued a policy memorandum known as the Cole Memo, stating that it would defer to state laws that authorize the production, distribution and possession of cannabis, "based on assurances that those states will impose an appropriately strict regulatory system."{{Cite web |last=Avery |first=Dan |date=May 31, 2023 |title=Where Is Marijuana Legal? Cannabis Laws in Every State |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/marijuana-laws-by-state-where-is-weed-legal/ |access-date=Apr 21, 2024 |website=CNET}}{{Cite web |date=August 29, 2013 |title=Justice Department Announces Update to Marijuana Enforcement Policy |url=https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf |access-date=Apr 21, 2024 |website=US Department of Justice}}

In 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, an international non-governmental group composed primarily of former heads of state and government, and leaders from various sectors, released a report that stated, "The global war on drugs has failed." It recommended a paradigm shift, to a public health focus, with decriminalization for possession and personal use.{{Cite web|url=https://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf|title=War on Drugs: Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy}} Obama's ONDCP did not support the report, stating: "Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated. Making drugs more available ... will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe."

File:Attorney General Harris Tours U.S.-Mexico Border N2063 border 3 0.jpg visiting the U.S.–Mexico border on March 24, 2011, to discuss strategies to combat drug cartels]]

In May 2012, the ONDCP published "Principles of Modern Drug Policy", broadly focusing on public health, human rights, and criminal justice reform, while targeting drug traffickers.[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ondcp/policy-and-research/principles-of-modern-drug-policy Principles of Modern Drug Policy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170123192527/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ondcp/policy-and-research/principles-of-modern-drug-policy |date=January 23, 2017 }}. Whitehouse.gov. According to ONDCP director Kerlikowske, drug legalization is not the "silver bullet" solution to drug control, and success is not measured by the number of arrests made or prisons built.[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ondcp/news-releases-remarks/principles-of-modern-drug-policy-directors-remarks-at-the-world-federation-against-drugs Statement of the Government of the United States of America World Federation Against Drugs 3rd World Forum, May 21, 2012, Stockholm, Sweden] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170123192355/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ondcp/news-releases-remarks/principles-of-modern-drug-policy-directors-remarks-at-the-world-federation-against-drugs |date=January 23, 2017 }}. Whitehouse.gov (September 21, 2012). That month, a joint statement, "For a humane and balanced drug policy", was signed by Italy, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the US, promoting a combination of "enforcement to restrict the supply of drugs, with efforts to reduce demand and build recovery."{{Cite web|url=http://www.wfad.se/images/articles/Final_statement_WFAD.pdf|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160109132326/http://www.wfad.se/images/articles/Final_statement_WFAD.pdf|url-status=dead|title=Joint statement For a humane and balanced drug policy, Stockholm 20 May 2012|archivedate=January 9, 2016}} Meanwhile, at the state level, 2012 saw Colorado and Washington become the first two states to legalize the recreational use of cannabis with the passage of Amendment 64 and Initiative 502 respectively.{{cite news |last1=Coffman |first1=Keith |last2=Neroulias |first2=Nicole |date=November 6, 2012 |title=Colorado, Washington first states to legalize recreational pot |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-marijuana-legalization/colorado-washington-first-states-to-legalize-recreational-pot-idUSBRE8A602D20121107 |access-date=February 9, 2018}}

A 2013 ACLU report declared the anti-marijuana crusade a "war on people of color". The report found that "African Americans [were] 3.73 times more likely than whites to be apprehended despite nearly identical usage rates, and marijuana violations accounting for more than half of drug arrests nationwide during the previous decade". Under Obama's policies, nonwhite drug offenders received less excessive criminal sanctions, but by examining criminals as strictly violent or nonviolent, mass incarceration persisted.

In March 2016, the International Narcotics Control Board stated that the UN's international drug treaties do not mandate a "war on drugs" and that the choice is not between "'militarized' drug law enforcement on one hand and the legalization of non-medical use of drugs on the other", health and welfare should be the focus of drug policy.[http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2016/unisnar1264.html INCB Report 2015 ] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170426031831/http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2016/unisnar1264.html |date=April 26, 2017 }} United Nations Information Service 2.3.2016. That April, the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the "World Drug Problem" was held.{{Cite web |date=2016 |title=30th Special Session of the General Assembly on the World Drug Problem, 19-21 April 2016, New York |url=https://www.un.org/en/conferences/drug/newyork2016 |access-date=Apr 9, 2024 |website=United Nations}} The Wall Street Journal assessed the attendees' positions as "somewhat" in two camps: "Some European and South American countries as well as the U.S. favored softer approaches. Eastern countries such as China and Russia and most Muslim nations like Iran, Indonesia and Pakistan remained staunchly opposed."Fassihi, Farnaz, [https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-conference-on-drugs-ends-without-shift-in-policy-1461299583 "U.N. Conference on Drugs Ends Without Shift in Policy"], Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-25. The outcome document recommended treatment, prevention and other public health measures, and committed to "intensifying our efforts to prevent and counter" drug production and trafficking, through, "inter alia, more effective drug-related crime prevention and law enforcement measures."{{Cite web |date=2016 |title=Outcome Document of the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem |url=https://www.unodc.org/documents/postungass2016/outcome/V1603301-E.pdf |access-date=Apr 9, 2024 |website=United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime}}[http://enewspf.com/2016/04/21/public-statement-by-the-global-commission-on-drug-policy-on-ungass-2016 "Public Statement by the Global Commission on Drug Policy on UNGASS 2016"], Press release, April 21, 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-25.

Under President Donald Trump (2017–2021), Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the previous Justice Department's cannabis policies, rescinding the Cole Memo that deferred federal enforcement in states where cannabis had been legalized{{citation |author=Laura Jarrett |title=Sessions to nix Obama-era rules leaving states alone that legalize pot |date=January 4, 2018 |url=http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/jeff-sessions-cole-memo/index.html |publisher=CNN}} He instructed federal prosecutors to "charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense" in drug cases, regardless of whether mandatory minimum sentences applied, which could trigger mandatory minimums for lower-level charges.{{Cite web |date=May 12, 2017 |title=Jeff Sessions enacts harsher sentencing and charges in criminal justice overhaul |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/12/jeff-sessions-prison-sentences-obama-criminal-justice |access-date=Apr 21, 2024 |website=The Guardian}}{{Cite web |last=Beckett |first=Lois |date=Aug 21, 2017 |title=How Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump have restarted the war on drugs |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/21/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-war-on-drugs |access-date=Jan 14, 2024 |website=The Guardian}}{{Cite magazine |last=Laslo |first=Matt |date=January 19, 2018 |title=Pot Showdown: How Congress Is Uniting to Stop Jeff Sessions' War on Drugs |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/pot-showdown-how-congress-is-uniting-to-stop-jeff-sessions-war-on-drugs-203859/ |access-date=Jan 14, 2024 |magazine=Rolling Stone}} With cannabis legalized to some degree in over 30 states, Sessions' directive was seen by both Democrats and Republicans as a rogue throwback action, and there was a bipartisan outcry. Trump fired Sessions in 2018 over other issues.{{Cite web |date=November 8, 2018 |title=Trump fires Attorney General Jeff Sessions |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46132348 |access-date=Jan 14, 2024 |website=BBC}}

File:US timeline. Opioid deaths.jpg were involved in 81,806 overdose deaths in 2022, up from around 10,000 in 1999.]]

In 2018, Trump signed into law the First Step Act which, among other federal prison reforms, made the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. A US Supreme Court decision in 2021 determined that retroactivity applied to cases where mandatory minimum penalties had been imposed.{{Sfn|Lampe|2023|p=44}}

In 2020, both the ACLU and The New York Times reported that Republicans and Democrats were in agreement that it was time to end the war on drugs. While on the presidential campaign trail, President Joe Biden (2021–2025) stated that he would take the steps to alleviate the war on drugs and end the opioid epidemic.{{cite web |last=Ofer |first=Udi |date=6 January 2021 |title=50 Years Into the War on Drugs, Biden-Harris Can Fix the Harm It Created |url=http://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/50-years-into-the-war-on-drugs-biden-harris-can-fix-the-harm-it-created/ |publisher=American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)}}{{cite news |first=Nicholas |last=Kristof |date=2020-11-07 |title=Republicans and Democrats Agree: End the War on Drugs |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/opinion/sunday/election-marijuana-legalization.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210628181409/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/opinion/sunday/election-marijuana-legalization.html |archive-date=2021-06-28}}

On December 4, 2020, during the Trump administration, the House of Representatives passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act), which would decriminalize cannabis at the federal level by removing it from the list of scheduled substances, expunge past convictions and arrests, and tax cannabis to "reinvest in communities targeted by the war on drugs".{{Cite web |date=Apr 1, 2022 |title=Summary: H.R.3617{{snd}}117th Congress (2021–2022) |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3617 |access-date=Jan 28, 2024 |website=Congress.gov}} The MORE Act was received in the Senate in December 2020 where it remained.Nadler, Jerrold. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3884 "H.R.3884 – 116th Congress (2019–2020): MORE Act of 2020"]; {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210210093633/https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3884 |date=February 10, 2021 }} Congress.gov, 7 Dec. 2020. In April 2022, the act was again passed by the House, and awaits Senate action.{{Cite web |last=Adams |first=Benjamin M. |date=Apr 1, 2022 |title=U.S. House Passes MORE Act To Decriminalize Cannabis at the Federal Level |url=https://hightimes.com/news/u-s-house-passes-more-act-to-decriminalize-cannabis-at-the-federal-level/ |access-date=Mar 17, 2024 |website=High Times}}

Over time, states in the US have approached drug liberalization at a varying pace. Initially, in the 1930s, the states were ahead of the federal government in prohibiting cannabis; in recent decades, the trend has reversed. Beginning with cannabis for medical use in California in 1996, states began to legalize cannabis. {{As of|2023}}, 38 states, four US territories, and the District of Columbia (DC) had legalized cannabis for medical use;{{cite web |date=June 27, 2018 |title=State Medical Marijuana Laws |url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx |access-date=July 3, 2018 |website=National Conference of State Legislatures}} for non-medical use, 24 of the states, three territories, and DC, had legalized it, and seven states decriminalized.{{cite web |title=MARIJUANA OVERVIEW |url=http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx |access-date=January 23, 2018 |website=National Conference of State Legislatures}} Decriminalization in this context usually refers to first-time offenses and small quantities, such as, in the case of cannabis, under an ounce (28g).{{Cite web |date=September 23, 2020 |title=Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States |url=https://www.leafly.com/learn/legalization/decriminalized-states |access-date=Dec 21, 2023 |website=Leafly}} In November 2020, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize a number of drugs, including heroin, methamphetamine, PCP, LSD and oxycodone, shifting from a criminal approach to a public health approach;{{cite news |last=Selsky |first=Andrew |date=November 4, 2020 |title=Oregon leads the way in decriminalizing hard drugs |url=https://apnews.com/article/oregon-first-decriminalizing-hard-drugs-01edca37c776c9ea8bfd4afdd7a7a33e |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201122074111/https://apnews.com/article/oregon-first-decriminalizing-hard-drugs-01edca37c776c9ea8bfd4afdd7a7a33e |archive-date=November 22, 2020 |access-date=December 1, 2020 |work=Associated Press News |location=Salem, Oregon}}{{Cite news |date=3 November 2020 |title=Oregon Measure 110 Election Results: Decriminalize Some Drugs and Provide Treatment |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-oregon-measure-110-decriminalize-some-drugs-and-provide-treatment.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210202072131/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-oregon-measure-110-decriminalize-some-drugs-and-provide-treatment.html |archive-date=2 February 2021 |access-date=4 November 2020 |newspaper=The New York Times}} portions of that policy were reversed in April 2024.{{Cite web |last=Campbell |first=Josh |date=April 1, 2024 |title=Oregon governor signs drug re-criminalization bill, reversing voter ballot measure |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/01/politics/oregon-governor-drug-re-criminalization-bill/index.html |access-date=Apr 19, 2024 |website=CNN}}

In 2022, Biden signed into law the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, to allow cannabis to be more easily researched for medical purposes. It is the first standalone cannabis reform bill enacted at the federal level.{{cite news |last1=Wadman |first1=Meredith |date=December 2, 2022 |title=New U.S. law promises to light up marijuana research |work=Science Magazine |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/new-u-s-law-promises-light-marijuana-research |access-date=December 3, 2022}}{{cite news |last1=Jaeger |first1=Kyle |date=December 2, 2022 |title=Biden Signs Marijuana Research Bill, A Historic First For Federal Cannabis Reform |work=Marijuana Moment |url=https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-signs-marijuana-research-bill-a-historic-first-for-federal-cannabis-reform/ |access-date=December 3, 2022}}{{cite news |first=Natalie |last=Fertig |date=November 16, 2022 |title=Congress sends first weed bill to Biden |newspaper=Politico |url=https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2022/11/16/congress-sends-first-weed-bill-to-biden-00068082 |quote=Passage of the legislation signaled a new era in federal cannabis policy: It's the first standalone marijuana-related bill approved by both chambers of Congress.}} That October, Biden stated on social media, "We classify marijuana at the same level as heroin – and more serious than fentanyl. It makes no sense," and pledged to start a review by the Attorney General on how cannabis is classified.{{Cite web |last=Sinclair |first=Sarah |date=Jan 18, 2024 |title=DEA Considers Rescheduling Cannabis: What This Means For U.S. And Global Policy |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsinclair/2024/01/18/dea-considers-rescheduling-cannabis-what-this-means-for-us-and-global-reform/?sh=656879b3743f |access-date=Mar 16, 2024 |website=Forbes}} On October 6, he pardoned all those with federal convictions for simple cannabis possession (to a degree symbolic, as none of those affected were imprisoned at the time), and urged the states, where the large majority of convictions rest, to do the same. His action affected 6,500 people convicted from 1992 to 2021, and thousands convicted in the District of Columbia.{{Cite web |last1=Hutzler |first1=Alexandra |last2=Gomez |first2=Justin |date=October 6, 2022 |title=Biden announces pardons for thousands convicted of federal marijuana possession |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-announces-pardons-thousands-convicted-federal-marijuana-possession/story?id=91122888 |access-date=Apr 10, 2024 |website=ABC News}}

In 2023, the US State Department announced plans to launch a "global coalition to address synthetic drug threats", with more than 80 countries expected to join.{{cite web |last1=Paun |first1=Carmen |last2=Schumaker |first2=Erin |last3=Leonard |first3=Ben |title=Wanted: A united front against opioids |url=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/future-pulse/2023/07/06/can-the-world-unite-to-fight-opioids-00104840 |website=Politico |language=en |date=6 July 2023}}{{cite web |last1=Wilkinson |first1=Tracy |title=Biden administration to launch global coalition to fight fentanyl |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-07-07/us-coalition-fighting-fentanyl |website=Los Angeles Times |date=7 July 2023}}{{cite web |title=Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Todd D. Robinson On the Secretary's Participation in a Virtual Ministerial to Launch the Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats |url=https://www.state.gov/briefing-with-assistant-secretary-todd-d-robinson-on-the-secretarys-participation-in-a-virtual-ministerial-to-launch-the-global-coalition-to-address-synthetic-drug-threats/ |website=www.state.gov}} That April, Anne Milgram, head of the DEA since 2021, stated to Congress that two Mexican drug cartels posed "the greatest criminal threat the United States has ever faced." Supporting a DEA budget request of $3.7 billion for 2024, Milgram cited fentanyl in the "most devastating drug crisis in our nation's history."{{Cite web |last=MND Staff |date=April 28, 2023 |title=DEA: 2 Mexican cartels pose 'greatest criminal threat' ever faced by the US |url=https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/dea-2-mexican-cartels-pose-greatest-criminal-threat-ever-faced-by-the-us/ |access-date=Dec 21, 2023 |website=Mexico News Daily}}{{Cite web |last=Milgram |first=Anne |date=Apr 27, 2023 |title=Fiscal Year 2024 Request for the Drug Enforcement Administration |url=https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/HHRG-118-AP19-Wstate-MilgramA-20230427.pdf |access-date=Dec 21, 2023 |website=Drug Enforcement Administration}}

In October 2023, OFAC sanctioned a China-based network of fentanyl manufacturers and distributors.{{Cite news|last1=Goudsward|first1=Andrew|last2=Psaledakis|first2=Daphne|date=2023-10-03|title=US takes action against Chinese companies, people tied to fentanyl|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us-sanctions-china-based-network-accused-trafficking-fentanyl-2023-10-03/}} The drug is usually manufactured in China, then shipped to Mexico, where it is processed and packaged, which is then smuggled into the US by Mexican drug cartels.{{Cite web|last=Linthicum|first=Kate|date=2020-04-24|title=Coronavirus chokes the drug trade — from Wuhan, through Mexico and onto U.S. streets|url=https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-24/wuhan-china-coronavirus-fentanyl-global-drug-trade|access-date=2022-04-01|website=Los Angeles Times|language=en-US}}

In January 2024, the DEA confirmed that it was reviewing the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I narcotic. Days later, documents were released from the Department of Health and Human Services stating that cannabis has "a currently accepted medical use" in the US and a "potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II." On April 30, indicating a DEA decision, the Justice Department announced, "Today, the Attorney General circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act."{{Cite web |last1=Miller |first1=Zeke |last2=Goodman |first2=Joshua |last3=Mustian |first3=Jim |last4=Whitehurst |first4=Lindsay |date=April 30, 2024 |title=US poised to ease restrictions on marijuana in historic shift, but it'll remain controlled substance |url=https://apnews.com/article/marijuana-biden-dea-criminal-justice-pot-f833a8dae6ceb31a8658a5d65832a3b8 |access-date=May 11, 2024 |website=Associated Press}} Schedule III drugs, considered to have moderate to low potential for dependence, include ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone, and Tylenol with codeine.{{Cite web |title=Drug Scheduling |url=https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling |access-date=May 11, 2024 |website=Drug Enforcement Administration}}

In the DEA's "National Drug Threat Assessment 2024", director Milgram outlined the "most dangerous and deadly crisis", involving synthetic drugs including fentanyl and methamphetamine. She singled out the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels in Mexico, which manufacture the synthetics in Mexican labs supplied with precursor chemicals and machinery from China, sell through "vast distribution networks" in the US, and use Chinese money laundering operations to return the proceeds to Mexico. Milgram states, "As the lead law enforcement agency in the Administration's whole-of-government response to defeat the Cartels and combat the drug poisoning epidemic in our communities, DEA will continue to collaborate on strategic counterdrug initiatives with our law enforcement partners across the United States and the world."{{Cite web |date=2024 |title=National Drug Threat Assessment 2024 |url=https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/NDTA_2024.pdf |access-date=Jul 31, 2024 |publisher=Drug Enforcement Administration}}

During the Second presidency of Donald Trump, the CIA will play a larger and more aggressive role in combating drug cartels. It has been reported that the CIA has been conducting covert surveillance operations with unarmed drones in Mexico to monitor cartel activities.{{Cite news |date=February 17, 2025 |title=Under Trump, CIA plots bigger role in drug cartel fight |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/02/17/trump-cia-mexico-cartels/}}

In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order demanding that various drug cartels and criminal organizations (Sinaloa Cartel, Gulf Cartel, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, Jalisco New Generation Cartel, Northeast Cartel, United Cartels, Tren de Aragua and Mara Salvatrucha) be added to the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists,{{Cite wikisource|title=Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists}} which was officially enacted on February 20, 2025, making such groups officially Foreign Terrorist Organizations.{{Cite web |last=Carpenter |first=Susan |date=February 19, 2025 |title=U.S. designates 8 cartels as foreign terrorist organizations |url=https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2025/02/19/rubio-cartels-foreign-terrorist-organizations-designation}} Similarly, Canada has also joined in designating drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.{{Cite web |date=February 20, 2025 |title=Government of Canada lists transnational criminal organizations as terrorist entities |url=https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2025/02/government-of-canada-lists-transnational-criminal-organizations-as-terrorist-entities.html}}

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has played a role in addressing the issue of drug trafficking, particularly in Afghanistan, as part of its broader security and stabilization efforts. NATO has supported counter-narcotics initiatives by assisting the Afghan government in building its capacity to combat the illegal drug trade, which is seen as a major source of funding for insurgent groups. NATO's efforts include training and equipping Afghan security forces to enhance their ability to disrupt drug trafficking networks, as well as supporting intelligence-sharing and coordination with international partners. These activities are framed within NATO's mission to promote stability and security, recognizing the link between the drug trade and threats to regional and global security.{{Cite web |title=NATO and UN tell contrasting stories about Afghan drug trade |url=https://natowatch.org/newsbriefs/2012/nato-and-un-tell-contrasting-stories-about-afghan-drug-trade |website=NATO Watch}}

However, perspectives on NATO's involvement in counter-narcotics operations have varied, with some reports highlighting tensions with other international actors, such as the United Nations. While NATO emphasizes its contributions to reducing the drug trade through capacity-building and support for Afghan-led initiatives, other sources have noted discrepancies in reported outcomes, suggesting that the drug trade in Afghanistan remained robust despite these efforts. For instance, data from 2012 indicates that opium production continued to thrive, raising questions about the effectiveness of NATO's strategies in this domain. Nonetheless, NATO's engagement reflects a commitment to addressing the complex interplay between security, governance, and the illicit drug economy, even as challenges persist in achieving measurable reductions in trafficking activities.{{Cite web |title=NATO building capacity against drug trafficking |url=https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_149244.htm?selectedLocale=en |website=NATO}}

File:Colpolwpowell.png, then the United States secretary of state, visiting Colombia in the early 2000s as part of the United States' support of Plan Colombia.
{{cite web |title=Colombia Program At-A-Glance |url=https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/Colombia%20Country%20Fact%20Sheet%20Augst%202013_USAID_at_a_Glance.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160109132325/https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/Colombia%20Country%20Fact%20Sheet%20Augst%202013_USAID_at_a_Glance.pdf |archive-date=January 9, 2016 |access-date=October 20, 2015 |url-status=dead |website=USAID |publisher=United States Agency for International Development}}{{cite news |last=Bennett |first=Brian |date=June 9, 2011 |title=U.S. can't justify its drug war spending, reports say |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/world/la-xpm-2011-jun-09-la-fg-narco-contract-20110609-story.html |url-status=live |access-date=February 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180912225040/http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/09/world/la-fg-narco-contract-20110609 |archive-date=September 12, 2018}}{{cite web |title=Drug War Clock |url=http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110810163837/http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock |archive-date=10 August 2011 |access-date=29 November 2021 |publisher=DrugSense}}{{cite news |last=Vulliamy |first=Ed |date=April 3, 2011 |title=How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs |work=The Guardian |location=London |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs |url-status=live |access-date=December 18, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161222155445/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs |archive-date=December 22, 2016}}{{cite news |last1=Spak |first1=Kevin |date=9 June 2011 |title=Congress: US Wasting Billions in War on Drugs |agency=Newser |url=http://www.newser.com/story/120578/congress-us-wasting-billions-in-war-on-drugs.html |access-date=29 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514084709/http://www.newser.com/story/120578/congress-us-wasting-billions-in-war-on-drugs.html |archive-date=14 May 2013}}]]

US international involvement in drug control rests on the premise that assisting foreign governments in their anti-drug efforts reduces drug supply within the US.{{Cite web |last=Rosen |first=Liana W. |date=March 16, 2015 |title=International Drug Control Policy: Background and U.S. Responses |url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/RL34543.pdf |access-date=May 5, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service |page=12}}

Scholars have claimed that the war on drugs, a metaphorical war, is propaganda cloaking an extension of earlier military or paramilitary operations. Others have argued that large amounts anti-drug foreign aid money, training, and equipment actually goes to fighting leftist insurgencies and is often provided to groups who themselves are involved in large-scale narco-trafficking, such as corrupt members of the Colombian military.

The three UN drug control conventions, adopted by over 180 countries, provide a legal framework for cooperation between countries. Each state is obligated to incorporate the treaty provisions in their domestic laws. While there is a degree of interpretative flexibility, "each of the treaties encourages – and often requires – that member countries put in place strong domestic penal provisions" to deal with illicit drugs; punitive policies have been the common approach. The US, emerging as the dominant power after WWII, exerted considerable influence over how the conventions were adopted by other nations, promoting a prohibitionist and criminalizing view.{{Harvnb|Armenta|Jelsma|2015}} "Emerging from the Second World War as the dominant political, economic and military power, the United States was then in a position to forge a new drug control regime (the 1946 Lake Success Protocol) and apply the necessary pressure to impose it on other countries in the setting of the United Nations. The political climate enabled the globalisation of prohibitionist anti-drug ideals." Historically, the US has been "the key player in most multilateral negotiations" and the prohibitionist approach "derives largely from U.S. policy – the various forms, past and present, of the U.S. 'war on drugs'".

US economic power is focused on the war on drugs through the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA). Enacted in 1961, the FAA integrated various federal foreign aid initiatives under the new US Agency for International Development (USAID), and has remained the core legislation governing foreign financial assistance. In 1972, reacting to concerns over illicit drugs from foreign sources, Congress added an "International Narcotics Control" chapter to the FAA, which allowed the president to enter into agreements and provide assistance for counternarcotic activities in foreign countries. It also made US economic and military aid, including arms sales, dependent on countries aligning with US anti-drug policies. Later, the terms "major illicit drug-producing country" and "major drug-transit country" were defined in the act; as of 1986, the president has been required to annually determine which countries fit those definitions. Those not adequately cooperating with counter-drug efforts would not be eligible to receive US financial aid, although the president could and has provided waivers to individual countries. The so-called "majors list" has influenced how US assistance money is used internationally in the war on drugs, although in recent years, it has remained relatively static and lost a degree of relevancy.{{Cite web |date=Feb 25, 2021 |title=The U.S. "Majors List" of Illicit Drug-Producing and Drug-Transit Countries |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46695 |access-date=Aug 7, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service |quote=For nearly four decades, the statutory process for identifying the world's major illicit drug producing and drug-transit countries has shaped how the United States engages foreign governments on illicit drug control matters. ... Despite some changes over time, including significant modifications in 2002 and 2006, some in Congress have questioned whether the current process remains relevant.}} In September 2023, President Biden added China to the majors list, citing its production of precursor chemicals.

Foreign anti-drug initiatives initially focused on Latin America, and expanded globally over time. Since the 1970s, billions of US aid dollars have been directed to anti-drug activity in Latin America. The US initially treated drug control as a law enforcement issue in foreign countries, providing assistance to police forces. In the 1980s, the US increasingly involved the military and private security firms, to provide training and support to armed forces in drug-producing and transit countries.{{Cite web |date=June 2023 |title=Militarization and privatization of security: From the War on Drugs to the fight against organized crime in Latin America |url=https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/militarization-and-privatization-of-security-923#footnote3_zckdbw1 |access-date=Dec 31, 2023 |website=International Review of the Red Cross}} {{As of|2024}}, the DEA has, in addition to 241 domestic offices, 93 foreign offices in 69 countries.{{Cite web |date=2024 |title=Divisions |url=https://www.dea.gov/divisions |access-date=Feb 21, 2024 |website=Drug Enforcement Administration}} In addition to numerous cooperative law enforcement actions worldwide against drug trafficking and money laundering, the DEA and other agencies, and the US military, have been involved in multi-year foreign drug campaigns, including in Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan.

In 2021, Gustavo Gorriti, journalist and founder of corruption-focused IDL-Reporteros news media, wrote a sharply critical editorial in the Washington Post on the impact of 50 years of the war on drugs on Latin America. He described the flow of drugs to the US as an "unstoppable industry" that triggered an economic revolution throughout the region, where the illegal drug trade with its high profit margins far exceeded the potential of legitimate businesses. Corruption among politicians and anti-drug forces soared, even as those in charge were "cultivating close relationships with U.S. enforcement and intelligence agencies." An underclass of poor farmers became economic hostages, depending on drug crops for their survival. The big winners were "the systems built to wage a fight that they soon realized would have no end. ... [The war on drugs] became a source for endless resources, inflated budgets, contracts, purchase orders, power, influence – new economies battling drug trafficking but also dependent on it."{{Cite news |last=Gorriti |first=Gustavo |date=June 14, 2021 |title=It's time to end five decades of strategic fallacy |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/14/peru-war-on-drugs-violence-strategic-failure/ |access-date=Jan 6, 2024 |newspaper=Washington Post |quote=When, 50 years ago, President Richard M. Nixon declared drug abuse 'America's public enemy number one' and called for 'an all-out offensive' to defeat it, he mobilized an army of disparate bureaucracies that quickly became ensnared in an inadequate and ineffective metaphor (defeat the 'enemy'). ... The war narrative prevailed, and the biggest winners were the systems built to wage a fight that they soon realized would have no end – but this was a good thing: It became a source for endless resources, inflated budgets, contracts, purchase orders, power, influence – new economies battling drug trafficking but also dependent on it. ... The booming market of potentially dangerous substances flowing from Latin America to the United States became an unstoppable industry. Starting in the mid-1970s, it triggered an economic revolution in the region. ... became a growth sector that put all export industries to shame. ... pioneered a capitalist revolution ... triggering vast inequality and violence. ... The clandestine nature of the industry and its high profit margins elevated political corruption to new heights. There are many examples across the region of those charged with fighting drug trafficking who ended up profiting from it, all while cultivating close relationships with U.S. enforcement and intelligence agencies. ... Beneath ... lies a vast foundation: the cocaine proletariat, farmers from Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, who depend on the crops for survival. Poverty binds them to an industry that offers liquidity and consistent returns, but that also devalues their rights and lives.}}

At a meeting in Guatemala in 2012, three former presidents from Guatemala, Mexico and Colombia said that the war on drugs had failed and that they would propose a discussion on alternatives, including decriminalization, at the Summit of the Americas in April of that year.{{cite news |date=March 31, 2012 |title=Politics this week |newspaper=The Economist |url=http://www.economist.com/node/21551550 |url-status=live |access-date=April 2, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402040340/http://www.economist.com/node/21551550 |archive-date=April 2, 2012}} Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina said that the war on drugs was exacting too high a price on the lives of Central Americans and that it was time to "end the taboo on discussing decriminalization".[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17502417 BBC News – Guatemala's president urges debate on drug legalisation] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190706154837/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17502417|date=July 6, 2019}}. Bbc.co.uk (March 25, 2012). At the summit, the government of Colombia pushed for far-reaching changes to drugs policy, citing the catastrophic effects of the war on drugs in Colombia.{{cite news |last=Vulliamy |first=Ed |date=April 15, 2012 |title=Colombia calls for global drugs taskforce |newspaper=The Observer |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/15/colombia-global-drugs-taskforce |url-status=live |access-date=April 15, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131016010720/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/15/colombia-global-drugs-taskforce |archive-date=October 16, 2013}}

{{Main|Plan Colombia|Paramilitarism in Colombia}}{{US involvement in Colombia}}

Historically, the illicit drug trade in Colombia had strong connections to right-wing paramilitaries like the United Self-Defenders of Colombia (AUC) and leftist guerilla groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), thus US anti-drug efforts in the country overlapped with support for counterinsurgency efforts.{{Cite web |date=May 3, 2002 |editor-last=Evans |editor-first=Michael |title=War in Colombia: Guerrillas, Drugs and Human Rights in U.S.-Colombia Policy, 1988-2002 |url=https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/part2.html |access-date=Oct 9, 2024 |website=National Security Archive |quote=The Bush administration's proposal to provide direct support against Colombian insurgent groups as part of an intensified strike on international terrorism and drug trafficking is the latest step in a series of policy decisions over the last decade that have steadily increased the scope of U.S. involvement in Colombia's civil conflict. While U.S. support activities have been nominally limited to the counternarcotics mission, in practice these operations often bring Colombian security forces into conflict with guerrillas and other armed groups. ... many U.S. policymakers [complained] that the aid is often used in pure counterguerrilla operations, sometimes with no measurable benefit against drug trafficking. ... The U.S. Embassy complained publicly that the military had been using U.S. counterdrug aid to fight guerrillas.}} In the late 1960s, when drug smuggling to the US from Mexico rose to a major scale,{{Cite book |last=Vulliamy |first=Ed |title=Amexica: war along the borderline |date=2010 |publisher=Bodley Head |isbn=978-1-84792-128-4 |location=London}} the two governments cooperated in the launch of the Mexican war on drugs; the market disruption gave Colombian traffickers an opportunity to fill US demand for cannabis.

Until the 1970s, Colombia "had played no major role in the production and circulation of illegal drugs in the hemisphere".{{Citation |last=Britto |first=Lina |title=The Drug Wars in Colombia |date=2020-09-28 |url=https://oxfordre.com/latinamericanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.001.0001/acrefore-9780199366439-e-504 |access-date=2024-10-08 |language=en |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.013.504 |isbn=978-0-19-936643-9 |encyclopedia=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Latin American History|url-access=subscription }} After a military coup in Chile in 1973 and the spread of political repression through the Southern Cone countries disrupted cocaine smuggling from Peru and Bolivia, Colombia stepped in to fill the demand for cocaine. Pressed by the US, the Colombian government, under president Misael Pastrana (1970–1974), worked with the newly formed DEA to establish the future path for the country's war on drugs.

During the 1970s, the "marijuana boom" dominated Colombia's drug trade, peaking mid-decade. That soon gave way to cocaine and the rise of the infamous Medellin and Cali cartels that grew through the 1980s and early 1990s to dominate the global cocaine market. By the end of the century, the brutal anti-drug war left the security situation in Colombia in critical condition. Through the Plan Colombia program, between 2000 and 2015, the US provided Colombia with $10 billion in funding,{{cite news |last=Rampton |first=Roberta |date=4 February 2016 |title=Obama pledges more than $450 million aid to help Colombia peace plan |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-colombia-idUSKCN0VD2XM |access-date=8 April 2018 |website=Reuters}}{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Brendon |date=Jan 9, 2020 |title=Not-So-Grand Strategy: America's Failed War on Drugs in Colombia |url=https://hir.harvard.edu/americas-failed-war-on-drugs-in-colombia/ |access-date=Jan 17, 2024 |website=Harvard International Review}} primarily for military aid, training, and equipment,{{cite web |year=2010 |title=Summary : FY 2010 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations |url=http://Fappropriations.house.gov/pdf/FY10_SFOPS_Conference_Summary.pdf |access-date=February 2, 2010 |website=U.S. House of Representatives}}{{Dead link|date=May 2020|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}} to fight both drugs and left-wing guerrillas such as FARC (which had been accused of participation in drug trafficking).Weiser, Benjamin. (September 5, 2012) [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/revolutionary_armed_forces_of_colombia/index.html FARC – Revolutionary Armed forces of Colombia"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120527125840/http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/revolutionary_armed_forces_of_colombia/index.html|date=May 27, 2012}} The New York Times.

The Clinton administration initially waived all but one of the human rights conditions attached to Plan Colombia, considering such aid as crucial to national security at the time.{{Cite book |last=Stokes |first=Doug |url=http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/54324.html |title=America's Other War: Terrorizing Colombia |publisher=Zed Books |year=2005 |isbn=978-1-84277-547-9 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160109132325/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/54324.html |archive-date=January 9, 2016 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all}} p. 99 Private US military contractors, including the former DynCorp, were contracted by the State and Defense Departments, to carry out anti-drug initiatives as part of Plan Colombia.[http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/article.php3?id_article=1253 Private Security Transnational Enterprises in Colombia] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080417203427/http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/article.php3?id_article=1253|date=April 17, 2008}} José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective February 2008. Colombian military personnel received extensive counterinsurgency training from US military and law enforcement agencies, including the School of Americas (SOA).

The efforts of the US and Colombian governments have been criticized for focusing on fighting leftist guerrillas in southern regions without applying enough pressure on right-wing paramilitaries and continuing drug smuggling operations in the north of the country.{{Cite book |last=Gill |first=Leslie |url=https://archive.org/details/schoolofamericas00lesl |title=The School of the Americas: military training and political violence in the Americas |publisher=Duke University Press |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-8223-3392-0 |page=[https://archive.org/details/schoolofamericas00lesl/page/180 180] |url-access=registration}}Peet, 2004: [https://books.google.com/books?id=uC0_YznYjScC&pg=PA61 p. 61] Human Rights Watch, congressional committees and other entities have documented connections between members of the Colombian military and the AUC, which the US government has listed as a terrorist group, and that Colombian military personnel have committed human rights abuses which would make them ineligible for US aid under current laws.{{Cite web |title=Colombia |url=https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/colombia/#:~:text=As%20of%20July%2031,%20the,the%202021%20national%20protests%20continued. |access-date=2025-05-13 |website=United States Department of State |language=en-US}}

Coca eradication by aerial spraying of herbicides such as glyphosate was a controversial element of Plan Colombia. Environmental consequences resulting from spraying have been criticized as detrimental to some of the world's most fragile ecosystems;{{cite journal |last=Bowe |first=Rebecca |date=October 27, 2004 |title=The drug war on the Amazon |url=https://emagazine.com/the-drug-war-on-the-amazon/ |journal=E: The Environmental Magazine |issue=Nov–Dec}} the same spraying practices are further credited with causing health problems in local populations.{{cite news |last=Rohter |first=Larry |date=May 1, 2000 |title=To Colombians, Drug War is a Toxic Foe |newspaper=The New York Times}}

A report by the RAND Corporation, examining the Colombian experience for insights applicable to the Mexican drug war, noted that "Plan Colombia has been widely hailed as a success, and some analysts believe that, by 2010, Colombian security forces had finally gained the upper hand once and for all." The report cited dramatic reductions in kidnappings and terrorist acts, and the recapture of territory, attributed to "a reinforced military and reinvigorated police force." It also found that, as of 2010, "Colombia is still a major source country for illicit narcotics. Moreover, the state continues to share sovereignty with a range of violent nonstate actors, including rebel groups and rightwing paramilitaries allied with drug traffickers and wealthy landowners."{{cite web |title=Mexico Is Not Colombia |url=https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR548z2/RAND_RR548z2.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304073123/http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR548z2/RAND_RR548z2.pdf |archive-date=March 4, 2016 |access-date=October 20, 2015 |website=rand.org |publisher=RAND Corporation National Security Research Division}} The Washington Office on Latin America concluded in 2010 that both Plan Colombia and the Colombian government's security strategy "came at a high cost in lives and resources, only did part of the job, are yielding diminishing returns and have left important institutions weaker."Washington Office on Latin America [http://www.wola.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=viewp&id=1134&Itemid=2 "Colombia: Don't Call it a Model"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100804065237/https://www.wola.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=viewp&id=1134&Itemid=2|date=August 4, 2010}}, July 13, 2010 Retrieved on May 8, 2010

{{See also|Mexican drug war|Operation Black Swan|Operation Diablo Express|Operation Mongoose Azteca}}

File:Fuerza del Estado Michoacán.jpg, 2007. Mexico's drug war claims nearly 50,000 lives each year.{{citation needed|date=August 2023}}]]One of the first anti-drug efforts in the realm of foreign policy was Nixon's Operation Intercept, announced in September 1969, aiming to severely reduce the amount of cannabis entering the US from Mexico, by government estimates the source of 80% of the US supply. The effort began with an intense inspection crackdown that resulted in a near shutdown of cross-border traffic.{{cite web |title=Operation Intercept: The perils of unilateralism |url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB86/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090424224527/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB86/ |archive-date=April 24, 2009 |access-date=May 14, 2009}} The US Air Force and Navy were also on alert to pursue traffickers in the air and at sea. The burden on border crossings was controversial in border states; the effort lasted only 20 days.{{cite web |title=Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs |url=http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU59.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514191129/http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU59.html |archive-date=May 14, 2011 |access-date=March 27, 2011 |publisher=Druglibrary.org}}

Under the leadership of Juan García Ábrego, the Gulf Cartel underwent a significant transformation in drug trafficking in Mexico during the 1980s and early 1990s. García Ábrego, who assumed control of the cartel in 1984, diversified its operations by forging a strategic alliance with the Cali Cartel in Colombia, shifting from primarily trafficking marijuana and heroin to focusing on cocaine, a higher-value product in the U.S. market. This partnership enabled the cartel to capitalize on the growing demand for cocaine in the United States, particularly after U.S. authorities blocked Caribbean routes in the 1990s, making Mexico, and especially Tamaulipas, a key corridor for drug smuggling. García Ábrego’s organizational structure, reliant on corrupting government and police officials, solidified the Gulf Cartel as one of Mexico’s most influential criminal organizations, laying the groundwork for its later expansion. His arrest in 1996 marked a turning point, creating a power vacuum that would be filled by Osiel Cárdenas Guillén.{{Cite web|url=https://insightcrime.org/es/noticias-crimen-organizado-mexico/cartel-del-golfo-perfil/|title=Cartel del Golfo|date=20 August 2024|website=InSight Crime}}

Osiel Cárdenas Guillén, who took over the Gulf Cartel after García Ábrego’s capture, revolutionized drug trafficking by introducing a paramilitary approach with the creation of Los Zetas in 1999, a group initially composed of elite former Mexican military personnel. This armed wing not only protected the cartel’s operations but also expanded its activities to include kidnappings, extortion, and territorial control, marking an escalation in criminal violence. Under his leadership, the cartel intensified cocaine trafficking to U.S. cities such as Houston and Atlanta, generating millions of dollars, as evidenced by records showing profits of 41 million dollars in just three and a half months from shipments to Atlanta. Direct confrontations with authorities and rivals, such as the Sinaloa Cartel over control of Nuevo Laredo, heightened tensions that set the stage for the war on drug trafficking launched in 2006 by President Felipe Calderón. Cárdenas’ capture in 2003 and extradition in 2007 weakened the cartel, but the resulting fragmentation and the independence of Los Zetas intensified violence in the context of the drug war, leaving a lasting legacy of conflict in Mexico in the decades that followed.{{Cite web|last=Ribando Seelke|first=Clare|date=December 18, 2024|title=Osiel Cárdenas, the first drug cartel capitalist|url=https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-12-18/osiel-cardenas-the-first-drug-cartel-capitalist.html|website=El País}}{{Cite web|url=https://insightcrime.org/es/noticias-crimen-organizado-mexico/osiel-cardenas-guillen/|title=Osiel Cárdenas Guillén|date=30 August 2024|website=InSight Crime}} Following the capture of Osiel Cárdenas Guillén in 2003 and his extradition in 2007, leadership fell to Jorge Eduardo Costilla Sánchez, a key figure in the Gulf Cartel, who led the criminal organization until 2012. Internal dynamics and rivalries, especially with Los Zetas, defined his era.{{Cite web|url=https://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/americas/mexico-cartel-arrest|title=Mexico says Gulf Cartel boss arrested|date=13 September 2012|website=CNN}}

The pursuit of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán from 2001 to 2014 is a pivotal case in the context of the 21st-century global war on drugs, as it exemplifies the challenges of combating sophisticated transnational criminal organizations. Guzmán, as the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, orchestrated one of the most powerful drug trafficking networks, responsible for smuggling vast quantities of narcotics into the United States and Europe, generating billions in illicit revenue.{{Cite web|last=Radden Keefe|first=Patrick|date=June 15, 2012|title=Cocaine Incorporated|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-drug-cartel-makes-its-billions.html|website=The New York Times}} His 2001 escape from a high-security Mexican prison and subsequent evasion until his 2014 capture highlighted the systemic corruption, institutional weaknesses, and cross-border complexities that hinder effective counter-narcotics strategies. The operation to apprehend him, involving Mexican authorities and U.S. agencies like the DEA, underscored the necessity of international cooperation, intelligence-sharing, and advanced surveillance technologies, while also exposing the limitations of militarized approaches in addressing the socio-economic drivers of the drug trade.{{Cite book|last=Grillo|first=Ioan|date=2016|title=El Narco: Inside Mexico's Criminal Insurgency}} Guzmán’s high-profile status and the Sinaloa Cartel’s global reach made his capture a symbolic victory, yet it also revealed the resilience of drug trafficking networks, as the cartel continued operations unabated, reflecting the broader, ongoing struggle to dismantle such organizations in the global anti-drug campaign.

The Mérida Initiative, launched in 2008, was a security cooperation program between the US and Mexico, aimed at combating drug trafficking and transnational crime. From 2008 to 2021, the US provided $3.5 billion in funding. The initial focus was anti-drug and rule-of-law measures, later broadened to include US-Mexico border activities. Components included military and law enforcement training and equipment, and technical advice and training to strengthen the national justice systems. In 2021, it was replaced by the Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities.{{Cite web |last=Ribando Seelke |first=Clare |date=Oct 9, 2023 |title=U.S.–Mexico Security Cooperation: From the Mérida Initiative to the Bicentennial Framework |url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/IF10578.pdf |access-date=Jan 17, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service}}

In 2013, a Pew Research Center poll found that 85% of Mexican citizens supported using the Mexican army against drug cartels, 74% supported US training assistance for their police and military, 55% supported the US supplying of weapons and financial aid, and 59% were against deploying US troops on Mexican soil.{{Cite news |title=Mexican public favors military use, U.S. aid to fight drug cartels |url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/16/mexican-public-favors-military-use-u-s-aid-to-fight-drug-cartels/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181112223531/http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/16/mexican-public-favors-military-use-u-s-aid-to-fight-drug-cartels/ |archive-date=November 12, 2018 |access-date=2018-10-23 |work=Pew Research Center |language=en-US}} Anti-drug efforts were seen as making progress by 37%, losing ground by 29%, and staying the same by 30%; 56% believed that the US and Mexico are both to blame for drug violence in Mexico.{{Cite news |date=2013-04-29 |title=U.S. Image Rebounds in Mexico |url=http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/04/29/u-s-image-rebounds-in-mexico/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181110154912/http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/04/29/u-s-image-rebounds-in-mexico/ |archive-date=November 10, 2018 |access-date=2018-11-01 |work=Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project |language=en-US}}

{{As of|2024}}, the DEA considers the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels, tied to materials and services from China, as the major source of synthetic drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine, posing the biggest threat to the US.

The countries of Central America – Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama – are major transit and storage points for drugs headed to Mexico and the US{{Cite web |title=North and Central America |url=https://www.dea.gov/foreign-offices/north-and-central-america |access-date=July 17, 2024 |website=Drug Enforcement Administration}} that annually appear on the American "majors list".{{Cite web |last=Rosen |first=Liana W. |date=February 25, 2021 |title=The U.S. "Majors List" of Illicit Drug-Producing and Drug-Transit Countries |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46695 |access-date=July 17, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service}} The US has had varying levels of direct anti-drug involvement in each of these countries, particularly since the late 2000s when concern over trafficking activity increased. Beginning in 2008, the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) has provided the seven countries with equipment, training, and technical support for law enforcement efforts, and the US has advised taking an intelligence-based approach.{{Cite web |last1=Meyer |first1=Peter J. |last2=Ribando Seelke |first2=Clare |date=Dec 17, 2015 |title=Central America Regional Security Initiative: Background and Policy Issues for Congress |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41731 |access-date=Aug 9, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service}}

During the 1980s civil war in Nicaragua, the drug situation was intertwined with the US backing of the anti-leftist rebel force known as the Contras. Senator John Kerry's 1988 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links concluded that members of the State Department "who provided support for the Contras are involved in drug trafficking ... and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly receive financial and material assistance from drug traffickers."Cockburn and St. Clair, 1998: {{Page needed|date=September 2010}} The involvement included payments to drug traffickers from funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."{{Citation needed|date=July 2024}}

File:Panama clashes 1989.JPEG invasion of Panama in 1989]]

On December 20, 1989, the US invaded Panama with 25,000 American troops in Operation Just Cause, to depose and arrest the Panamanian head of government, Manuel Noriega. Noriega had been providing military assistance to Contra groups in Nicaragua at the request of the US, which in turn paid him and tolerated his drug trafficking activities, known since the 1960s.Cockburn and St. Clair, 1998: pp. 287–290{{Cite book |last=Buckley |first=Kevin |url=https://archive.org/details/panamawholestory00buck |title=Panama: The Whole Story |publisher=Simon and Schuster |year=1991 |isbn=978-0-671-72794-9 |url-access=registration}} Relations with the US deteriorated in the mid-1980s, and his dealings with the US government were exposed in the US news media. The killing of a US soldier in Panama was the final act leading to the invasion. Noriega surrendered to US soldiers on January 3, 1990.{{Cite news |last=Baker |first=Russell |date=January 3, 1990 |title=Observer; Is This Justice Necessary? |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DF123FF930A35752C0A966958260 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080616105410/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DF123FF930A35752C0A966958260 |archive-date=June 16, 2008 |access-date=March 5, 2010 |work=The New York Times Company}} He was indicted by the DEA and sentenced by a US court to 45 years in prison for racketeering, drug smuggling, and money laundering.{{Cite news |last=Rohter |first=Larry |date=April 10, 1992 |title=The Noriega Verdict; U.S. Jury Convicts Noriega of Drug-Trafficking Role as the Leader of Panama |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/10/us/noriega-verdict-us-jury-convicts-noriega-drug-trafficking-role-leader-panama.html |access-date=September 28, 2017 |work=The New York Times |issn=0362-4331}} The UN General Assembly resolved that the invasion was a "flagrant violation of international law."United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/44/240, 88th Plenary Meeting, December 29, 1989 [http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r240.htm]

Ecuador, located between the world's two largest cocaine-producing countries, Colombia and Peru,has long been a major drug transit point.{{Cite web |last=Goette-Luciak |first=CD |date=Jan 11, 2024 |title=Cocaine, cartels, and corruption: The crisis in Ecuador, explained |url=https://www.vox.com/world-politics/2024/1/11/24034891/ecuador-drugs-cocaine-cartels-violence-murder-daniel-naboa-columbia-crime |access-date=Mar 22, 2024 |website=Vox}} From 1999, the Manta air base was the US military's most prominent South American presence, originating some 100 drug surveillance flights monthly. In 2009, citing unwanted internal influence by the CIA, Ecuador declined to renew the base's lease, ending official US military presence.{{Cite web |last=Romero |first=Simon |date=April 21, 2008 |title=Ecuador's Leader Purges Military and Moves to Expel American Base |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/world/americas/21ecuador.html |access-date=Mar 22, 2024 |website=New York Times}}{{Cite web |date=January 24, 2024 |title=Ecuador: Country Overview and U.S. Relations |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11218 |access-date=Mar 22, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service}} Since 2018, drug activity and anti-drug efforts in Ecuador have dramatically intensified.{{Cite news |last=Collyns |first=Dan |date=2023-09-12 |title='We should treat it as a war': Ecuador's descent into drug gang violence |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/12/ecuador-violence-bloody-drug-war |access-date=2024-02-09 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}} In 2023, the US-Ecuador Defense Bilateral Working Group was formed to address the Ecuadorian situation, and a memorandum of agreement to help strengthen the Ecuadorian military was signed. A drug-related wider conflict broke out in 2024.{{Cite news |last=Saviano |first=Roberto |date=2024-02-09 |title=The world is hungry for cocaine and happy to buy it. But think of the ravaged countries that pay the price |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/09/cocaine-ravaged-countries-ecuador-drug-coup-complicit |access-date=2024-02-09 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

In 2012, the US sent DEA agents to Honduras to assist security forces in counter-narcotic operations. Honduras has been a major stop for drug traffickers, who use small planes and landing strips hidden throughout the country to transport drugs. The DEA, working with other US agencies such as the State Department, the CBP, and Joint Task Force-Bravo, assisted Honduran troops in conducting raids on traffickers' sites of operation.{{cite news |date=May 31, 2012 |title=A New Front Line in the U.S. Drug War |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/americas/honduran-drug-raid-deaths-wont-alter-us-policy.html?pagewanted=all |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121129131648/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/americas/honduran-drug-raid-deaths-wont-alter-us-policy.html?pagewanted=all |archive-date=November 29, 2012 |access-date=October 13, 2012 |newspaper=New York Times}}

File:MilitaresMichoacán.jpg is scheduled to receive US$1.6 billion in equipment and strategic support from the United States through the Mérida Initiative.{{When|date=December 2024|reason=When is Mexico "scheduled to receive" this money?}}]]

The US-supported coca eradication policy has been criticized for its negative impact on the livelihood of South American coca growers, in a region where the coca leaf has traditionally been chewed and used in tea and for religious, medicinal and nutritional purposes by locals{{Cite news |last=Lindsay |first=Reed |date=March 25, 2003 |title=Bolivian Coca Growers Fight Eradication |url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/211-development/44365.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090910174116/http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/211-development/44365.html |archive-date=September 10, 2009 |access-date=February 3, 2010 |work=Washington Times}} Making traditional coca cultivation illegal is viewed as unjust. In areas where forced eradication also destroyed other food or market crops, without providing an alternative, farmers were left starving and destitute.

{{See also|Opium production in Afghanistan|War in Afghanistan (2001-2021)}}

In 2001, a US-led military coalition invaded Afghanistan and toppled the ruling Taliban as part of the war on terror response to 9/11. For generations, Afghanistan had been producing opium; the Taliban, in power since 1996, banned opium in 2000, reducing domestic production by 90% within a year, cutting the world opium supply by an estimated 65%. With the invasion, poppy cultivation and opium manufacture resumed, and the war on drugs became an element of the US presence.

Initially, "everyone did their own thing, not thinking how it fit in with the larger effort. State was trying to eradicate, USAID was marginally trying to do livelihoods, and DEA was going after bad guys," a senior Department of Defense official stated in a later report. In 2004, opium production dramatically increased and eradication became the focus. The DEA operating budget in Afghanistan grew from $3.7 million in 2004 to $40.6 million in 2008. In 2009, eradication was halted{{snd}}a senior US official called it "the least effective program ever"{{snd}}in favor of an "alternative livelihoods" approach that encouraged farmers to grow other crops. In 2017, eradication once again became the main initiative; the US military launched an aerial campaign involving B-52 bombers and F-22 fighters striking a network of drug labs that turned out to be mostly empty compounds, though there were significant civilian casualties.

Undermining US efforts, the prohibitionist policies encouraged a flourishing opium black market, which in turn incentivized widespread, systemic corruption in the Afghan government.{{Cite web |last=Hall |first=Abigail |date=July 20, 2015 |title=The Drug War Failed in Afghanistan Too |url=https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/07/20/war-on-drugs-failed-in-afghanistan-helped-the-taliban |access-date=May 5, 2024 |website=US News and World Report}} In 2018, the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction called the counternarcotics operation to date "a total failure".{{Cite web |last=Woody |first=Christopher |date=Dec 5, 2019 |title=The war on drugs in Afghanistan 'has just been a total failure,' the US's top watchdog there says |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/sigar-chief-us-war-on-drugs-afghanistan-a-total-failure-2019-12?op=1 |access-date=May 5, 2024 |website=Business Insider}} As the US military presence neared an end in 2020, Afghanistan was producing an estimated 85% of the world's opium. Having spent some $9 billion in the 20-year anti-drug campaign, US forces left Afghanistan in 2021, and the Taliban returned to power.{{Cite web |last=Fox |first=Kara |date=September 29, 2021 |title=Afghanistan is the world's opium king. Can the Taliban afford to kill off their 'un-Islamic' cash cow? |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/29/asia/taliban-afghanistan-opium-drug-economy-cmd-intl/index.html |access-date=May 5, 2024 |website=CNN}}{{Cite web |date=June 2018 |title=Counternarcotics: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan |url=https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/lessonslearned/SIGAR-18-52-LL-Executive-Summary.pdf |access-date=July 24, 2024 |website=Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction}}

{{See also|Illegal drug trade in Venezuela|Narcosobrinos affair|Proposed United States invasion of Venezuela}}

Since Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, Venezuela has played a pivotal role in the landscape of the war on drugs, establishing itself as a strategic hub for the transit of narcotics, particularly cocaine, due to its geographic position between Colombia, the world’s leading cocaine producer, and routes to the US and Europe. Chávez's decision in 2005 to sever ties with the DEA, accusing its representatives of espionage, marked a turning point that weakened international interdiction efforts in the country.{{cite news|last1=Neuman|first1=William|title=In Venezuela, Remote Areas Provide a Drug Trafficking Hub « Previous|work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/07/27/world/americas/20120727VENEZUELA.html|access-date=5 June 2015|agency=The New York Times|date=26 July 2012}} This rupture not only curtailed intelligence sharing and bilateral cooperation but also allowed Venezuela to become a more permeable corridor for drug trafficking, with a significant increase in the volume of drugs transiting through its territory.{{cite news|last=al-Ameri|first=Alaa|title=Venezuela's Drug-Running Generals May Be Who Finally Ousts Maduro|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/venezuelas-drug-running-generals-may-be-who-finally-ousts-maduro/|access-date=26 May 2014|newspaper=Vice News|date=31 March 2014}} The involvement of the Venezuelan government in drug trafficking activities has been extensively documented, with allegations pointing to high-ranking officials and military personnel as key actors in what is known as the Cartel of the Suns.{{Cite web|url=https://insightcrime.org/investigations/drug-trafficking-venezuelan-regime-cartel-of-the-sun/|title=Drug Trafficking Within the Venezuelan Regime: The 'Cartel of the Suns'|date=17 May 2018|website=InSight Crime}}

{{See also|Illegal drug trade in China}}

Prior to 2018, the {{Ill|Border Defense Corps (China)|lt=People's Armed Police Border Defense Corps|zh|公安边防部队}} of the Ministry of Public Security Active Service Forces was involved in many anti-drug operations on the China-Myanmar border, where much of the illegal Chinese drug trade is located. In March 25, 2007, 3 PAPBDC officers were killed in action during a shootout with drug traffickers on the China-Myanmar border.{{Cite web |date=2015-06-26 |title=中缅边境缉毒亲历记：武警在漫天杂草中"生擒"吸毒者 |trans-title=Anti-drug operations on the China-Myanmar border |url=http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2015/0626/c70731-27209927.html |access-date=2025-03-17 |website=People's Daily}}

Between 2013 and 2023, the China Coast Guard seized a total of 9.875 tonnes of drugs.{{Cite web |last1=He |first1=Linping |last2=Lin |first2=Zuoer |date=2023-07-17 |editor-last=Liu |editor-first=Yang |title=献身使命的新时代海疆卫士——追记广东汕尾海警局执法员汪晓龙烈士 |url=http://www.news.cn/politics/2023-07/17/c_1129752986.htm |website=Xinhua News Agency}}

In the mid-2010s, the US identified China as a primary source of illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. American anti-drug intervention regarding China is influenced and constrained by the geopolitical sensitivities of US-China relations. The US employs several approaches: exerting diplomatic pressure on China to impose internal controls on illicit drugs; seeking cooperation in US and international law enforcement efforts; unilaterally imposing targeted sanctions; and bringing criminal indictments against Chinese companies and individuals. The effectiveness of these approaches depends significantly on China's level of implementation and enforcement, which is directly related to the fluctuating state of overall US-China relations.

Following China's scheduling of fentanyl-class substances in 2019, the flow of synthetic opioids from China to the US appeared to subside; trafficking from China shifted to precursor chemicals and related equipment, and Mexico's drug cartels emerged as major clients.{{Cite web |last1=Barrios |first1=Ricardo |last2=Lawrence |first2=Susan V. |last3=Rosen |first3=Liana W. |date=Feb 20, 2024 |title=China Primer: Illicit Fentanyl and China's Role |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10890 |access-date=Dec 19, 2024 |website=Congressional Research Service}}{{Cite web |last=Felbab-Brown |first=Vanda |date=Mar 31, 2023 |title=China's role in the fentanyl crisis |url=https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinas-role-in-the-fentanyl-crisis/ |access-date=Dec 19, 2024 |website=Brookings Institution}}

In November 2023, President Biden announced an agreement with General Secretary Xi Jinping for China to crack down on the export of precursor chemicals and pill presses to the Western Hemisphere.{{Cite web |last=Shivaram |first=Deepa |date=November 15, 2023 |title=Biden announces new agreements with China on fentanyl and resuming military talks |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/11/15/1212994576/biden-china-xi-san-francisco |access-date=December 17, 2024 |website=NPR}} A US House committee report released in April 2024 found companies making fentanyl precursors in China can still apply for Chinese state tax rebates and other financial benefits after exporting the product.{{Cite web |last1=Mann |first1=Brian |last2=Feng |first2=Emily |date=April 16, 2024 |title=Report: China continues to subsidize deadly fentanyl exports |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1244964595/fentanyl-china-precursor-overdose |access-date=December 17, 2024 |website=NPR}} According to the US, in 2024, China continues to be the primary supplier of chemical precursors to Mexican drug cartels, and Chinese money launderers have become central to the global drug trade.{{Cite news |last=Martina |first=Michael |date=December 17, 2024 |title=US lawmakers propose set of bills to hit China over fentanyl trade |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-propose-set-bills-hit-china-over-fentanyl-trade-2024-12-17/ |access-date=December 17, 2024 |work=Reuters}}

In December 2024, a Chinese national in Chicago was sentenced to 10 years in prison laundering $62 million in drug money for Mexican traffickers involving currency swaps between United States and China, and China and Mexico.{{Cite web |date=2024-12-16 |title=Chinese National learns sentence for laundering $62M in drug money for Mexican cartels |url=https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/chinese-national-learns-sentence-laundering-62m-drug-money-mexican-cartels |access-date=2025-01-31 |website=FOX 32 Chicago |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2024-12-16 |title=Northern District of Illinois {{!}} Chinese National Sentenced to Ten Years in Prison for Laundering $62 Million in Drug Proceeds on Behalf of Mexican Traffickers {{!}} United States Department of Justice |url=https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/chinese-national-sentenced-ten-years-prison-laundering-62-million-drug-proceeds-behalf |access-date=2025-01-31 |website=www.justice.gov |language=en}} In January 2025, two former executives of a Chinese chemical company were convicted of a scheme to import fentanyl precursor chemicals into the United States.{{Cite web |title=Chinese Co. Execs Convicted Of Fentanyl Import Scheme - Law360 |url=https://www.law360.com/lifesciences/articles/2290681/chinese-co-execs-convicted-of-fentanyl-import-scheme |access-date=2025-01-31 |website=www.law360.com |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=McCarthy |first=Yong Xiong, Simone |date=2025-01-16 |title=Chinese citizens stand trial for fentanyl-related charges in landmark US case |url=https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/15/us/chinese-citizens-fentanyl-trial-us-intl-hnk/index.html |access-date=2025-01-31 |website=CNN |language=en}}

The social consequences of the drug war have been widely criticized by such organizations as the ACLU as being racially biased against minorities and disproportionately responsible for the exploding United States prison population. Critics have compared the wholesale incarceration of the dissenting minority of drug users to the wholesale incarceration of other minorities in history.{{Citation needed|date=March 2024}} Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz wrote in 1997, "Over the past thirty years, we have replaced the medical-political persecution of illegal sex users ('perverts' and 'psychopaths') with the even more ferocious medical-political persecution of illegal drug users."The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (1997), p. xi Assessing from a health perspective, a study in the Annals of Medicine noted: "The U.S. war on drugs has subjected millions to criminalization, incarceration, and lifelong criminal records, disrupting or altogether eliminating their access to adequate resources and supports to live healthy lives."{{Cite journal |last1=Cohen |first1=A |last2=Vakharia |first2=SP |last3=Netherland |first3=J |last4=Frederique |first4=K |date=Dec 2022 |title=How the war on drugs impacts social determinants of health beyond the criminal legal system |journal=Annals of Medicine |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=2024–2038 |doi=10.1080/07853890.2022.2100926 |pmid=35852299 |pmc=9302017 }}

{{see also|Incarceration in the United States}}

The war on drugs caused soaring arrest rates in the US that disproportionately targeted African Americans due to various factors.{{cite web |url=https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm |title=The Impact of the War on Drugs on U.S. Incarceration |date=May 2000 |access-date=June 10, 2007 |publisher=Human Rights Watch |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081128173127/http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-05.htm |archive-date=November 28, 2008 |url-status=live }} Anti-drug and tough-on-crime policies from the 1970s through the 1990s created a situation where the US, with less than 5% of the world population, houses nearly 25% of the world's prisoners. Increased demand lead to the development of privatization and the for-profit prison industry.Development of private prisons in the United States {{As of|2015}}, the US prison population rate was 716 per 100,000 people, the highest in the world, six times higher than Canada and six to nine times higher than Western European countries.{{Cite news |last=Ye Hee Lee |first=Michelle |date=April 30, 2015 |title=Does the United States really have 5 percent of the world's population and one quarter of the world's prisoners? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/30/does-the-united-states-really-have-five-percent-of-worlds-population-and-one-quarter-of-the-worlds-prisoners/ |access-date=Dec 30, 2023 |newspaper=Washington Post}}

File:US incarceration rate timeline.gif]]

In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes had risen by 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%.Austin J, McVey AD. The 1989 NCCD prison population forecast: the impact of the war on drugs. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1989. In 1994, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that the war on drugs resulted in the incarceration of one million Americans each year.{{Cite journal |last1=Grinspoon |first1=Lester |author-link1=Lester Grinspoon |last2=Bakalar |first2=James B. |date=February 3, 1994 |title=The War on Drugs – A Peace Proposal |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |volume=330 |issue=5 |pages=357–360 |doi=10.1056/NEJM199402033300513 |pmid=8043062}} In 2008, The Washington Post reported that of 1.5 million Americans arrested each year for drug offenses, half a million would be incarcerated, and one in five black Americans would spend time behind bars due to drug laws.{{cite news |first=George F. |last=Will |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102803801.html |title=A reality check on drug use |author-link=George Will |date=October 29, 2009 |newspaper=The Washington Post |page=A19 |access-date=September 18, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171008145041/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102803801.html |archive-date=October 8, 2017 |url-status=live }} In 2019, the FBI estimated about 1.5 million drug arrests nationally, 32.1% for cannabis and 31% for "other dangerous nonnarcotic drugs".{{Cite web |date=2019 |title=Crime in the United States 2019 |url=https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/persons-arrested |access-date=June 28, 2024 |website=Federal Bureau of Investigation}}

Federal and state policies also impose collateral consequences on those convicted of drug offenses, separate from fines and prison time, that are not applicable to other types of crime.Gabriel J. Chin, [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=390109 "Race, The War on Drugs, and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080421195145/https://ssrn.com/abstract=390109 |date=April 21, 2008 }}, v. 6 Journal of Gender, Race, Justice p. 253 (2002) In order to comply with a federal law known as the Solomon–Lautenberg amendment, a number of states require a six-months driver's license suspension for anyone convicted of a drug offense.{{cite news|title=States Are Pressed to Suspend Driver Licenses of Drug Users|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/16/us/states-are-pressed-to-suspend-driver-licenses-of-drug-users.html|access-date=May 29, 2018|work=The New York Times|agency=Associated Press|date=November 16, 1990|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180704093811/https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/16/us/states-are-pressed-to-suspend-driver-licenses-of-drug-users.html|archive-date=July 4, 2018|url-status=live}}{{citation |last1=Aiken |first1=Joshua |title=Reinstating Common Sense: How driver's license suspensions for drug offenses unrelated to driving are falling out of favor |url=https://www.prisonpolicy.org/driving/national.html |access-date=May 29, 2018 |publisher=Prison Policy Initiative |date=December 12, 2016}}{{citation |title="Possess a Joint, Lose Your License": July 1995 Status Report |url=http://www.mpp.org/site/c.glKZLeMQIsG/b.1087547/k.33C1/Possess_a_Joint_Lose_Your_License.htm |publisher=Marijuana Policy Project |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071008235035/http://www.mpp.org/site/c.glKZLeMQIsG/b.1087547/k.33C1/Possess_a_Joint_Lose_Your_License.htm |archive-date=October 8, 2007 |url-status=dead}} Other examples of collateral consequences for drug offenses, or for felony offenses in general, include loss of professional license, loss of ability to legally purchase a firearm under Federal law, loss of eligibility for food stamps, loss of eligibility for Federal Student Aid, loss of eligibility to live in public housing, loss of ability to vote, and deportation, a total of over 460 benefits at risk at the federal level alone.{{Cite web |last=Schlosser |first=Eric |date=August 1994 |title=Reefer Madness |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/08/reefer-madness/303476/ |access-date=May 15, 2024 |website=The Atlantic}} The US provides for the deportation of non-citizens convicted of drug offenses.{{cite journal |last1=Yates |first1=Jeff |last2=Collins |first2=Todd |last3=Chin |first3=Gabriel J. |year=1995 |title=A War on Drugs or a War on Immigrants? Expanding the Definition of 'Drug Trafficking' in Determining Aggravated Felon Status for Non-Citizens |url=https://ssrn.com/abstract=774866 |journal=Maryland Law Review |volume=64 |page=875 |access-date=February 28, 2021}}

One consequence of the war on drugs policy has been the overcrowding of American prisons. The policy's approach to prosecuting drug-related crimes led to a surge in incarcerated individuals for nonviolent drug offenses. As a result, many prisons have become overburdened, often operating at capacities far beyond their intended limits. Overcrowding strains the prison system and raises questions about the effectiveness of incarceration as a solution to drug-related issues.{{cite web |date=June 2013 |title=The War on Marijuana in Black and White |url=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/war-marijuana-black-and-white-billions-dollars-wasted-racially-biased-arrests |website=American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) |publisher=}} Resources that could be allocated to address the root causes of drug abuse, provide rehabilitation and treatment programs, or support communities affected by drug-related issues, are instead used to manage the considerable prison population. Critics argue that focusing solely on incarceration fails to address the underlying social factors contributing to drug abuse and perpetuates a cycle of criminality without offering pathways to recovery and reintegration into society.{{cite web |title=The Human Rights Impact of Over-Incarceration in the U.S. |date= May 2015 |url=https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/OverIncarceration/ACLU.pdf |publisher=Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)}}

{{Main|Race and the War on Drugs}}

Racial disparities have been a prominent and contentious aspect of the war on drugs in the US. In 1957, a belief at the time about drug use was summarized by journalist Max Lerner in his work, America as a Civilization: "As a case in point we may take the known fact of the prevalence of reefer and dope addiction in Negro areas. This is essentially explained in terms of poverty, slum living, and broken families, yet it would be easy to show the lack of drug addiction among other ethnic groups where the same conditions apply."{{Cite book |last=Inciardi |first=James A |title=The War on Drugs IV: The Continuing Saga of the Mysteries and Miseries of Intoxication, Addiction, Crime, and Public Policy |publisher=Allyn and Bacon |year=2008 |page=248}}

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 created a 100:1 sentencing disparity in the US for the trafficking or possession of crack when compared to penalties for trafficking of powder cocaine.{{Cite news|title=Congress passes bill to reduce disparity in crack, powder cocaine sentencing|last=Abrams|first=Jim|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=July 29, 2010|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072802969.html|access-date=September 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170905174012/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072802969.html|archive-date=September 5, 2017|url-status=live}}Burton-Rose (ed.), 1998: pp. 246–247{{cite web| author = United States Sentencing Commission | title = Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy | year = 2002 | page = 6 | url = http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/02crack/2002crackrpt.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070715212213/http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/02crack/2002crackrpt.pdf | archive-date = July 15, 2007 | access-date=August 24, 2010 | quote = As a result of the 1986 Act ... penalties for a first-time cocaine trafficking offense: 5 grams or more of crack cocaine = five-year mandatory minimum penalty}} The bill had been widely criticized as discriminatory against minorities, mostly blacks, who were more likely to use crack than powder cocaine.[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080204360.html "The Fair Sentencing Act corrects a long-time wrong in cocaine cases"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171120014727/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080204360.html |date=November 20, 2017 }}, The Washington Post, August 3, 2010. Retrieved September 30, 2010. In 1994, studying the effects of the 100:1 sentencing ratio, the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) found that nearly two-thirds of crack users were white or Hispanic, while nearly 85% of those convicted for possession were black, with similar numbers for trafficking. Powder cocaine offenders were more equally divided across race. The USSC noted that these disparities resulted in African Americans serving longer prison sentences than other ethnicities. In a 1995 report to Congress, the USSC recommended against the 100:1 sentencing ratio.{{Cite web |title=A Social History of America's Most Popular Drugs |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/buyers/socialhistory.html?scrlybr |access-date=Dec 13, 2023 |website=PBS Frontline}}{{Cite web |last=United States Sentencing Commission |date=Feb 1995 |title=Special Report to the Congress: Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy |url=https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/drug-topics/199502-rtc-cocaine-sentencing-policy/1995-Crack-Report_Full.pdf |access-date=Dec 13, 2023 |website=United States Sentencing Commission}} In 2010, the 100:1 sentencing ratio was reduced to 18:1.

Other studies indicated similarly dramatic racial differences in enforcement and sentencing. Statistics from 1998 show that there were wide racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, sentencing and deaths. African-American drug users made up for 35% of drug arrests, 55% of convictions, and 74% of people sent to prison for drug possession crimes. Nationwide African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offenses 13 times more often than other races,{{cite web |title=Key Findings at a Glance |url=https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140816062935/http://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm |archive-date=August 16, 2014 |access-date=February 3, 2010 |website=Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs |publisher=Human Rights Watch}} even though they supposedly constituted only 13% of regular drug users. Human Rights Watch's report, "Race and the Drug War" (2000), provided extensive documentation of racial disparities, citing statistics and case studies highlighting the unequal treatment of racial and ethnic groups by law enforcement agencies, particularly in drug arrests.{{cite web |author=Human Rights Watch |date=2000 |title=Race and the Drug War |url=https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-04.htm}} According to the report, in the US in 1999, compared to non-minorities, African Americans were far more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and received much stiffer penalties and sentences.{{cite web |year=2000 |title=I. Summary and Recommendations |url=https://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00.htm#P54_1086 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100207063858/http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00.htm#P54_1086 |archive-date=February 7, 2010 |access-date=February 3, 2010 |website=Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs |publisher=Human Rights Watch}}

Reporting on the effects of state initiatives, the Department of Justice found that, from 1990 through 2000, "the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates."{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

In Malign Neglect – Race Crime and Punishment in America (1995), criminologist Michael Tonry wrote, "The War on Drugs foreseeably and unnecessarily blighted the lives of hundreds and thousands of young disadvantaged black Americans and undermined decades of effort to improve the life chances of members of the urban black underclass."Michael Tonry, Malign Neglect – Race Crime and Punishment in America (London: Oxford University Press, 1995), 82.

File:Utah State Prison Wasatch Facility.jpg for drug law violations.]]

Penalties for drug crimes among American youth almost always involve permanent or semi-permanent removal from opportunities for education, strip them of voting rights, and later involve creation of criminal records which make employment more difficult. One-fifth of the US prison population are incarcerated for a drug offense.{{Cite web |last1=Plant |first1=Michael |last2=Singer |first2=Peter |date=2021-05-04 |title=Why drugs should be not only decriminalised, but fully legalised |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2021/05/why-drugs-should-be-not-only-decriminalised-fully-legalised |access-date=2021-05-22 |website=www.newstatesman.com |language=en}} Thus, some authors maintain that the War on Drugs has resulted in the creation of a permanent underclass of people who have few educational or job opportunities, often as a result of being punished for drug offenses which in turn have resulted from attempts to earn a living in spite of having no education or job opportunities.{{cite web |last1=Blumenson |first1=Eric |last2=Nilsen |first2=Eva S. |date=May 16, 2002 |title=How to construct an underclass, or how the War on Drugs became a war on education |url=http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/4cs/files/2008/11/blumenson-and-nilsenlawrev.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100622164812/http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/4cs/files/2008/11/blumenson-and-nilsenlawrev.pdf |archive-date=June 22, 2010 |access-date=August 7, 2011 |publisher=Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts}}{{Cite web |last=Newman |first=Tony |date=Jan 3, 2013 |title=Connecting the Dots: 10 Disastrous Consequences of the Drug War |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/drug-war-consequences_b_2404347 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190623232618/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/drug-war-consequences_b_2404347 |archive-date=June 23, 2019 |access-date=July 5, 2019 |work=HuffPost}}

In her 2010 book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, Michelle Alexander argues that the war on drugs has effectively perpetuated a racial caste system, with African American and Hispanic individuals experiencing disproportionately high rates of arrest, conviction, and incarceration for drug-related offenses. This system functions as a modern form of racial control, stripping individuals of their rights and opportunities, and reinforcing societal inequalities. According to Alexander, the consequences extend beyond criminal justice, affecting economic opportunities, access to education, and overall social mobility for affected individuals and communities.{{cite book |last=Alexander |first=Michelle |title=The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness |publisher=The New Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-1595581037}}

File:Marion_Barry_smoking_crack.gif Marion Barry captured on a surveillance camera smoking crack cocaine during a sting operation by the FBI and D.C. Police]]

Workplace drug testing has been widespread and controversial in the US since the late 1980s: there is no clear measure of its effectiveness in improving safety and productivity, and testing affects significantly more non-whites than whites. Testing is more prevalent in the US than elsewhere in the world.{{Cite web |last=Engber |first=Daniel |date=Dec 27, 2015 |title=Why Do Employers Still Routinely Drug-Test Workers? |url=https://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2015/12/workplace_drug_testing_is_widespread_but_ineffective.html |access-date=Jan 24, 2024 |website=Slate}} Most common is urine analysis for amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, opioids and PCP;{{Cite web |date= November 21, 2023|title=Drug Testing |url=https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/drug-testing#detect |access-date=Jan 24, 2024 |website=National Institutes of Health}} usually with no practical discrimination between the effects of the different drugs. Workplace testing rapidly gained popularity after the Reagan administration made it mandatory for federal workers, peaking in 1996, with 81% of companies reporting drug screening, up from 21% in 1987.{{Cite news |last=DePillis |first=Lydia |date=March 10, 2015 |title=Companies drug test a lot less than they used to – because it doesn't really work |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/10/companies-drug-test-a-lot-less-than-they-used-to-because-it-doesnt-really-work/ |access-date=Jan 24, 2024}}

In the 1980s, testing had been promoted to business as a way to reclaim what were said to be huge losses in productivity caused by drug use. Studies released in the 1990s refuted these claims; a 1994 report from the National Academy of Sciences, "Under the Influence? Drugs and the American Work Force", concluded that "the data... do not provide clear evidence of the deleterious effects of drugs other than alcohol on safety and other job performance indicators." By 2004, workplace testing was down to 62% of companies, in 2015, it was reported as below 50%. Drug use continues to be blamed for productivity losses, and testing remains common.

In 2021, some companies began to reduce drug testing in order to improve hiring prospects in a tight labor market. Amazon, America's second largest employer, eliminated cannabis testing in job pre-screening, where not required by government regulations, stating, "Pre-employment marijuana testing has disproportionately affected communities of color by stalling job placement." In a survey of 45,000 companies worldwide, 9% reported the elimination of testing in order to improve hiring.{{Cite magazine |last=McCluskey |first=Megan |date=Oct 20, 2021 |title=Amid a Labor Shortage, Companies Are Eliminating Drug Tests. It's a Trend That Could Create More Equitable Workplaces |url=https://time.com/6103798/workplace-drug-testing/ |access-date=Jan 24, 2024 |magazine=TIME}} In 2022, thousands of US truck drivers were taken off the road after testing positive for cannabis, contributing to a severe driver shortage; a conflict between the majority of states with some form of cannabis legalization, and the federal Department of Transportation's zero-tolerance cannabis policy, even for medical use, is cited as a problem.{{Cite web |last=Davis |first=Leesa |date=May 18, 2022 |title=Marijuana violations have taken over 10,000 truck drivers off the road this year, adding more supply chain disruptions |url=https://stacker.com/society/marijuana-violations-have-taken-over-10000-truck-drivers-road-year-adding-more-supply-chain |access-date=Feb 17, 2024 |website=Stacker}}

{{further|Arguments for and against drug prohibition}}

File:ONDCP_Pothead.gif]]

In the 21st century, according to polling, a majority of Americans have been skeptical about the methods and effectiveness of the war on drugs. In 2014, a Pew Research Center poll found that 67% of Americans feel that a movement towards treatment for drugs like cocaine and heroin is better versus 26% who feel that prosecution is the better route. Moving away from mandatory prison terms for drug crimes was favored by two-thirds of the population, a substantial shift from a fifty-fifty split in 2001. A large majority saw alcohol as a greater danger to health (69%) and society (63%) than cannabis.{{Cite news |date=2014-04-02 |title=America's New Drug Policy Landscape {{!}} Pew Research Center |url=http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181029091742/http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape/ |archive-date=October 29, 2018 |access-date=2018-10-23 |work=Pew Research Center for the People and the Press |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |date=2014-04-01 |title=New Pew Poll Confirms Americans Ready to End War on Drugs |url=https://drugpolicy.org/news/new-pew-poll-confirms-americans-ready-end-war-drugs/ |access-date=2018-10-22 |website=Drug Policy Alliance |language=en}} In Gallup polls on whether cannabis should be legal, 15% of Americans agreed in March 1972, rising to 28% in April 1977, where it roughly stayed until 2000, when it began rising again, to 68% in October 2021.{{Cite web |last=Qamar |first=Zoha |date=Oct 14, 2022 |title=Five Decades Into The War On Drugs, Decriminalizing Marijuana Has High Bipartisan Support |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/five-decades-into-the-war-on-drugs-decriminalizing-marijuana-has-high-bipartisan-support/ |access-date=Apr 11, 2024 |website=FiveThirtyEight}} In May 2021, a Bully Pulpit Interactive/ACLU poll found that 83% of Americans, across party lines, considered the war on drugs a failure, and 12% considered it a success.{{Cite web |last=Slisco |first=Aila |date=Jun 10, 2021 |title=Two-Thirds of American Voters Support Decriminalizing All Drugs: Poll |url=https://www.newsweek.com/two-thirds-american-voters-support-decriminalizing-all-drugs-poll-1599645 |access-date=Apr 11, 2024 |website=Newsweek}}{{Cite web |date=June 9, 2021 |title=Poll Results on American Attitudes Toward War on Drugs |url=https://www.aclu.org/documents/poll-results-american-attitudes-toward-war-drugs |access-date=Apr 11, 2024 |website=American Civil Liberties Union}}

{{Main|Legality of the War on Drugs}}

The legality of drug prohibition within the US has been challenged on various grounds. One argument holds that drug prohibition, as presently implemented, violates the substantive due process doctrine in that its benefits do not justify the encroachments on rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution.{{cite web |last=Redlich |first=Warren |authorlink=Warren Redlich |date=2005-02-05 |title=A Substantive Due Process Challenge to the War on Drugs |url=http://www.redlichlaw.com/crim/substantive-due-process-drug-war.pdf |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150217035034/http://www.redlichlaw.com/crim/substantive-due-process-drug-war.pdf |archivedate=2015-02-17 |quote=It is true that the approach suggested in this paper would limit police power. Constitutional protection of individual rights exists for that very purpose. We face coercive government action, carried out in a corrupt and racist manner, with military and paramilitary assaults on our homes, leading to mass incarceration and innocent deaths. We can never forget the tyranny of a government unrestrained by an independent judiciary. Our courts must end the War on Drugs.}}[http://www.boalt.org/bjcl/v8/v8tennenprint.htm Is the Constitution in Harm's Way? Substantive Due Process and Criminal Law] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110703081522/http://www.boalt.org/bjcl/v8/v8tennenprint.htm|date=2011-07-03}} Eric Tennen Another argument interprets the Commerce Clause to mean that drugs should be regulated in state law not federal law.{{Cite web |last=Shapiro |first=Ilya |date=Summer 2020 |title=This is Your Constitution on Drugs |url=https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/this-is-your-constitution-on-drugs |access-date=May 2, 2024 |website=National Affairs}} A third argument states that the reverse burden of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law, in that the power to convict is effectively taken from the courts and given to those who are willing to plant evidence.{{cite web |last=Anon |title=The universally unconstitutional war on drugs (3rd Ed.) |url=http://atlanta.indymedia.org/local/universally-unconstitutional-war-drugs-3rd-ed |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120707011613/http://atlanta.indymedia.org/local/universally-unconstitutional-war-drugs-3rd-ed |archive-date=2012-07-07 |access-date=2011-07-31}}

{{anchor|Efficacy}}

There is no clear measure of the effectiveness of the war on drugs, and it has been widely called a policy failure.{{Cite web |last=Chalabi |first=Mona |date=Apr 16, 2016 |title=The 'war on drugs' in numbers: a systematic failure of policy |website=TheGuardian.com |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/19/war-on-drugs-statistics-systematic-policy-failure-united-nations |access-date=Feb 21, 2024 |quote=Since Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971, it seems as though people rather than products have been most directly affected. But lack of data makes it hard to understand the impact: like most illicit activities, drug production, trade and use is hard to measure accurately. And without knowing baseline values, it's hard to understand the effect of any given policy – let alone comparing the impact of various policies. However, where long-term data is available, it does point to systematic failures in drug policies.}}{{Refn|News media, scholarly studies, government officials and leaders, and a variety of NGOs have determined the war on drugs to be a policy failure{{cite magazine |title=End the Drug War |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/20/end-the-drug-war/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170913015602/http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/03/20/end-the-drug-war/ |archive-date=September 13, 2017 |access-date=12 July 2017 |magazine=Foreign Policy}}{{cite book |last1=Friesendorf |first1=Cornelius |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Vxx9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA19 |title=US Foreign Policy and the War on Drugs: Displacing the Cocaine and Heroin Industry |date=2007 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=9781134123940 |language=en |access-date=12 July 2017}}{{cite journal |last1=Peter |first1=Andreas |author-link=Peter Andreas |date=22 June 2003 |title=A Tale of Two Borders: The U.S.–Mexico and U.S.–Canada Lines After 9/11 |url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6d09j0n2 |url-status=live |journal=Center for Comparative Immigration Studies |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827075426/https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6d09j0n2 |archive-date=August 27, 2018 |access-date=12 July 2017}}{{cite thesis |last=Westhoff |first=Lotte Berendje Rozemarijn |date=2013 |title=Ronald Reagan's War on Drugs: A Policy Failure But A Political Success |type=MA |publisher=Leiden University |hdl=1887/21802 |url=https://hdl.handle.net/1887/21802 |access-date=29 November 2021}}{{cite journal |last1=Bagley |first1=Bruce Michael |date=1988 |title=US Foreign Policy and the War on Drugs: Analysis of a Policy Failure |journal=Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs |volume=30 |issue=2/3 |pages=189–212 |doi=10.2307/165986 |jstor=165986}}{{Cite journal |last=Mitchell |first=Ojmarrh |date=2009-01-01 |title=Ineffectiveness, Financial Waste, and Unfairness: The Legacy of the War on Drugs |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2009.9721268 |journal=Journal of Crime and Justice |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=1–19 |doi=10.1080/0735648X.2009.9721268 |issn=0735-648X |s2cid=144508042|url-access=subscription }}|group=note}} Thirty years into the campaign, a National Research Council report, "Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs" (2001), found that "existing drug-use monitoring systems are strikingly inadequate to support the full range of policy decisions that the nation must make." The report noted that studies of efforts to address drug usage and smuggling, from US military operations to eradicate coca fields in Colombia, to domestic drug treatment centers, had all been inconclusive, if the programs had been evaluated at all: It concluded, "It is unconscionable for this country to continue to carry out a public policy of this magnitude and cost without any way of knowing whether and to what extent it is having the desired effect."[https://web.archive.org/web/20081205024427/http://www.dpeg.org/dpeg_2001_spg.pdf Drug Policy News], Drug Policy Education Group, Vol. 2 No. 1, Spring/Summer 2001, p. 5{{Cite book |date=2001 |editor-last=Manski |editor-first=Charles F. |editor2-last=Pepper |editor2-first=John V. |editor3-last=Petrie |editor3-first=Carol V. |title=Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us |url=https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10021/chapter/1 |access-date=Feb 3, 2024 |publisher=National Academies of Sciences |doi=10.17226/10021 |isbn=978-0-309-07273-1 }}

Writing in the New Statesmen in 2021, journalist James Bloodworth stated, "The war on drugs is a failure. We know this. We've long known it. In fact, there is such an abundance of evidence for its failure that we have more certainty here than in most areas of policy. ... According to the International Drug Policy Consortium there was a 31 per cent global increase in drug taking between 2011 and 2016. ... It is impossible to suppress the demand for drugs." He quoted Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand and head of the Global Commission on Drug Policy: "The total elimination of drugs? Dream on, there's never been a time in human history where human beings haven't resorted to some kind of substances that will take them out of their current reality for whatever reason."{{Cite web |last=Bloodworth |first=James |date=Dec 7, 2021 |title=The government is tripping if it thinks this renewed war on drugs won't backfire |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2021/12/the-government-is-tripping-if-it-thinks-this-renewed-war-on-drugs-wont-backfire |access-date=Apr 9, 2024 |website=New Statesman}}

{{See also|Supply reduction|Illegal drug trade}}

File:Rentz vs Narcotics Smugglers.jpg

{{External media | width = 210px | float = right | headerimage= | video1 =[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWY79JCfhjw A Conversation with President Obama and David Simon] (The Wire creator), discussing The Wire and the War on Drugs, The White House{{cite web | title =The President Interviews the Creator of "The Wire" About the War on Drugs | date =March 26, 2015 | url =https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/03/26/watch-president-sits-down-creator-wire-talk-about-war-drugs | access-date =March 28, 2015 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20170130023411/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/03/26/watch-president-sits-down-creator-wire-talk-about-war-drugs | archive-date =January 30, 2017 | via =National Archives | work =whitehouse.gov | url-status =live }} }}

In 1988, the RAND Corporation released a Department of Defense-funded two-year study, Sealing the Borders: The Effects of Increased Military Participation in Drug Interdiction. It concluded that the use of the armed forces to interdict drugs coming into the US would have little or no effect on cocaine traffic and might, in fact, raise the profits of cocaine cartels and manufacturers. It noted that seven prior studies, including one by the Center for Naval Research and the Office of Technology Assessment, had come to similar conclusions.Peter H. Reuter, Sealing the borders: the effects of increased military participation in drug interdiction (RAND 1988); Robert E. Kessler, "Study: Military Can't Curb Drugs", Newsday, May 23, 1988 at 23; "Military support would have little effect on drug smuggling, study says", United Press International, March 4, 1988.

File:MOJO-July-August-Cover200x262.jpg magazine cover]]

In mid-1995, the US government tried to reduce the supply of methamphetamine precursors to disrupt the market of this drug. According to a 2009 study, this effort was successful, but its effects were largely temporary.{{cite journal |last1=Dobkin |first1=Carlos |last2=Nicosia |first2=Nancy |title=The War on Drugs: Methamphetamine, Public Health, and Crime |journal=American Economic Review |date=February 2009 |volume=99 |issue=1 |pages=324–349 |doi=10.1257/aer.99.1.324 |pmid=20543969 |pmc=2883188}}

In the six years from 2000 to 2006, the US spent $4.7 billion on Plan Colombia, an effort to eradicate coca production in Colombia. The main result of this effort was to shift coca production into more remote areas and force other forms of adaptation. The overall acreage cultivated for coca in Colombia at the end of the six years was found to be the same, after the US Drug Czar's office announced a change in measuring methodology in 2005 and included new areas in its surveys.{{cite web| date =April 14, 2006 | url =http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press06/041406.html | title =2005 Coca Estimates for Colombia | publisher =Office of National Drug Control Policy |access-date=October 4, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070927234649/http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press06/041406.html |archive-date = September 27, 2007}} Cultivation in the neighboring countries of Peru and Bolivia increased, some would describe this effect like squeezing a balloon.Juan Forero, "Colombia's Coca Survives U.S. plan to uproot it", The New York Times, August 19, 2006

Richard Davenport-Hines, in his book The Pursuit of Oblivion, criticized the efficacy of the war on drugs by pointing out that "10–15% of illicit heroin and 30% of illicit cocaine is intercepted. Drug traffickers have gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of illicit drug shipments would have to be intercepted before the traffickers' profits were hurt."{{cite book |last1=Davenport-Hines |first1=Richard Peter Treadwell |url=https://archive.org/details/pursuitofoblivio00dave |title=The Pursuit of Oblivion: A Global History of Narcotics |publisher=W. W. Norton |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-393-05189-6 |location=New York |oclc=301684673 |author-link1=Richard Davenport-Hines}}

Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru from 1990 to 2000, described US foreign drug policy as "failed": "For 10 years, there has been a considerable sum invested by the Peruvian government and another sum on the part of the American government, and this has not led to a reduction in the supply of coca leaf offered for sale. Rather, in the 10 years from 1980 to 1990, it grew 10-fold."Don Podesta and Douglas Farah, "Drug Policy in Andes Called Failure", The Washington Post, March 27, 1993

According to a report commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, and released in March 2006 by the Justice Policy Institute, harsher sentences for drug offenses committed in drug-free school zones are ineffective at keeping youths away from drugs and instead create strong racial disparities in the judicial system.{{cite web |title=How drug-free zone laws impact racial disparity–and fail to protect youth |url=http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=575 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060718134920/http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=575 |archive-date=July 18, 2006 |accessdate=July 27, 2006 |publisher=Justice Policy Institute |df=mdy}}

According to data collected by the Federal Bureau of Prisons 45.3% of all criminal charges were drug related and 25.5% of sentences for all charges last 5–10 years. Furthermore, non-whites make up 41.4% of the federal prison system's population and over half are under the age of 40.{{Cite web |title=BOP Statistics: Inmate Race |url=https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190730093024/https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp |archive-date=July 30, 2019 |access-date=2019-08-15 |website=www.bop.gov}} The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that over 80% of all drug related charges are for mere possession rather than the sale or manufacture of drugs.{{Cite web |title=Crime & Justice Electronic Data Abstracts, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) |url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/tables/salespos.cfm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190815133306/https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/tables/salespos.cfm |archive-date=August 15, 2019 |access-date=2019-08-15 |website=www.bjs.gov}}

In 2005, the federally funded Monitoring the Future annual survey reported about 85% of high school seniors found marijuana "easy to obtain", virtually unchanged since 1975, never dropping below 82.7% in three decades of national surveys.{{cite web |url=http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/05data/pr05t13.pdf |title=Table 13: Trends in Availability of Drugs as Perceived by Twelfth Graders |last1=Johnston |first1=L. D. |last2=O'Malley |first2=P. M. |last3=Bachman |first3=J. G. |last4=Schulenberg |first4=J. E. |date=November 30, 2005 |website=Teen drug use down but progress halts among youngest teens |publisher=Monitoring the Future |access-date=August 23, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110724223128/http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/05data/pr05t13.pdf |archive-date=July 24, 2011 |url-status=live }} The DEA stated that the number of users of cannabis in the US declined between 2000 and 2005, even with many states passing new medical cannabis laws, making access easier,{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html#lobby|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100710025900/http://www.justice.gov/dea/marijuana_position.html#lobby|url-status=dead|title=The DEA Position On Marijuana|archivedate=July 10, 2010}} though usage rates remain higher than they were in the 1990s according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.{{cite web|url=http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/past-month-percent.htm|title=truth: the Anti-drugwar NSDUH Trends in Past Month Substance Use (1979–2008) by Percentage of Population 1 of 2|access-date=February 3, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708093137/http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/nsduh/past-month-percent.htm|archive-date=July 8, 2011|url-status=live}}

File:US timeline. Drugs involved in overdose deaths.jpg yearly overdose deaths, and the drugs involved. There were around 110,500 drug overdose deaths overall in 2022 in the US.[http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates Drug Overdose Death Rates] By National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).]]

The ONDCP stated in April 2011 that there had been a 46% drop in cocaine use among young adults over the previous five years, and a 65% drop in the rate of people testing positive for cocaine in the workplace since 2006.[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press11/032111.html White House Drug Policy Director Kerlikowske Meets with Swedish Counterdrug Officials, ONDCP, March 21, 2011] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221227081043/https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ |date=December 27, 2022 }}. Whitehousedrugpolicy.gov. At the same time, a 2007 study found that up to 35% of college undergraduates used stimulants not prescribed to them.[http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567%2809%2962081-5/abstract Elsevier] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221227081055/https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567%2809%2962081-5/fulltext |date=December 27, 2022 }}. Jaacap.com.

A 2013 study found that prices of heroin, cocaine and cannabis had decreased from 1990 to 2007, while the purity of these drugs had increased.{{cite journal |last1=Werb |first1=D. |last2=Kerr |first2=T. |last3=Nosyk |first3=B. |last4=Strathdee |first4=S. |last5=Montaner |first5=J. |last6=Wood |first6=E. |title=The temporal relationship between drug supply indicators: an audit of international government surveillance systems |journal=BMJ Open |date=September 30, 2013 |volume=3 |issue=9 |page=e003077 |doi=10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003077 |pmid=24080093 |pmc=3787412}}{{Cite news |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/about-content/fy_2015_budget_highlights_-_final.pdf |title=National Drug and Control Budget |date=March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606172558/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/about-content/fy_2015_budget_highlights_-_final.pdf |archive-date=June 6, 2017 |via=National Archives |publisher=Office of National Drug Control Policy |url-status=live}}

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health for 2019 found that 1.7% of US adults over 25 had used cocaine in the previous 12 months, compared to 1.8% in 2002, and cannabis use went from 7% in 2002 to 15.2%. The DEA's 2021 National Drug Threat Assessment stated that "a steady supply of cocaine was available throughout domestic markets" in 2019 and 2020.{{Cite web |last1=Raisbeck |first1=Daniel |last2=Vásquez |first2=Ian |date=2022 |title=Cato Handbook for Policymakers: The International War on Drugs |url=https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/international-war-drugs |access-date=Mar 28, 2024 |website=Cato Institute}}

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), drug abuse fatalities in 2021 reached an all-time high of 108,000 deaths,{{cite web |url=https://reason.com/2022/05/13/a-record-number-of-drug-related-deaths-shows-the-drug-war-is-remarkably-effective-at-killing-people/ |title=A Record Number of Drug-Related Deaths Shows the Drug War Is Remarkably Effective at Killing People |publisher=Reason.com |date=May 13, 2022}} a 15% increase from 2020 (93,000){{cite web |url=https://reason.com/2021/07/15/a-record-number-of-drug-related-deaths-illustrates-the-lethal-consequences-of-prohibition/|title=A Record Number of Drug-Related Deaths Illustrates the Lethal Consequences of Prohibition|publisher=Reason.com |date=July 15, 2021}} which, at the time, was the highest number of deaths and a 30% increase from 2019.

During alcohol prohibition, from 1920 to 1933, alcohol use initially fell but began to increase as early as 1922. It has been extrapolated that even if prohibition had not been repealed in 1933, alcohol consumption would have surpassed pre-prohibition levels. One argument against the war on drugs is that it uses similar measures as Prohibition and is no more effective.{{cite web |date=July 17, 1991 |title=Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure |url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131229232307/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html |archive-date=December 29, 2013 |access-date=March 27, 2011 |publisher=Cato.org |df=mdy-all}}

In 1997, Rolling Stone published a comprehensive snapshot of the US government's implementation of the war on drugs, spanning 44 federal agencies and hundreds of thousands of government workers, and without unified management, oversight, or cohesive strategy. Among the agencies there were over a dozen separate drug intelligence operations. The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, home of the drug czar and ostensibly the coordinating agency, had a staff of 150, and a $36 million budget; the overall federal drug war budget for 1998 was $16 billion. Most of the agencies involved did not report to the ONDCP, instead to one of 13 congressional appropriations subcommittees. The largest single share of the budget, $2 billion, went to the Bureau of Prisons. Federal agencies also passed on billions of anti-drug dollars to the states, with little oversight or accountability.{{Cite magazine |last=Dreyfuss |first=Bob |date=Dec 11, 1997 |title=The Drug War: Where the Money Goes |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-drug-war-where-the-money-goes-100201/ |access-date=Apr 29, 2024 |magazine=Rolling Stone |quote=The War on Drugs is a vast enterprise. Virtually every agency of the U.S. government has a piece of it, from the Pentagon and the Coast Guard to the National Park Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Yet unlike a real war, the crusade against drugs has no central command, no coordinated intelligence effort and very little accountability.}} In 2024, the ONDCP requested $461 million of a $46 billion federal budget allocated across some 50 federal agencies.{{Cite web |date=March 2023 |title=National Drug Control Budget: FY 2024 Funding Highlights |url=https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/FY-2024-Budget-Highlights.pdf |access-date=May 14, 2024 |website=Office of National Drug Control Policy}}

{{See also|Responsible drug use}}

Alternatives to the predominantly punitive, law enforcement approach to the war on drugs in the US fall under two broad categories: a public health orientation built around education, prevention and treatment, and decriminalization or legalization with regulation similar to the handling of alcohol. Jefferson Fish has edited scholarly collections of articles offering a wide variety of public health-based and rights-based alternative drug policies.Fish, J. M. (Ed.) (1998). How to legalize drugs. Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson.Fish, J. M. (Ed.) (2000). "Is our drug policy effective? Are there alternatives?" New York City, New York: Fordham Urban Law Journal. (Proceedings of the March 17 & 18, 2000 joint conference of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York Academy of Medicine, and Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 3–262.)Fish, J. M. (Ed.) (2006). Drugs and society: U. S. public policy. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

A common critical view holds that the war on drugs has been costly and ineffective largely because US federal and state governments have chosen the wrong methods, focusing on interdiction and punishment rather than regulation and treatment of drug abuse and addiction.{{Cite web |last=Pearl |first=Betsy |date=Jun 27, 2018 |title=Ending the War on Drugs: By the Numbers |url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/ending-war-drugs-numbers/ |access-date=Mar 20, 2024 |website=Center for American Progress}} In the US, current public health-oriented interventions include harm reduction, drug courts, and Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) programs which give police treatment or social services options rather than arrest with minor drug offenses. Harm reduction approaches include provision of sterile syringes, medically supervised injection sites (SIF), and availability of the opioid overdose-countering drug naloxone.

As an alternative to imprisonment, drug courts in the US identify substance-abusing offenders and place them under strict court monitoring and community supervision, as well as provide them with long-term treatment services.[http://whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs04/index.html The President's National Drug Control Strategy], White House, 2004. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090213091104/http://whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs04/index.html|date=February 13, 2009}} According to a National Drug Court Institute report, 16.4% of the nation's drug court graduates are rearrested and charged with a felony within one year of completing the program; overall 44.1% of released prisoners end up back in prison within one year. The drug court program is also significantly cheaper than imprisonment.Huddleston, C. West III, et al. Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States, Vol. 1, Num. 1, May 2004 Annual per offender cost is $20,000–$50,000 for imprisonment, and $2,500–$4,000 in the drug court system.{{Cite web |title=Drug Courts as an Alternative to Incarceration |url=https://addictionpolicy.stanford.edu/drug-courts-alternative-incarceration |access-date=Apr 29, 2024 |website=Stanford University}}

A survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that substance abusers who remain in treatment longer are less likely to resume their former drug habits. Of the people studied, 66% were cocaine users. After experiencing long-term in-patient treatment, only 22% returned to the use of cocaine.

During the 1990s, the Clinton administration commissioned a major cocaine policy study by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. The report recommended that $3 billion be switched from federal and local law enforcement to treatment, concluding that treatment is the cheapest way to cut drug use, and twenty-three times more effective than the supply-side war on drugs.C. Peter Rydell, Controlling Cocaine: Supply Versus Demand Programs (Rand Drug Policy Research Center 1994).

In a 2023 UN report, the UN high commissioner for Human Rights stated that "decades of punitive, 'war on drugs' strategies had failed to prevent an increasing range and quantity of substances from being produced and consumed", described punitive drug policies as a failure, and called for an approach "based on health and human rights, including through the legal regulation of drugs."{{Cite web |last=Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights |date=August 15, 2023 |title=Human rights challenges in addressing and countering all aspects of the world drug problem |url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2023/call-inputs-ohchrs-report-human-rights-challenges-addressing-and-countering |access-date=Apr 20, 2024 |website=United Nations |page=6}}{{Cite web |last=jstaff |date=2023-09-20 |title=The International Community Must Act on UN Human Rights Chief's Ground-Breaking Call for Systemic Drug Policy Reform |url=https://www.wola.org/2023/09/international-community-must-act-systemic-drug-reform/ |access-date=2023-10-01 |website=WOLA |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |title=134 NGOs sign collective statement urging the international community to act on UN human rights chief's ground-breaking call for systemic drug policy reform |url=https://idpc.net/news/2023/09/133-ngos-sign-collective-statement-urging-the-international-community-to-act-on-un-human-rights |access-date=2023-10-01 |website=IDPC |language=en}}

Considering outright legalization of recreational drugs, New York Times columnist Eduardo Porter noted:

Jeffrey Miron, an economist at Harvard who studies drug policy closely, has suggested that legalizing all illicit drugs would produce net benefits to the United States of some $65 billion a year, mostly by cutting public spending on enforcement as well as through reduced crime and corruption. A study by analysts at the RAND Corporation, a California research organization, suggested that if marijuana were legalized in California and the drug spilled from there to other states, Mexican drug cartels would lose about a fifth of their annual income of some $6.5 billion from illegal exports to the United States.{{cite news |last=Porter |first=Eduardo |date=July 3, 2012 |title=Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/business/in-rethinking-the-war-on-drugs-start-with-the-numbers.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129051604/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/business/in-rethinking-the-war-on-drugs-start-with-the-numbers.html |archive-date=January 29, 2017 |access-date=4 July 2012 |work=The New York Times}}

In 2007, "An Open Letter to the President, Congress, Governors, and State Legislatures" signed by over 550 economists, including Nobel laureates Milton Friedman, George Akerlof and Vernon L. Smith, endorsed the findings of a 2006 paper, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. Comparing the cost of prohibition to the tax revenue if cannabis was taxed as regular consumer good, or similarly to alcohol, the letter stated that the budgetary impact, considered alongside evidence that "suggests prohibition has minimal benefits and may itself cause substantial harm", favors "a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods."{{cite web |title=An open letter |url=http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071017021537/http://prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html |archive-date=October 17, 2007 |access-date=February 20, 2008 |publisher=Prohibition Costs}} According to a 2010 report on co-authored by Miron, the annual savings on enforcement and incarceration costs from the legalization of drugs would amount to roughly $41.3 billion, with $25.7 billion being saved among the states and over $15.6 billion accrued for the federal government. Miron further estimated at least $46.7 billion in tax revenue based on rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol: $8.7 billion from marijuana, $32.6 billion from cocaine and heroin, and $5.4 billion from other drugs.{{Cite news |last1=Miron |first1=Jeffrey A. |last2=Waldock |first2=Katherine |name-list-style=amp |year=2010 |title=The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition |url=http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130512134045/http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/DrugProhibitionWP.pdf |archive-date=May 12, 2013 |access-date=May 15, 2013 |publisher=CATO.org}}

Regarding economic arguments for legalization that make a comparison with alcohol, a 2013 study noted that the $14.6 billion in annual alcohol tax collected at the US federal and state levels represented less than 10% of the estimated $185 billion of alcohol-related health care, criminal justice and lost productivity costs.{{Cite web |last1=Paterson |first1=Pat |last2=Robinson |first2=Katy |date=July 2014 |title=Measuring Success in the War on Drugs |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D5-PURL-gpo120008/pdf/GOVPUB-D5-PURL-gpo120008.pdf |access-date=May 17, 2024 |website=William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies |page=19}}

{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}

• Baker, a series of counter-narcotics training exercises conducted by the United States Army and several Asian countries
• Chasing the Scream
• Class war
• Cognitive liberty
• Drugs in the United States
• Latin American drug legalization
• Law Enforcement Action Partnership
• November Coalition
• Mexican drug war
• Colombian conflict
• War on drugs in Ecuador
• Philippine drug war
• Salvadoran gang crackdown
• Prison-industrial complex
• Race war
• Recreational use of drugs
• Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure
• Victimless crime
• War on gangs

Covert activities and foreign policy

• Allegations of CIA drug trafficking
• Golden Crescent
• Golden Triangle
• Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act
• CIA transnational anti-crime and anti-drug activities
• UMOPAR
• Air Bridge Denial Program

Government agencies and laws

• Continuing Criminal Enterprise
• Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act
• United Nations Drug Control Programme

{{div col end}}

{{reflist|group=note}}

{{Reflist}}

{{Library resources box}}

• {{cite book|last=Hari|first=Johann|title=Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs|location=London; New York|year=2015|publisher= Bloomsbury|isbn=978-1620408902|title-link=Chasing the Scream}}
• {{Cite journal|last1=Blanchard|first1=Michael|first2=Gabriel J.|last2=Chin|ssrn=1128945|title=Identifying the Enemy in the War on Drugs: A Critique of the Developing Rule Permitting Visual Identification of Indescript White Powders in Narcotics Prosecutions|journal=American University Law Review|issue=47|page=557|year=1998}}
• Daniel Burton-Rose, The Celling of America: An Inside Look at the U.S. Prison Industry. Common Courage Press, 1998.
• Stephanie R. Bush-Baskette, "The War on Drugs as a War on Black Women," in Meda Chesney-Lind and Lisa Pasko (eds.), Girls, Women, and Crime: Selected Readings. Sage, 2004.
• {{Cite journal|last=Chin|first=Gabriel|ssrn=390109|title=Race, the War on Drugs and the Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction|journal=Gender, Race & Justice|issue=6|page=253|year=2002}}
• Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press. New York: Verso, 1998.
• Mitchell Earlywine, Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
• Kathleen J. Frydl, The Drug Wars in America, 1940–1973. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
• {{Cite journal|first=Kenneth B.|last=Nunn|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jgrj6&div=19&id=&page=|title=Race, Crime and the Pool of Surplus Criminality: Or Why the War on Drugs Was a War on Blacks|journal=Gender, Race & Justice|volume = 6|issue=6|page=381|year=2002}}
• Tony Payan, "A War that Can't Be Won." Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2013.
• Preston Peet, Under the Influence: The Disinformation Guide to Drugs. The Disinformation Company, 2004.
• Thomas C. Rowe, Federal Narcotics Laws and the War on Drugs: Money Down a Rat Hole. Binghamton, NY: Haworn Press, 2006.
• Eric Schneider, [http://www.berfrois.com/2011/11/eric-schneider-smack-demand/ "The Drug War Revisited,"] Berfrois, November 2, 2011.
• Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1911.
• Dominic Streatfeild, Cocaine: An Unauthorized Biography. Macmillan, 2003.
• Douglas Valentine, The Strength of the Wolf: The Secret History of America's War on Drugs. New York: Verso, 2004.

• [https://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs31/31379/index.htm National Drug Threat Assessment 2009] from the United States Department of Justice
• [https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19493.pdf War On Drugs: Legislation in the 108th Congress and Related Developments], a 2003 report from the Congressional Research Service via the State Department website
• [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/ledain/ldctoc.html The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs – 1972]
• {{citation |author=Drug Enforcement Administration |year=2017 |title=Drugs of abuse: A DEA resource guide |edition=2017 |location=Washington, D.C. |publisher=Author |url=https://www.dea.gov/pr/multimedia-library/publications/drug_of_abuse.pdf |access-date=January 23, 2018 |archive-date=December 3, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161203195836/https://www.dea.gov/pr/multimedia-library/publications/drug_of_abuse.pdf |url-status=dead }}
• [https://www.healthpovertyaction.org/news-events/revealing-the-missing-link-to-climate-justice-drug-policy/ Revealing the missing link to Climate Justice: Drug Policy], a 2023 report from the International Coalition on Drug Policy Reform and Environmental Justice

{{commons category}}

• [http://www.narconews.com/ Narco News] – news site focusing on drug war in Latin America
• [https://www.drugpolicyfacts.org/ Drug Policy Facts]
• [https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/studies.htm Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy] Full text of major government commission reports on the drug laws from around the world over the last 100 years
• [https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/history.htm Historical Research on the Drug War] Full text of numerous full histories of the drug war and thousands of original historical documents
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080705105743/http://cato.org/current/drug-war/index.html Cato Institute Drug Prohibition Research]

{{drug use}}

{{United States topics}}

{{Colombia conflict}}

{{Mexican Drug War}}

{{Internal conflict in Peru}}

{{Presidency of Richard Nixon}}

{{Presidency of Gerald Ford}}

{{Presidency of Jimmy Carter}}

{{Presidency of Ronald Reagan}}

{{Presidency of George H. W. Bush}}

{{Presidency of Bill Clinton}}

{{Presidency of George W. Bush}}

{{Presidency of Barack Obama}}

{{First presidency of Donald Trump}}

{{Joe Biden}}

{{Second presidency of Donald Trump}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:War on drugs}}

Category:20th-century conflicts

Category:1970s conflicts

Category:1970s neologisms

Category:1980s conflicts

Category:1990s conflicts

Category:21st-century conflicts

Category:2000s conflicts

Category:2010s conflicts

Category:2020s conflicts

Category:Counterterrorism in the United States

Category:Counterterrorist operations

Category:Drug control law in the United States

Category:Drug policy of the United States

Category:History of drug control in the United States

Category:Illegal drug trade in the United States

Category:Law enforcement operations against drug trafficking

Category:Law enforcement operations in the United States

Category:Mexican drug war

Category:Organized crime conflicts

Category:Presidency of Richard Nixon

Category:Presidency of Gerald Ford

Category:Presidency of Jimmy Carter

Category:Presidency of Ronald Reagan

Category:Presidency of George H. W. Bush

Category:Presidency of Bill Clinton

Category:Presidency of George W. Bush

Category:Presidency of Barack Obama

Category:First presidency of Donald Trump

Category:Metaphors referring to war and violence

Category:Moral panic

Category:Presidency of Joe Biden

Category:United States–Asian relations

Category:United States–Central American relations

Category:United States–South American relations

Category:United States federal policy