The prices of meth and marijuana, meanwhile, have remained largely stable since the 1980s. Between 19, the median bulk price of crack cocaine fell by around 54 percent. Between 19, the median bulk price of heroin is down by roughly 93 percent, and the median bulk price of powder cocaine is down by about 87 percent. The prices of most drugs, as tracked by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, have plummeted. And although some of the data shows drugs getting cheaper, drug policy experts generally believe that the drug war is nonetheless preventing some drug abuse by making the substances less accessible. The specific aim is to destroy and inhibit the international drug trade - making drugs scarcer and costlier, and therefore making drug habits in the US unaffordable. The goal of the war on drugs is to reduce drug use. In the case of the war on drugs, the question is whether the very real drawbacks of prohibition - more racially skewed arrests, drug-related violence around the world, and financial costs - are worth the potential gains from outlawing and hopefully depressing drug abuse in the US. Drug policy is often described as choosing between a bunch of bad or mediocre options, rather than finding the perfect solution. The question with these policies, as with the drug war more broadly, is whether the risks and costs are worth the benefits. In response to the failures and unintended consequences, many drug policy experts and historians have called for reforms: a larger focus on rehabilitation, the decriminalization of currently illicit substances, and even the legalization of all drugs. Some of this history is racially tinged, and, perhaps as a result, the war on drugs has long hit minority communities the hardest. Laws passed in the early 20th century attempted to restrict drug production and sales.
While Nixon began the modern war on drugs, America has a long history of trying to control the use of certain drugs. The drug war also led to several - some unintended - negative consequences, including a big strain on America's criminal justice system and the proliferation of drug-related violence around the world. But the crackdown has in some ways failed to produce the desired results: Drug use remains a very serious problem in the US, even though the drug war has made these substances less accessible. Over the past four decades, the US has committed more than $1 trillion to the war on drugs. Drug use had become more public and prevalent during the 1960s due in part to the counterculture movement, and many Americans felt that drug use had become a serious threat to the country and its moral standing. Nixon inaugurated the war on drugs at a time when America was in hysterics over widespread drug use. But in that process, the drug war led to unintended consequences that have proliferated violence around the world and contributed to mass incarceration in the US, even if it has made drugs less accessible and reduced potential levels of drug abuse. Over the next couple decades, particularly under the Reagan administration, what followed was the escalation of global military and police efforts against drugs. "I am not prepared to accept this alternative." "If we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely in time destroy us," Nixon told Congress in 1971.
In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon formally launched the war on drugs to eradicate illicit drug use in the US. But as prison populations and financial costs increase and drug-related violence around the world continues, lawmakers and experts are reconsidering if the drug war's potential benefits are really worth its many drawbacks. The US has been fighting a global war on drugs for decades.