Christopher Tono
War on drugs Actually does more harm than good.
In my oral presentation I chose to discuss the social issue of drug abuse and addiction and the social,
political and economic effects of the ineffective and bloody war on drugs.
To begin my speech, I chose to start with a humorous approach- “drugs, something I’m taking right
now to help me stay calm”, in order to create a relaxed and receptive atmosphere for the argument
about to be presented as well as to highlight the context of the issue in relation to our everyday
lives.
To introduce my subject, I chose to begin by providing background information on the American
origins of the term “War on Drugs” and how it was popularized by the media after Richard Nixon’s
famous speech to Congress on drug abuse prevention and control in which he declared drug abuse
“public enemy number one” and how from that moment onwards began a brutal campaign of “war”
on drugs. The so called “war” itself marked by mass criminalization, the use of force and violence
and the adoption of similar ‘international standards’ and ‘best practice’ by countries all over the
world, relating back to my contention that the war on drugs is doing more harm than good.
To reinforce my contention I chose to break down my argument into four key points: the first being
that the “war on drugs” is ineffective and costly in terms of both money and lives, the second being
that our approach to addiction is fundamentally flawed and handline approaches do not help
address the issue but rather magnify it, the third being that addicts should not be purely be punished
for using drugs but rather treated, to address the root cause of demand in dealing with the issue of
narcotics and finally, to propose a to the problem of drug abuse, we must take progressive steps to
change our attitude to drug addiction in treating it not as a crime, but more as a mental and social
health problem, and the users the victims of social isolation which lead them to find drugs as an
avenue of escape in the first place, bringing attention to the contention that the war on drugs does
more harm than good.
To support my first point I chose to highlight the fact that the “War on drugs” is a fundamentally
flawed American policy, by highlighting the use of war as a metaphor in many other American
policies such as “The War on Poverty”, “The War on Terror”, “The War on Gangs”, “The War on
Poverty” and the “War on Cancer” highlighting, through the use of repetition, the recurring theme of
“war” in the American approach in dealing with any social and physical problems, and the way the
rest of the world happily follows suit, emphasizing my contention that the war on drugs does more
harm than good, supported with relevant statistics.
My second point focuses on society’s approach to drugs and seeks to challenge our perception and
view of addiction and what it really is, by questioning the handline policies against drug users and
whether they are really effective in deterring drug abuse or simply magnify the problem by creating
an endless cycle of gang violence and incarceration from which there is no escape, without
addressing the key issue of demand. To support my point I used relevant facts and statistics from
studies on addiction and websites such as drugpolicy.org. To rebuff any counter arguments against
my point, I made it clear now where in my speech did I imply that traffickers of drugs and people
who deliberately abuse drugs for recreational purposes should go unpunished, however I merely
suggested that drug users are more often than not the victims of social isolation and that handline
policies such as incarceration only seek to increase their isolation further and destroy their chances
of reintegration into society, reinforcing my contention that the war on drugs does more harm than
good.
In my third point I chose to emphasize the fact that our approach to addicts is wrong and hard-line
policies such as incarceration only increases the chances of reoffending as it only intensifies the
user’s social isolation away from the very social circle and support which they need to break free of
their addiction. I also highlighted the fact that since hard-line policies increase the chances of
reoffending, as demonstrated through statistics, the use of such policies can lead to wider social
issues such as racial profiling of minorities and mass criminalization of a population leading to
distrust between law enforcement and the people in the process of attempting to ‘eradicate’ drugs,
reinforcing my contention that the war on drugs ultimately does more harm than good.
In my fourth point I chose to highlight the fact that a new progressive approach to addiction is
needed in that drug addiction is treated as a health issue rather than a criminal problem in order to
promote the idea that demand, not supply is the issue when dealing with addiction, reinforcing my
contention that the war on drugs ultimately does more harm than good and that the time has come
to end the cycle of violence and bloodshed, which are part of the bloody War on Drugs.