Drugs and Society Discussion Post Responses

The War on Drugs (proclaimed by Richard Nixon in 1971) has had major social, economic, and political problems that are mainly in the United States. One major impact has been mass incarceration, where strict drug laws and minimum sentences that are mandatory have unequally affected low-income communities and minority communities. This leads to overcrowding of prisons and long-term roadblocks for employment and voting rights. The War on Drugs also expanded the power and funding of agencies like the DEA, which was thought to increase policy and surveillance. While it was intended to reduce drug use and trafficking, drug availability and overdose rates continued to be a major issue.

In many cases, addiction has been labeled as criminal rather than treated as a public health crisis. The success of the War on Drugs is widely debated; many argue it has begun to be short of its goals. Drug use has not been eradicated, and the social costs like mass incarceration and community disruptions suggest that a more disciplinary approach may cause more harm than good. These outcomes tend to lead many to view the War on Drugs as ineffective and in need of reform toward prevention and treatment programs.

Hailey Ruth:

I’ve been thinking about something that feels sociologically interesting. Why are people with mild alcohol use disorder much less likely to receive treatment (around 1.8%) compared to people with severe opioid use disorder (around 55.6%), even though alcohol treatment is more widely available because alcohol is legal?

It seems like legality alone doesn’t determine treatment access or engagement. Alcohol is deeply normalized in U.S. culture - it’s tied to celebrations, social life, sports, and even identity. Because of that normalization, problematic drinking may be minimized or not recognized as a disorder, especially in “mild” cases. In contrast, opioid use is heavily stigmatized and often framed as a crisis. Opioid use disorder frequently leads to emergency room visits, overdoses, or legal involvement, which can create institutional pathways into treatment. Some individuals may even be court-mandated into care.

This makes me wonder whether treatment rates reflect not just availability, but social perception, crisis visibility, and institutional coercion. Alcohol misuse may be more socially tolerated, while opioid use triggers emergency intervention. In that sense, the war on drugs and cultural narratives about deviance might shape who is pushed into treatment and who is allowed to continue without intervention.

I’m curious how others think about the relationship between normalization, stigma, and treatment engagement. Does criminalization sometimes increase institutional pressure toward treatment, even while increasing harm in other ways?

Vanessa Mejia:

Both my parents are from Mexico, and they've always talked about some of the violence that went on in their country. Hearing their experiences made me realize that cartel violence is not just something you see in the news. It impacts families, safety, and opportunities for citizens. It also shows how corruption and organized crime can shape a country’s social and economic conditions. These personal stories connect larger issues like drug trafficking, government corruption, and public safety to real people and real families. Also, looking at recent news and the massive distractions in many cities due to the ring leader of the cartel dying, shows how unstable and dangerous life can become for ordinary citizens who are not involved but are still affected.