Matthew Cooke's How To End The War On Drugs

The seemingly endless national struggle, otherwise known as the War on Drugs, has been around for decades; with policies being enacted hoping to end this epidemic. But after numerous failed attempts, officials have hit a wall in the fact that they don’t know what else they can do to end it. If history has taught America anything at all, it is that it repeats itself, as shown by Prohibition; which made alcohol illegal during the Great Depression. This begs the question: Why are officials so set on prohibiting the use of drugs when history has proven its’ effects? With multiple failed government attempts to end the war on drugs, it has only worked to create a damaged federal prison system. However, by making drug sales, possession, and use

Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, who believed that “casual drug users should be taken out and shot,” founded the DARE drug education program, which was quickly adopted nationwide despite the lack of evidence of its effectiveness. As shown, all of the attempts did little to hinder the drug war’s effects, All of this leads to groups and individuals alike to search for solutions to end this ongoing crisis. In Matthew Cooke’s, “How to End the War on Drugs” he brings about possible solutions to end the war. Cooke (2013) suggests making all drug sales, possession, and use non crime nor jail able offenses, allow pharmacies to sell recreational drugs to adults only, with plenty of warning information, and outlaw advertising for recreational drugs (Cooke, 2013).While this all may seem reasonable at first glance, the author’s use of over emotion does not play to his advantage. First, the writer assumes that the narratives he presents to his reader connects him on a personal level with them. Instead, they make his argument unreliable. Also, although the use of voice in one’s writing is commendable, the author’s writing reads as too comfortable, leading to unprofessionalism. Adding on, when he presents solutions to end the national drug problem, he fails to give explanation to the reader, completely invalidating his

By that he means instead of just arresting drug abusing criminals off the street and sentencing them to life in prison, we should treat them like humans, and allow them to get the help they need. This is where local officials come in. The author (2013) suggests if we were to allow any addict who walks into a police station seeking help to get it, and to not let them face charges, then the war on drugs could slowly but surely be resolved (Collins, 2013). The author provides an example of this notion already being put to work in Gloucester, Massachusetts, and further discusses the LEAD program, which allows this all to happen. While the author does make some noteworthy suggestions, he fails to provide multiple examples, which leads his argument to sound invalid. Yet, with the use of more examples, his claim would sound completely