IndexInternational political framework and debateThe social cost of the drug debateYoung people in drug control policiesConclusionOne of the countries that take the greatest responsibility for drug control in the world is concerned is the United States of America. The country has invested heavily in fighting the vice of drug abuse and dealing, as well as creating an international network to control its influence. In June 1970, President Nixon formalized the fight against drugs by classifying illicit and non-illicit drugs, calling the former “public enemy number one” (United States Constitution, 2015). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay As a result, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act which provides the foundation for modern practices in the entire fight against drugs and other illicit substances. In stark contrast, with the implementation of drug policies, various schools of thought have emerged that are believed to have links to US recommendations. While supporters, led by the American government, have called for the adoption of a number of prohibitionist policies around the world, opponents have called for a review of them. Their argument is that creating stigma and focusing on criminalization are not effective. In this light, drug prohibitionist policies are not effective in preventing the spread of the habit among the young population. The international drug trade presents some multidimensional challenges that have direct implications regarding the national interests of the United States, as well as the international community (Mineta, 2016). Some of the most common drugs trafficked globally include cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin. According to the country's intelligence body, the vice of drug abuse has the effect of destabilizing regional and political stability. Secondly, they can strengthen the capabilities and role of criminal organizations with a transnational nature in the course of trade. Some of the main areas of concern of this document include Afghanistan and Latin America, which are considered lucrative focal points in America when it comes to the efforts needed to counter the processes of production and transportation of cocaine and heroin. As such, the use and subsequent dependence on drugs negatively impacts the construction of the social fabric. Other impacts include destruction of economic endowment and development and also pose an economic burden to public health infrastructure. International Policy Framework and Debate International efforts to combat drug abuse and trafficking are characterized as a robust and long-term set of multilateral commitments. , in which the American government actively participates. Their involvement is based on the philosophy that helping other administrations control the issue goes a long way toward curbing the availability and use of drugs in America. On this basis, the Trump administration consistently pursues the goal of eliminating and reducing the flow of illegal drugs through international channels. This means that when there is a high degree of international cooperation, trade is disrupted. Contributions also help with interdiction efforts and demand reduction. Despite international collaboration and commitment to combating the transit of illicit drugs, tensions are bound to exist, especially between US foreign drug policy and the international community (Merrigan, 2016). In recent years, there has been an increase innumber of global supporters, such as former presidents and sitting presidents (Merrigan, 2016). Likewise, they strongly supported the reevaluation of current prohibitionist policies. Some possible alternatives to current regimes focused on international drug control include the decriminalization or legalization of certain types of drugs. The direction of the debates could also shift from resources and priorities between various approaches to countering drug trafficking, such as reducing supply and demand, the distribution of international and national funding for drug control, and the balance between forces of the order, civil and military roles. when it comes to anti-drug initiatives (Merrigan, 2016). There is a raw material called industrial hemp, which is used by manufacturers in making textiles, paper and other commercial products. The US government bans its use in the country as it is associated with marijuana. This explains why legalization advocates have pushed the issue of industrial hemp to the point of wearing T-shirts woven from industrial hemp. They firmly believe that this is a fringe issue that could soon win the support of moderates (US Constitution, 2015). Latin America currently strikes the image of the center of discussions on efforts to promote drug policy reform. From time immemorial, Latin American governments have been obsessed with the drug programs and policies recommended by Washington. These included prohibitionist movements and political models created by the United States government. As a result, there have been growing frustrations that have led to a revision of policies, models, movements, and everything else to question the underlying premises contained in most drug control paradigms at the global level. world. The result was a call for debate, which triggered a series of global repercussions. The debate on the social cost of drugsWhen people are deprived of liberty for drug-related crimes, then it becomes necessary to adopt the concept of the social cost of drugs. politics (Mineta, 2016). According to the opinions and findings of the Drug and Law Research Consortium, there is an increase in mass incarceration of non-violent drug offenders throughout Latin America (Merrigan, 2016). This is despite extensive debates on the need to review current drug policies and programmes. The body conducted thematic research to assess the nature of the gap between reality and discourse. Other areas highlighted include alternatives to incarceration, the criminalization of drug use, the issue of female offenders incarcerated for drug-related crimes, and the involvement of Latino youth in drug use. A survey conducted in Latin America revealed that one in five prisoners has been incarcerated for drug-related crimes. Furthermore, this category of population has experienced sudden increases compared to the general prison population (Merrigan, 2016). It is imperative that this type of organized confinement has no impact on drug trafficking because people detained in prison facilities have a low number of people detained in prison facilities. low-level traffickers, people suffering from vulnerable situations and those who are easily replaceable in trade networks (Merrigan, 2016). In Colombia, the number of people incarcerated for drug-related crimes reflects a fourfold increase over the past 15 years, from 6,300 in 2000 to 25,200 according to 2014 findings (Mineta, 2016). Brazil showed a 320% increase between 2004 and 2013, in stark contrast tothe general population, which stood at 51%. According to the results of new research, between November 2006 and November 2014, there was an increase of 1,200 in the number of people held in Mexican prisons due to incarceration for drug crimes (Mineta, 2016). Additionally, nearly 60% of inmates incarcerated in correctional centers in ten Mexican states are incarcerated due to cannabis-related crimes. The reports were adopted by the Drug Policy Program at the Center for Economic Research and Teaching together with the House of Representatives of Mexico in a conference entitled People deprived of liberty by drugs in Latin America: the social costs of drug policy (Merrigan, 2016). Overall, the data reflects issues such as criminalization, feminization of drug crimes, and the use of embodiment to control the drug problem. The reports are also a way to highlight the disturbing increase in the number of women incarcerated for drug offenses (Merrigan, 2016). According to the study findings, approximately 65% ​​of female prisoners are incarcerated due to drug-related crimes. The figures rise to 75% and 77% respectively for Peru and Costa Rica, where the majority of members of society include single mothers, low-income youth and people from minority groups (Mineta, 2016). suggesting that the prison population of offenders accused of drug-related crimes has increased at a faster rate than the general population of other prisoners. Furthermore, unjust and long sentences have had a negative impact on female offenders, whose imprisonment rate has been steadily increasing. Their imprisonment means increased conditions of vulnerability for their children. Another school of thought, on the decriminalization debate, argues that such a move (decriminalization) would lead to an increase in the consumption, social and economic costs of drugs (Merrigan, 2016 ). This is based on the logic that decriminalization is not entirely sufficient when it comes to achieving notable results in the war on drugs (Merrigan, 2016). Therefore, the argument that legalizing decriminalization of drug abuse and trade will lead to a better budget (solving the budget crisis), cripple drug cartels, and reduce overcrowding in prisons has no evidence to support it ( Mineta, 2016). ). Furthermore, the benefits of ensuring that marijuana and other harmful drugs are illegal clearly outweigh the predictable and negative consequences of legitimizing them (Merrigan, 2016). In this light, various academic distinctions exist between legalization and decriminalization. According to the experience of the United States, arguments in favor of decriminalization are usually seen as a typical rhetoric and political tool. Advocates usually use them extensively to try to open the door to decriminalization. This means that our position is simple and evidence-based, in the sense that both decriminalization and legalization of such illicit substances would lead to an increase in their use, along with the associated social and health costs (Merrigan, 2016). Both arguments seem to disprove themselves, unless supporters of legalization or full decriminalization agree that increased drug supply and consumption constitute a net asset to society. Barack Obama's administration made significant changes in the country's drug policies. of the US government, but reflect the realities of experience and science (Mineta, 2016). They show what has been effective in the past and what needs to be improved. This is based on the knowledge that addiction toDrug is a serious disease, which requires immediate eradication through evidence-based interventions, comprehensive treatment and preventive approaches (Merrigan, 2016). The criminal sanctions established against drugs are not a mere instrument for punishment. Therefore, the existence of a threat of sanctions often stimulates people struggling with substance abuse or addiction, with the aim of allowing them to obtain the treatment they may never be motivated to receive or seek from alone (Merrigan, 2016). Additionally, nearly more than one-third of all treatment referrals in the United States come from the criminal justice system (Merrigan, 2016). The support received by drug courts, the criminal justice system and drug market initiatives includes innovations that rely on moderate and rapid sanctions. Consequently, it reflects the multifaceted and invaluable role that the criminal justice system plays in combating drug use and its consequences. The U.S. government's recommended drug policy appears to address both the public safety and health aspects of drug use through expanded support that focuses on treatment and prevention (Merrigan, 2016). So far it has already reduced the minimum sentence regarding the disparity between cocaine and crack. This is a historic reduction for the first time in terms of mandatory minimum sentences signed by the Obama administration. He is very supportive of millions of Americans who are in recovery mode. These come as policies driven by what people know as they make more sense than changes when it comes to the dubious and proposed decriminalization (Mineta, 2016). As a result, they believe that these are the best steps when it comes to wiping out the multiple problems that arise from drug abuse. The United States' long experience with two legal substances, including tobacco and alcohol, is a good demonstration of how legalization increases a society's likelihood of availability, acceptance, associated costs, and use. This is despite the fact that alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds more deaths per year than all illegal drugs combined. This is because their use is widespread. According to the most recent statistics, tobacco and alcohol consumption is currently 52% and 27% respectively among the elderly population (Merrigan, 2016). On the other hand, marijuana is considered a more common illicit drug among young people. Its use is around 7%. Proponents suggest that the drug is more popular among the young population than alcohol or tobacco due to its illegal nature. Another factor that appears to discourage the widespread use of illegal drugs is the fact that they are relatively expensive. Multiple economic analyzes appear to suggest that current marijuana bans increase production costs by more than 400% (Merrigan, 2016). The resulting higher prices are responsible for controlling usage rates. Consumption patterns of marijuana, alcohol and tobacco are always sensitive to price changes, especially in the category of young drug addicts. In fact, according to the results of rigorous research, marijuana consumption rates are strongly influenced by slight changes in the price level. This is consistent with the same study conducted on cigarette smokers. Therefore, research indicates that when there is a 10% decline in price levels, there is a subsequent 8% to 9% increase in demand (Mineta, 2016). Young people in drug control policiesIn one critic's view, young people are often seen but not heard when it comes to drug policy making. According to a drug expert, called to intervene in a.