War on drugs

Anslinger era begins

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was established by the US Department of the Treasury on June 14, 1930, with Harry J. Anslinger as commissioner, a position he held for 32 years, until 1962. Anslinger supported Prohibition and the criminalization of all drugs, and spearheaded anti-drug policy campaigns, urging courts to "jail offenders, then throw away the key." He has been characterized as the first architect of the punitive war on drugs.

Anslinger's zealous pursuit of harsh drug penalties focused particularly on cannabis. He drafted legislation, discredited critics, discounted medical opinion and scientific findings, and convinced lawmakers. Publicly, he used the media and speaking engagements to promote the evils of drug use, announcing that youth become addicted to cannabis and "deteriorate mentally, become insane, turn to violent crime and murder." He presented a racialized view of drug use, where blacks and Latinos were the primary abusers. He testified before Congress that narcotic addicts were the leading perpetrators of crime. He was also an effective administrator and diplomat, attending international drug conferences and steadily expanding the FBN's influence.

In 1935, the New York Times headlined President Roosevelt's public support of the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act as, "Roosevelt Asks Narcotic War Aid". The act created 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.

Cannabis effectively outlawed, prescription drugs

By 1936, the non-medical use of cannabis had been banned in every state. With the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, federal taxation effectively did the same. An arrest for tax non-payment for possession of a quarter-ounce (7g) of cannabis resulted in nearly 18 months sentence. The American Medical Association (AMA) had opposed the tax act on grounds that it unduly affected the medical use of cannabis, and that the claims about addiction, violence and overdoses were not supported by evidence.

In 1939, New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, an opponent of the Marihuana Tax Act, initiated the first US in-depth study of cannabis use. The report, produced by the New York Academy of Medicine, contradicted government claims, finding that cannabis is not physically addictive, and doesn't lead to other drugs or to crime. The FBN's Anslinger branded the study "unscientific" and denounced all involved.

In the late 1930s, the League of Nations' Opium Advisory Committee questioned the focus on drug prohibition over public health measures. 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.

In 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act required that non-narcotic drugs were labeled for safe use. The FDA determined that certain drugs, including amphetamines and barbiturates, were unsafe 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 (made law in the Durham–Humphrey Amendment of 1951).

Amphetamines, harsher penalties, international obligations

World War II (1939–1945) saw widespread use of morphine, and the use of amphetamines to combat fatigue and improve morale. In the US, the Benzedrine brand, widely used in the military, became popular in the public for medical and recreational applications. 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, and production increased during the 1950s and 1960s.

After the war, the League of Nations ended and transferred 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 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. 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. First-offense possession of cannabis carried a 2–10-year minimum and a fine of up to $20,000.

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. The Single Convention unified existing international drug agreements, and limited possession and use of opiates, cannabis and cocaine to "medicinal and scientific purposes". It came into force in the US in 1967. The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 added synthetic, prescription and hallucinogenic drugs. The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 addressed international drug trafficking and in effect criminalized the entire illicit drug market chain.

In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–69) moved to curtail the social unrest that blanketed the country at the time. He focused on illegal drug use, following expert opinion that drugs were the root of much of crime His Reorganization Plan of 1968 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.

Federal drug schedule system introduced

The Richard Nixon presidency (1969–74) incorporated his predecessor's anti-drug initiative in a tough-on-crime platform. In a 1969 special message to Congress, he identified drug abuse as "a serious national threat".

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: simple possession was reduced to a misdemeanor, while trafficking penalties were increased, up to life in prison. Funding was authorized for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to provide treatment, rehabilitation and education, and for additional federal drug agents. Title II of Act, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), helped align US law with the UN Single Convention—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.

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." As mandated by the CSA, Nixon appointed the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, known as the Shafer Commission, to investigate.

Nixon's role reviewed

Decades later, a controversial quote attributed to John Ehrlichman, Nixon's domestic policy advisor, claimed that the war on drugs was fabricated: "... Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." The 2016 Harper's cover story by journalist Dan Baum retrieved the quote from his 1994 interview notes. Ehrlichman died in 1999. The veracity of the quote was challenged by Ehrlichman's children, and Nixon-era officials. 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.

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 launched an "entirely new and massive commitment to prevention, intervention and treatment.' Thus it could be said, Nixon was not in fact the originator of what came to be called the "war on drugs". 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.

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, but his advocacy was not translated into law.

Reagan escalation, militarization, and "Just Say No"

The presidency of Ronald Reagan (1981–89) saw a significant increase in federal focus on drug 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." From 1980 to 1984, the annual budget of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) drug enforcement units went from $8 million to $95 million. 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.

Through the 1980s, First Lady Nancy Reagan tirelessly promoted her youth-oriented "Just Say No" anti-drug campaign. Later research indicated it had little or no impact on youth drug use, while public perception of drug abuse as America's most serious problem, in the 2–6% range in 1985, rose to 64% in 1989.

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 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, while cocaine imports increased by 10%.

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. Under the controversial program, up to 80% of seizure proceeds can go to local law enforcement budgets. By 2019^[update], $36.5 billion worth of assets had been seized, much of it drug-related.

Crackdown on crack

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. In mid-1986, the cocaine overdose deaths of rising basketball star Len Bias, and young NFL football player Don Rogers, 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. According to historian Elizabeth Hinton, the legislation disproportionately targeted the black crack users, while ignoring a similar problem with crystallized methamphetamine among low-income white Americans".

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. Of particular note, the act made sentences for larger amounts of cocaine 100 times more severe for crack than for the powder form; pharmacologically, there is no difference between the two. Debate at the time considered whether crack, generally used by black Americans, 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;

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, military anti-drug activity in other countries increased the Department of Defense budget for interdiction rising from $4.9 million in 1982 to $397 million by 1987. The DEA also expanded its foreign presence. The threat of US economic sanctions was used to encourage other countries to adopt a US-style war on drugs approach. for non-compliance.

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.^{[additional citation(s) needed]}

Hard line maintained and a new opioid crisis

As president, Reagan protégé and former VP George H. W. Bush (1989–93) maintained the hard line drawn by his predecessor. 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". The first National Drug Control Strategy was issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in 1989—ONDCP became commonly known as the US drug czar. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 1990–91, Congress included the 1208 Program, allowing the defense department to transfer surplus military equipment "suitable for use in counter-drug activities", to local law enforcement agencies.

As president, Bill Clinton (1993–2001), seeking to reposition the Democratic Party as tough on crime, signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, introducing a federal "three-strikes" provision that mandated life imprisonment for violent offenders with two prior convictions for violent crimes or drugs. Billions of dollars in funding for states to expand their prison systems and increase law enforcement. 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.

During the 1990s, a dramatic rise in opioid use in the US dramatically led to the ongoing situation commonly called the opioid epidemic. A critical point in the development of the epidemic was the release and aggressive marketing in 1996 of OxyContin (oxicodone) by Purdue Pharma, and subsequent deceptive opioid marketing efforts by pharma companies, conducted without sufficient official oversight. 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.

The George W. Bush (2001–2009) administration maintained the hard line approach. 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.

Growing dissent

In mid-2001, a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), "The Drug War is the New Jim Crow", tied disproportionate rate of African American incarceration to the rights lost once convicted. Blacks were 13.4 times likely to be incarcerated than whites, while use in both groups was about the same. Between federal and state laws, even a simple possession conviction could mean losses of the right to vote, eligibility for educational assistance including loans and work-study programs, custody of children, and personal property including homes. The report called the cumulative effect of the war on drugs "the US apartheid, the new Jim Crow". 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.

In the year 2000, the US drug-control budget reached $18.4 billion, 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.

President Barack Obama (2009–2017) implemented a "tough but smart" approach to the war on drugs that in practice changed little. In May 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the ONDCP – the drug czar – 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". In August 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act reduced the 100:1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to 18:1 for pending and future cases. In 2013, the Justice Department issued the Cole Memo, stating that it would defer to state cannabis laws provided strict regulation was maintained.

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." Obama's ONDCP did not support the report.

International divisions, state-level changes

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. ONDCP director Kerlikowske stated that drug legalization is not the solution to drug control, and success is not measured by the number of arrests mae. That month, Italy, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the US issued a joint statement, "For a humane and balanced drug policy", promoting both drug restriction and demand reduction and treatment." 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.

A 2013 ACLU report declared the anti-cannabis crusade a "war on people of color". 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. That April, the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the "World Drug Problem" was held. The Wall Street Journal assessed the attendees' positions as rougly in two camps, favoring or strongly opposing softer drug measures. The outcome document recommended treatment, prevention and other public health measures, and committed to intensifying efforts against drug production and trafficking.

Under President Donald Trump (2017–2021), Attorney General Jeff Sessions riscinded the Cole Memo that allowed states to sell cannabis. 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 included lower-level charges. 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.

Some policy reversal attempts and successes

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.

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. During his presidential campaign, President Joe Biden (2021–2025) stated that he would take the steps to alleviate the war on drugs and end the opioid epidemic.

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". The MORE Act was received in the Senate in December 2020 where it remained. In April 2022, the act was again passed by the House, and awaits Senate action.

Where in the 1930s, the states led the federal government in prohibiting cannabis, as 2023^[update], 38 states, four US territories, and the District of Columbia (DC) had legalized cannabis for medical use; for non-medical use, 24 of the states, three territories, and DC, had legalized it, and seven states decriminalized. Decriminalization in this context usually refers to first-time offenses and small quantities, such as, in the case of cannabis, under an ounce (28g). 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; portions of that policy were reversed in April 2024.

In 2022, Biden signed into law the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, easing restrictions on cannabis research for medical purposes. It was the first federal standalone cannabis reform bill. 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 have the Attorney General review how cannabis is classified. 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.

Focus on fentanyl

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. 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."

In October 2023, OFAC sanctioned a China-based network of fentanyl manufacturers and distributors. 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.

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 30 April, indicating a DEA decision, the Justice Department announced the start of reclassification from Schedule I to Schedule III, drugs considered to have moderate to low potential for dependence, include ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone, and Tylenol with codeine.

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, and identified China as the source of precursor chemicals and machinery, and provider money laundering operations.

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. In the late 1960s, when drug smuggling to the US from Mexico rose to a major scale, the two governments cooperated in the launch of the Mexican drug war; 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". 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, primarily for military aid, training, and equipment, to fight both drugs and left-wing guerrillas such as FARC (which had been accused of participation in drug trafficking).

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. 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. 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. 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.

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; the same spraying practices are further credited with causing health problems in local populations.

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." 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."

Mexico

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. 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.

In the 1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter backed aerial campaigns to destroy marijuana field in Mexico. In 1977, 9,500 acres of marijuana plants were destroyed used by spraying herbicide and shooting peasants who resisted. The spraying threatened the health of up to 13 million marijuana user in the U.S. at the time. The practice was banned by the Percy Amendment in 1978 and subsequently brought back and used domestically by Ronald Reagan.

The pursuit of Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán from 2001 to 2014 illustrates the challenges of combating sophisticated transnational criminal organizations. Guzmán was the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, which generated billions in illicit revenue from the US and Europe. 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. While on the run, Guzmán reportedly travelled with an entourage of armed bodyguards equivalent to those of a head of state, using a vast surveillance network and bullet-proof cars, aircraft, and all-terrain vehicles.^{[citation needed]} The operation to apprehend him, involving Mexican authorities, and the DEA and other US agencies, underscored the necessity of international cooperation, intelligence-sharing, and advanced surveillance technologies. Throughout, the cartel's operations continued unabated.^{[citation needed]}

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.

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. 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.

As of 2024^[update], 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.

According to federal court documents in Manhattan, Gerardo Merida Sanchez—a former public security official in the Mexican state of Sinaloa—is accused of teaming up with leaders of the Sinaloa cartel to sneak large amounts of drugs into the United States. The indictment says he took more than $100,000 a month in bribes from Los Chapitos to protect the cartel's smuggling routes into the U.S. He was arrested in Arizona on May 11 and then transferred to New York. This case shows how drug production and trafficking networks in Mexico play a role in supplying a large share of the illegal drugs that end up being used in the United States.

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. 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. 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. Nicolás Maduro assumed the presidency after Chávez's death in 2013—on January 3, 2026, in Operation Absolute Resolve, he and his wife were seized in a US special forces raid at his residence and transported to the US to face drug trafficking charges.

Ecuador

Ecuador, located between the world's two largest cocaine-producing countries, Colombia and Peru, has long been a major drug transit point. 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. Since 2018, drug activity and anti-drug efforts in Ecuador have dramatically intensified. 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. On March 6, 2026 the US participated in the Ecuadorian conflict against drug traffickers as part of a joint Ecuadorian Operation on the border of Colombia, marking the first instance of direct military participation by the US in the Ecuadorian conflict.

Central America

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 that annually appear on the American "majors list". 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.

During the 1980s civil war in Nicaragua, the US-backed anti-leftist rebel force known as the Contras were linked to cocaine trafficking as a means of funding, which led to charges of US involvement in the Contras drug trade. In 1986, a $24 million civil suit related to the La Penca bombing, on behalf of journalists Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey, claimed the defendants, including Iran-Contra figures and two CIA officials, illegally participating in assassinations, and arms and drug trafficking. A staff report for Senator John Kerry's 1988 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations investigating narcotics, terrorism and international operations in Latin and Central America and the Caribbean found that the Contras were involved in drug trafficking and that the US was aware of it; no evidence was found to directly implicate Contra leadership. The charges of CIA involvement were revived in 1996, when a newspaper series, "Dark Alliance", by reporter Gary Webb in the San Jose Mercury News claimed that the trafficking had played an important role in the creation of the crack cocaine drug problem in the US. Webb's series led to three federal investigations, all of which concluded there was no evidence of a conspiracy by CIA officials or its employees to bring drugs into the United States. The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post launched their own investigations and rejected Webb's allegations. An internal report issued in 1998 by the CIA in response to the Webb allegations admitted that the agency was aware of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and in some cases dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved.

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. 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. He was indicted by the DEA and sentenced by a US court to 45 years in prison for racketeering, drug smuggling, and money laundering. The UN General Assembly resolved that the invasion was a "flagrant violation of international law."

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.

Impact on growers

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 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.

NATO involvement

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.

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.

Prison overcrowding

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. 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.

Racial disparities in sentencing

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."

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. The bill had been widely criticized as discriminatory against minorities, mostly Black Americans, who were more likely to use crack than powder cocaine. 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. 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, 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. 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.

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]}

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."

Permanent underclass creation

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. 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.

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.