#violence does solve some problems! but not one of this scale and systemic magnitude! there is no glorious revolution!

[badolmen]

I really feel like some of you genuinely think that if all billionaires died tomorrow the world would magically be a better place. Their wealth doesn’t come with a will ensuring it’s redistributed fairly across the planet - it goes to their kin or organizations of their choice. The systems that allowed such vile people to maintain their status will still exist. 4 dead billionaires isn’t this victory you think it is - there’s 4 new billionaires inheriting their wealth and status. Killing every billionaire would just shuffle the pieces and players, it wouldn’t change the game.

[benandkyleforeignpolicy-blog]

Ending the “War on Drugs”

Kyle Serio and Ben Sanders

Foreign Policy

Dr. Radziszewski

15 December 2017

                                            Ending the “War on Drugs”

Grand strategies address issues as complex and multifaceted as the name implies. There is a sense of allure to solving what seems like an impossible issue. One of the most often referred to grand strategies is U.S involvement during the Cold War. However, as Amy Zegart points out in her article “Complexity and the Misguided Search for Grand Strategy”, the post 9/11 world has introduced a wide variety of issues that are all equally important and complex, “Today, the number, identity, and magnitude of dangers threatening American interests are all wildly uncertain. Exactly how many principal adversaries does the United States have? Who are they and what do they want? What could they do to us?” (Zegart, 2013, p.2). Economics, politics, world health, and international conflict are just a few examples of different aspects of life rearing issues that are seemingly impossible to answer.  Concerning? Absolutely, but that is a side effect to a developed world. There are simply more people then there was 100 years ago. This paper will outline a proposed U.S. grand strategy of ending the war on drugs. The plan will include how the strategy will be implemented, the impact of these changes, the problems that will occur for trying to implement it and how they are dealt with, and the overall desired outcome of this strategy.

The US grand strategy we would like to propose deals with the “War on Drugs” and reversing the effects the so called war has created. The “War on Drugs” has led to an era of mass incarceration that unequivocally affects low income communities of color. Consequently, prisons, instead of being filled with violent criminals, are being filled with minor drug offenders. President Nixon started the “War on Drugs” by enacting policy and it is through policy that the “War on Drugs” must end. President Trump should enact an Executive Order officially ending what many would call a “phantom” war. Policies should be created to legalize Schedule V drugs. Progression should, and will, be made towards the legalization of Schedule I drugs within a few years. While this plan is enacted, a policy will be created to further a public health approach effectively changing the narrative that drugs are a criminal issue and instead a public health issue. Policy will be created to require the newly legalized drugs to be strictly regulated and heavily taxed.

This grand strategy plan will impact not only the US but the rest of the world as well. Drugs trafficking has been one of, if not, the largest criminal enterprises since criminal organizations went global. Drugs, because of their transglobal value, affects every region of the globe. Cocaine in Colombia affects neighborhoods in New York while heroin from Afghanistan has has reached the midwest. If all of a sudden drugs become legal in one of the most powerful nations in the world, all of the sudden cartels and drug producers lose out on big business. We have seen similar effects in states that have legalized marijuana. A proposition like his will decrease drug violence, and gang violence domestically while at the same time delivering a blow to the international drug trade. Essentially what would happen is one of the largest markets for illegal goods would suddenly not need to reach outside of the United States to get what would now be legal. Not only will drug trade be affected but prison systems, law enforcement, and the criminal justice system as a whole will undergo change. Policing will change, arrest rates will fall, and consequently, so will the incarceration rates. If less effort is put into keeping drugs off the street a large amount of tax dollars open up to be used elsewhere. With so many positive possibilities it may become popular for other countries to follow suit. What began as a domestic strategy could very well have international implications.

This grand strategy will face problems, contradictions, and fierce opposition. Some politicians will put up a fight to keep this policy from being enacted.They will pull every string they can to prevent such a change. This policy would be extremely polarizing on both a political and social level. This is a very liberal policy plan and it is expected that the right be opposed. Members of the top one percent will fund programs and campaigns opposing this change and challenging the policies. These problems will be expected and plans will be in place to counter them prior to any public announcements. Congress would have to have a ⅔ majority in order to counter the President’s executive order. Prior to public announcement the votes would have to be counted to check how strong Congress feels about the issue. If the votes are not there then some may have to be convinced to make this change. Congress consists of different minds and beliefs and it would be foolish to assume a unanimous decision. Even if the executive order were not to be allowed the President could still publicly condemn the “War on Drugs”, while pursuing a legislative policy through Congress. This would create a trickle down effect and may change many people’s perception on drugs in society. A statement like this may also speed up the legalization process of drugs.

Some groups of people that may oppose this new strategy are advocates of prison privatization, members of law enforcement, and concerned parents. The privatization of prisons has been growing to combat the mass incarceration rates of the US. This means people are making money off sending people to prison. Advocates of privatization of prisons will be strongly against the legalization of drugs because they know there will be no need for all these extra prisons and they will surely lose profit. Police Departments will be against the legalization of drugs because “they have seen the effects of drugs on the streets”, when a police officer gives a ticket for a crime such as speeding or drugs they create revenue for their department. It is a way for police officers to fund their department. They may be worried that without the “War on Drugs” they will not be able to obtain enough funding for their department. This problem will be recognized and addressed in the fact that the legalization of drugs will pose new crimes that were not possible before. Police will need to adapt in order to keep pace with criminals. They must also come to the realization that their funding will come from the implemented drug tax. Parents may take a strong stance against this new policy. They will be worried for their children's safety and increased possibility of drug use. However, the same precautions that are used to protect, prevent, and condemn children from drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco products would be put in place for all other drugs. Laws would still be in place to deter children from using drugs, such as age requirements and strict regulations on this new legalization. Private prisons, police officers, and worried parents are opponents that are expected. As mentioned before, policy is never unanimous. People will stand for and against the policy, but If the goal of legalizing drugs was to appease every individual in the United States policy would never be enacted.

Grand strategies are grand for a reason, they are not easy to create. Amy Zegart, in her article, gives two reasons why Grand Strategies are so difficult to implement. The first is that, “they must be able to anticipate and articulate a compelling future state of the world and galvanize the development of policies, institutions, and capabilities at the domestic and international level to get us there” (Zegart, 2013, p.1). The basic definition of what a grand strategy is provides that creating one is no small task and it requires skills that not many people have. They also require the ability to see the outcomes of possible decisions. This is not easy to do but that is why the planning and pre-implementation process are so important. The second problem mentioned by Zegart is, “the strategic interaction part of grand strategy, which requires predicting, evading, blocking, and otherwise adjusting to the countermoves of principal adversaries” (Zegart, 2013, p.1). Flexibility and the ability to adjust are key aspects of any proposed strategy, not doing so will show a lack of forethought and planning. The strategy proposed has been thought out on every level of society, beginning at the macro level and working down to individual opinions. These problems are valid, however, the only way to truly know whether or not they can be parried is by facing them.

The goal of this proposed strategy would be to create positive change on a larger scale that will have a trickle down effect on to the people. The money obtained from taxes will go back into societies key institutions such as the education system and the criminal justice system. Social programs will be financially aided as well. Rehabilitation programs will gain more funding while at the same time become more prevalent. This shift in funds stresses the movement from criminalization of drugs to rehabilitation and the prevention of drug use. By legalizing drugs, criminal enterprises in the drug industry will no longer be able to create enough revenue to survive. Rather then operating illegally they would simply operate legally. However, This is only a grand strategy for the U.S. and therefore drug enterprises outside of the U.S. would still be illegal. Although, the actions of the U.S. would encourage other countries to follow in its path. Gang violence may go down, incarceration numbers would be reduced, less people would be affected by the illegal drugs in general, and a billion dollar market will suddenly become legal which will create entrepreneur opportunities, a higher GDP. Ultimately, a smart on crime mentality in regards to keeping prison strictly for violent criminals, and a strong public health approach that leaves the choice of using drugs up to individuals is a safer, more profitable, and effective approach compared to the U.S. hard on crime and “War on Drugs” mentality. It will essentially mirror the tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana industries. The use of drugs is a non-violent act that turns violent when law enforcement go up against gangs, cartels, and other criminal enterprises.

Amy Zegart depicts an image of grand strategies that seems insurmountable. They are grand for a reason. They are strategies devised to solve the world's most complex issues. The “War on Drugs” is defined as an era that has unequivocally affects low income communities of color. It has spread roots that affect people in all aspects of life, from prisons, to schools, and even the job world. The proposed grand strategy was created to change the narrative on drugs in the U.S. It gets rid of the criminalization of drugs and replaces it with the legalization and regulation of those same drugs. The effect this will have on society will be a positive one and it will begin to undo what President Nixon put into place years ago. The key to achieving a successful strategy will be flexibility, foreseeability, organization, and the ability to anticipate any future challenges or changes. However, as mentioned before, the only real way to truly test a strategy is to put it in play and see how it fares.

                                                   Works Cited

Zegart, Amy. 2013. “Complexity and the Misguided Search for Grand Strategy.” Foreign Policy Working Group. Hoover Institution. Stanford University. http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Zegart_ComplexityAndMisguidedSearch.pdf