Nnamdi Devereaux Armour

Armour 1

Nnamdi Devereaux Armour

I am a senior International Relations major with a passion for both the hard and soft sciences. Additionally, I may or may not maintain a minimum of one ant-farm year round, and each new ant-farm I getmay or may not be named after a historically significant feudal nations-state.

Key Words: Social Engineer, Prohibition, inter-disciplinary analysis, The War on Drugs, failure, Hard/Soft Science

Multimedia Suggestions:

• (pertinent statistical representation)

This piece is an exploration of the necessity to combat the traditionally divorced nature of the soft and hard sciences. While the two are dissimilar in many ways, each paradigm of critical exploration stands to gain much from an intermingling. Every field has its shortcomings; these discrepancies in affectivity can be greatly reduced by utilizing respective strengths while shying away from traditional isolationist posturing.

The Necessity of Inter-Disciplinary Co-Facilitation

As has become startlingly apparent, the once lauded global War on Drugs has failed. In recent years, the acquisition of illicit narcotics has become increasingly accessible in nearly every facet – significantly less expensive, more available, and of a never before seen purity – the War on Drugs has resulted ultimately in the creation of a market for the narcotics trade. It stands without dispute that, in a similar fashion to the liquor prohibition of the not so distant past;“the punitive prohibitionist approach to global drug control has proven remarkably costly, ineffective and counterproductive” [5]. Over the decades, the War on Drugs has facilitated nearly unprecedented levels of conflict, criminality and corruption while at the same time dramatically failing to produce even the most meager of advancements toward the realization of its initial charter, which was the inhibition of the domestic trade of psychoactive drugs.

Just to paint a picture of the extent to which the War on Drug’s has failed, in the United States alone the going street price of the three most prevalent recreational narcotics (cannabis, cocaine, and heroin)hasbeen reduced by a staggering 80% in less than two decades while the average purity, and thereby potency, has increased dramatically. Concurrently, federal appropriation of illicit narcoticsin the United Stateshas skyrocketed, with a 465% increase in cannabis seizures, and heroin appropriations increased by 29%[1]. Theseelevated rates of seizures and arrestshave also created an enormousspike in incarceration rates, predominantly in areas already plagued by social and economic disadvantage.As extolled by the Drug Policy Alliance, “Drug arrests have more than tripled in the last 25 years, totaling more than 1.63 millionarrests in 2010. More than four out of five of these arrests were for [non-violent] possession, and forty-six percent of these arrests (750,591) were for marijuana possession alone”[10]. Since the beginning of the War on Drugs, the amount of citizens incarcerated for a drug related offense has increased from 50,000 in 1980 to morethan a half of a million today – that over an increase of 1100% [2]. Figure 1 demonstrates the extent of drug related violence in Mexico, one of War’s the most effected countries.

“Prohibition plants the seeds of its own defeat by enabling traffickers to earn a premium for undertaking the special risks involved in supplying an illegal product” [8].This institutionally assured phenomena results in significant motivationfor law breakers to develop means of circumvention, with respect to the laws, as opposed to facilitating the intended outcome of deterrence – by basic principles of supply and demand, profit margins for those willing to take the risks are significant enough to incentivize drug proliferation. “Illegal drug prices have generally decreased while drug purity has generally increased since 1990. These findings suggest that expanding efforts at controlling the global illegal drug market through law enforcement are failing” [10].The true absurdity of the War on Drugs lies in its practical naïveté, considering the outrageously abundant potential areas of drug production and the great demand for these products caused by the War’s heavy-handed blanket prohibition, the belief that distribution could be significantly curbed – especially considering modern perspective on the matter garnered by years of abject failure – is nothing more than a pretty fiction.Quite simply, if the government is unable to maintain the prohibition of narcotics behind the walls of even our high security prisons, the idea that they idea that they can make a dent in the open world is laughable.

As the shortfalls of our current system of drug prohibition are becoming increasingly apparent, it seems of paramount importance that drastic measures are contrived for a more holistic solution to this problem which has already cost so much. According to the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, “Engineering is the profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize economically the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind”[3]. It is precisely this framework, this practical and methodical approach to data acquisition and applied reasoning which has led to groundbreaking advances in many areas of academic inquiry.Areas which otherwise would be dismissed by the engineering community as a consequence of their proximity to the more theoretical soft sciences. Engineering, however, by definition is the practical implementation of science and math to solve problems, and part of its import is its potential for application in a boundless variety of analyses and problem solving endeavors. In this vein, researchers – social engineers if you will (who admittedly are often ostracized from the hard-science oriented community of engineers that seek to distance themselves from those not wholly committed to the scientific method) – have undertaken the task of waylaying the myriad harms plaguing the human condition. Moreover, social engineers “for the benefit of mankind” have and continue to develop less than tangible mechanisms for much necessitated political, social, economic, and cultural progress.

The progress we are referring to when discussing the issue of crime associated with narcotics prohibition, is our desperately evident need for a paradigm shift. We require an over-haul to the failing status quo – and to that end, social engineers have developed, and continue to delve into what are widely considered our most promising opportunities for ending the world’s most enduring and costly war. They are doubling down on the historically aggressive policing of drug trafficking; altering rhetoric slightly so as to allow for a more open dialogue and potential reforms to drug related criminal justice; and a drastic overhaul to our perception and management of drug abuse – essentially decriminalizing perpetrators, while simultaneously devoting significant resources to heath-based rehabilitation and education.

Seemingly counter-intuitive to the stark emphasis on change embodied by the other two methods of reform, at least to a marginal degree, an increase to the intensity of the war on drugs is still considered the only viable option by many hardline reform proponents. This approach stems from the belief that only by way of an unflinchingly penal method of deterrence can the ever increasing number recreational drug users be curbed. This hardline stance is made all the more popular in areas where drug related violence has reached catastrophic heights. In Chihuahua, a particularly effected region in Mexico, 4,427 people were killed as a direct result of drug cartel violence [7]. The idea stands that the current short comings of the war on drugs is indicative not so much of a fundamental flaw in our current prohibitory standards, but instead as direct result of insufficient dedicated resources for the issue to be combatted effectively. These advocates believe that the potential to bring the war on drugs to a close is within our reach, with merely the necessity for the application of a more robust and punitive response, in tandem with a more consistent set of disciplinary policies with the aim of deterring drug use outright.

In recent times, we have begun to see governments and other institutions shy away from the traditional zero tolerance methodologies that once dominated law enforcement rhetoric regarding drugs, citing what many see as a clear indication of the ineffectiveness of the militarization of drug prohibition. Currently, the most championed and widely applied approach to restricting the encroachment of narcotics is that of refining, not necessarily overhauling, a primarily criminal justice oriented process. Essentially, this calls for a traditional prohibitory position, preserving the largely criminal justice focused approach, with an emphasis on enforcement and the dogmatic pledge to completely eradicate drugs from the populace, but additionally endeavoring to elevate historic short-falls of the process through innovation, targeted reforms to policing practices, and public health interventions. Examples of these possible reforms include:

Improving accountability; monitoring and evaluation to facilitate a focus on “what works”, and to reduce or prevent human rights abuses and corruption; targeting enforcement at the most violent organized crime groups with the primary aim of reducing overall market-related violence; targeting enforcement at retail drug sales that are the most visible, disruptive, violent, or accessible to vulnerable groups such as young people; and de-prioritizing enforcement aimed at low-level participants in drug markets, including consumers, small-scale farmers, low-level dealers and drug ‘mules’.[4]

Unsurprisingly, the practical effectiveness of different enforcement policies can vary significantly, therefore concentrating substantial resources towards the suppression of the most deleterious expressions of the illicit drug trade has the possibility to more effectively combat lawbreakers.In this view, the application of focused enforcement, strategically aligned to disrupt distribution channels by targeting suppliers – as opposed to our historically inconsequential and heavy-handed attempts to stamp out the narcotics market entirely – seems the more pragmatic and laudable approach[6]. Truly, endeavors such as these have the prospect to promptly reconcilespecific areas of substantial duress, however while promising; such methods remain woefully unsubstantiated in the field. Unfortunately, while a focused, more surgical approach may be a substantial boon in combating some of the most high profile issues presented by the war on drugs (cartel violence, large narcotics shipments) such a strategy can have the unfortunate side effect of pulling attention away from some of the key contributing factors to the proliferation of drug cartels in the first place – namely the demand perpetuated by an addicted populace.

The third and undoubtedly most pioneering of the proposals presents the contention that not through institutionalized discipline but instead through rehabilitation and education can the most substantial and lasting changes to the drug problem be assured. While other measures rely on the model of punitive enforcement and demand reduction, this health based approach focuses on the simple concept of ‘harm reduction’ – the concept of reducing the ills directly associated with individuals unwilling or unable to stop using drugs. “Harm Reduction’ refers to policies, programs and practices that aim primarily to reduce the adverse health, social and economic consequences of the use of legal and illegal psychoactive drugs without necessarily reducing drug consumption”[11]. It is conceivable and perhaps necessitated, to reorient our current international legal framework away from a criminal justice dominated model, and in the direction of a more practical community health oriented one – drug legalization is perhaps not the dark-horse we have always made it out to be. Figure 2outlines the relationship between extremes of drug enforcement and their resulting influence on social wellbeing.

As delineated, it is multifaceted and intrinsically significant issues such as this which beg for the attention of individuals inclined to both the otherwise largely estranged fields of engineering and social science. Contrary to popular belief, the two are not mutually exclusive; but instead may work in tandem, complimenting each other where otherwise a short-fall of onemay have stunted a potentially fruitful inquiry. By the very nature of inter-disciplinary analysis the spectrum of potential advances broadens considerably. Perspective and depth are integrally important to scientific innovation and progress, and as our world progresses the already multi-faceted nature of many core issues will call for an ever increasing level of inter-disciplinary cooperation.

Works Cited

[1]Carlos, Dobkin, and Nicosia Nancy. "The War on Drugs: Methamphetamine, Public Health, and Crime."American Economic Review. 99.1 (2009): 324-349. Print. <

[2] "Forty Years of Failure."Drug Policy. Drug Policy Alliance. Web. 15 Nov 2013. <

[3] "History of the ABET."ABET. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. Web. 15 Nov 2013.

[4] Kleiman, Mark. "Surgical Strikes in the Drug Wars."Foreign Affairs. September/October 2011: n. page. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <

[5] Nadelmann, Ethan. "New research shows war on drugs has failed to reduce supply and access to illegal drugs in the US and internationally ."International Centre for Science in Drug Policy. (2013): n. page. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <

[6] Nosyk, Bohdan, Evan Wood, et al. "Evidence-based drug policy: It starts with good evidence and ends with policy reform."Drug Policy. 23.6 (2012): 423-425. Web. 15 Nov. 2013

[7] "Q&A: Mexico's drug-related violence."BBC News. 16 Jul 2013: n. page. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. <

[8] Sullum, Jacob. "The Wasteful War on Drugs is Doomed by Economics 101."Forbes. 10 Oct 2013: n. page. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

[9] "The War on Drugs: Options and Alternatives."Count the Costs 50 Years of the War on Drugs. n.d. 1-16. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.

[10] Werb, Dan, Thomas Kerr, Bohdan Nosyk, Steffanie Strathdee, Julio Montaner, and Evan Wood. "The Temporal Relationship Between Drug Supply Indicators: An Audit of International Government Surveillance Systems."BMJ Open. 3.9 (2013): n. page. Web. 14 Nov. 2013.

[11] "What is Harm Reduction? A position statement from the International Harm Reduction Association." . International Harm Reduction Association, n.d. Web. 15 Nov 2013.