War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, Capstone Project Example

Abstract

Drug abuse is one of the most concerning issues the world, not only the United States, faces in the past decades. Though the global leaders started making initiatives to address the issue, one cannot deny that this problem still got a long way to go, if it’s not impossible, before completely resolving it. Despite the efforts that the campaign had to offer, the success of the initiative of waging war against drugs faces one major challenge which must be improved first before anything else: leadership.

Past leaders may have projected and created some policies against drug-abuse but their responsibility does not end there. Policies and Law alone cannot act on its own. The leaders must also oversee the enforcement strictly and with integrity to further push the main goal of winning the war against drugs.

This paper will elaborate several concepts about leadership and how it will contribute in resolving the issue about drug abuse globally.

List of Figures

Figure 1. Graph Representing the drug addict statistics (Dolan, 2005)

Figure 2. Incarcenated Americans(Francis & Mauser, 2011)

Chapter 1. Introduction

According to an analysis of the 2009 preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shown by the Los Angeles Times (2011), drugs already exceeded motor vehicle accidents as a cause of death in 2009. Despite the U.S. government’s seemingly desperate initiatives to wage “War on Drugs”, this data of the increasing number of reported drug-related deaths proved as a good example of deficiencies and fault of a bureaucratic leadership. There were several studies and articles that prove the effectiveness of the drug policies of the United States, but the data presented may show that the leaders may not be focusing much on this campaign because of other issues that they’ve been fighting.

Figure 1: Graph Representing the drug addict statistics (Dolan, 2005)

The term “War on Drugs” was first used by the late president Richard Nixon in 1971 but the concept of having an initiative in waging war against drugs started as early as 1914 by making drug prohibition policies. In President Nixon’s message at Congress in 1969, he classified drug abuse as “a serious national threat” based on a dramatic jump in drug-related arrests between 1960 and 1967; Nixon calls for a national anti-drug policy at the state and federal level, thus firstly using the word “War on Drugs” (NPR, 2007).

As Calhoun stated (1971), “War is an art, to attain perfection in which much time and experience, particularly for the officers, are necessary”. Experienced officers and enforcers, like Calhoun said, is a necessity to win a war. However, the involvement of the enforcers themselves cannot be avoided and some are joining the other side of the line. According to the Law Enforcement Information on Drug-Related Police Corruption (1998) several investigations of police corruption found on-duty police officers engaging in serious, drug-related, criminal activities like conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures, stealing money and drugs from drug dealers, selling the stolen drugs, protecting drug operations and operatives, and providing false testimony and false crime reports to authorities.

How can the authorities improve the policies regarding drugs? How can leaders prevent challenges like corruption and other hindrances affecting the success of their campaign? How far have been the efforts of the United States leaders have reached in their War on Drugs? What can be done to improve the results in the War against drugs?

This study’s main objective is to analyze and prove how significant is the role of good leadership in the fight against drugs. This paper will also cover concepts and key aspects that leaders must possess in successfully fighting against a war, whether it is on drugs or on terrorism.

Chapter 2. Implementation of Transformational Leadership on ‘War of Drugs’

The objective of Transformational Leadership is to help in enhancing motivation, performance and morale of the followers through various mechanisms. These mechanisms include connecting the followers and the organizations to achieve the goal. Transformational leadership has introduced four effective elements as well.

As far as leadership associated with ‘war on drugs’ is concerned, it is quite evident that transformational leadership is clearly lacking in this whole process. For instance, a self-appointed commission with 19 members including Kofi Annan, the former United Nations General Secretary, George Papandreou, the Prime minister of Greece, Ernesto Zedillo, the former President of Mexico, Fernando Henrique Cordos, the ex-President of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria, the ex-President of Columbia and former US Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker came with a damning report declaring that “The War On Drugs Has Failed” on June 2, 2011. This indicates the fact that the commission was lacking in transformation leadership with poor strategies of performance and morale enhancement of its followers. The commission failed to connect with its members as well as with its followers and as a result the negative report came up eventually (Dickinson, 2012).

Individualized Consideration- this determines the understanding for the followers by the leader. The leader needs to be the mentor and guide his followers in the right direction according to their capabilities. He even needs to respect individuality of each follower and assign work accordingly. He needs to be open and converse well with the followers without any kind of discrimination. This helps the followers to feel motivated and work better in their respective fields.

According to Bradley “Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it” (Bradley, 1997). The committee formed to fight against illegal trade on drugs comprising the biggies from all over the world was short of individualized consideration. This may be mainly because of the inclusion of diversified committee members in the commission form and as a result there was no individualized consideration in committee.

Intellectual Stimulation- This is the degree to which any leader takes challenges and encourages as well as entertains the ideas of the followers which in turn help them to feel motivated and think in a better and more creative way. They think about issues more deeply than others and consider themselves as an integral part of the whole situation and thus become active in their approach and all this ensures better results in their respective work areas.

Though the self-appointed committee commission was created due to the intellectual stimulation of Kofi Annan, the former United Nations General Secretary which led the main leaders and its followers to think deeply on the associated issue but there was actually no synchronization among each and every member of the committee or their subordinates which was another cause of this fall of this committee (Dolan, 2005).

Inspirational Motivation- It is the degree to which a leader can inspire his followers by the vision he creates before them. They are optimist in nature and so they showcase the positive side of the situation to their followers to inspire them to feel motivated and move further easily without much confusion. The sense of the purpose needs to be strong in the followers to feel the motivation and act well on it. The vision by the leader needs to be positive, understanding, powerful, precise and well supported by the communication skills; in this way, the followers tend to invest their soul into their work.

The trait of inspirational motivation in the leadership quality associated with the committee designed to fight against illegal trade of drugs definitely featured the attribute of inspirational motivation in the leadership involved. This can be highlighted by stating the fact that the committee just triggered its operational activities comprising the members of USA and Greece only at the initial point. But gradually the committee became full of member from all over the world like Brazil, Columbia, Germany and Mexico.

Idealized Influence- For a behavior of high ethics, a role model is to be provided for them who can instill pride and at the same time gain their trust and respect. United States of America, features the pride of being the role model of whole act of ‘war on drugs’. The country being the initiator of this whole process ended up inspiring more and more leaders and support throughout the world irrespective of the country economy or the political status. This ideally indicates that the idealized influence of U.S leaders on other countries is highly remarkable.

The commission also had members like Latin American writers Mario Vargas Llosa and Carlo Fuentes, George Schultz, the former US Secretary of State. Rafael Lemaitre, the ONDCP Communications Director immediately responded that the President Obama’s Drug Policy is totally different to the previous approaches regarding drug policies. This indicates the growth of ‘idealized influence’ of the leadership involved in this process. This was followed by release of national Prevention Strategy by the US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin. In the western societies, this kind of leadership is fast spreading and gaining recognition.

The motive in the above kind of leadership is ultimately to transform the organization yet promising to transform their lives for the good too and this will help them to visualize it better. These leaders are charismatic but not purely, as the pure charismatic leaders believe themselves more than they believe on the capabilities of the others.

The confidence and the passion should not be mistaken for reality and truth which usually happens here. One can mean the right thing but not necessarily be right and this is what that needs to be understood. At times, the energy which takes a person to the top can also drop him down at a point of time. Thus the energy should be used in the appropriate manner so that is does not wear off early. Seeing details is more important than just the vision of the big picture in this kind. These leaders are to transform but if there is no need for it and people are happy the way things are, it tends to be frustrating, so care needs to be taken at this point.

Chapter 3. Arrests and Incarceration

ONDCP- the Office of natural Drug Control policy was established originally by national Leadership Act and it mandated anti-drug campaign targeting the youth, National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The director of this administrative organization was known as Drug Czar and this was first officially approved by President H W Bush. President Clinton raised the position to cabinet level. Anti-drug Media Campaign was created and the activities of ONDCP were funded by Treasury and general Appropriation Act of 1998 (Small, 2001).

Effects on Minorities

The result of heavy force on the implementation of law to execute the war on drugs has rather resulted in a rapid increase in the rate of incarceration. The United states of America and Russia are the countries which features highest incarceration rate in the whole world. But as a matter of fact, the majority of the inmates are especially convicted of drug charges and more than two third of these inmates are minorities. This question the leadership efficiency of the whole committee involved in fight against war on drugs. The fifty percent of inmates are black people and more than seventeen percent are Hispanic.

This rather exceeds beyond the total proportion of Hispanics and black in population despite the fact that 3 quarters of white Americans being drug addicted. The leaders involved in this whole process are not doing enough to address this issue of minorities’ incarceration which in turn is leading to the complete disappearance of these minorities and clearly indicate the racial dimensions to this war on drugs. More than 1 out of 4 black men are involved with criminal justice system and black women are increasingly incarcerated at higher rates.

Figure 2: Incarcerated Americans (Francis & Mauser, 2011)

In 1986, U. S. Congress passed the laws that made 100 to 1 disparity for trafficking of crack or possessing it in comparison with trafficking of powder cocaine. This policy was widely criticized as discriminating policy against blacks and other minorities who were more likely to possess and use crack compared to cocaine. The 1986 law had made 100 to 1 ratio a criterion. For example, a person convicted for possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine was served minimum mandatory service of 5 years in the prison. But the person convicted for possessing 500 grams of powder cocaine also was given the same punishment. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 reduced the disparity to 18: 1 (Dickinson, 2012).

Many data about crime statistics in USA show that African Americans are more likely to be arrested for crimes related to drugs compared to non-minorities; the punishments received are also more severe for these minorities. The statistics also show that the events usually occurred in regions of high minority crime rates, city projects and low income housing areas etc.

The crime statistics also show that there were racial disparities in arrests, the prosecutions, sentencing and death rates. Of the total drug related arrests African Americans made up 35% and 55% faced convictions and 74% were sent to prisons for crimes of drug possession. National statistics also showed that African Americans got prison sentences for drug related crimes 13 times more than any other races. But they formed only 13% of the drug users in the country (Parloff, 2011).

The anti-drug laws have also displayed racial bias clearly. According to Michael Tonry from University of Minnesota, the War on Drug has undermined the lives of thousands of Black youth to improve their life chance for these members of underclass. This bias is clearly visible on examination of Anti-drug legislation in the modern period.

Lyndon Johnson, in 1968 took decision to minimize social unrest in the country during those years. He made efforts to combat the illegal drug. It might appear that going after drug had no relation with meeting the challenge of unrest; it was actually done as per the expert opinion of those times. They believed that half of crime in US was related to drugs. The percentage would grow to 90% in next decade. He placed a Reorganization Plan in 1968 which merged Bureau of Narcotics and Bureau of Drug Abuse and it was called Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs under the section of Justice.

It is a different matter, the direction which this powerful organization took, but it was again misled by the erroneous public perception. In his book America as a Civilization, the journalist Max Lerner summarizes as follows, “As a point we may accept the presence of addiction of dope in Negro areas. It is existentially explained by poverty, broken living and living in slums. Still, it can be easily shown that other ethnic groups in the similar conditions display the shortage of drug addiction”. This shows the context of the racial roots of prevalent in the War on Drugs by Johnson Administration (O’Neil, 2009).

The Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter continued with the policies of predecessors without much basic changes. Ronald Reagan became President in 1982. He announced that his administration is taking down the surrender flag that has flown many times in drug efforts and now he is going to take on the battle flag. In the first five years Reagan stronger drug implementation by making mandatory minimum sentences and forfeiting cash and real estate of drug offenders.

As the case involving drugs that resulted in cocaine overdose of Len Bias, a black basketball star- got lot of publicity; Reagan passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act in the US Congress in 1986. Because of the new legislation, additional funds of $1.7 million were allotted to the War on Drugs. In an important move, the legislation provided for twenty nine new minimum punishments or sentences for the drug offences.

The extremity of the provisions can be seen from the fact that in the history of US legal system has only fifty five minimum sentences in total. One of the major constituents of the sentences provided different compulsory minimum for crack and powder cocaine. In the period when the bill was being discussed, there was a public debate on the differences in the potency of powder cocaine and its effects which was used by whites and those of crack cocaine used by blacks. It was generally believed that the crack cocaine was more powerful and highly addictive comparatively (Dolan, 2005).

Actually, powder cocaine and the crack cocaine are chemically very close but the only difference is that crack is skiable and is free form of powder cocaine hydrochloride. This makes the drug to induce a highly intense “kick” for a short period. And it also requires lesser quantities of drugs to produce high intensity effects. Thus this is a cost effective method. Therefore it is used by the inner-city suburbs by poor population while powder cocaine is used in white suburban areas. This made the Administration to create public opinion against crack and the DEA official, Robert Putnam publicized the harmful effects of drugs to the public.

It was very commonplace to hear the words, “Crack babies” and “Crack whores”. The Time magazine had declared that crack was the main issue of the year. Because of the great publicity and public opinion Reagan Administration established still harsher sentencing for crack cocaine related offences and this resulted in handing down severe punishments and penalties for possessing even smaller amounts of drugs. This move was seen as targeting black communities.

When the former Vice President George H Bush was elected as the next President succeeding President Reagan, he continued to the policies vigorously and the drug policy was under his watch and matched the previous Administration’s goals. He continued the hard line policy against drug offenders like his predecessor and increased regulation of narcotics related crimes when the First National Drug Control Strategy was produced by Office of National Drug Control in the year 1989. There was no action done in the direction of reducing the perceived disparities and racial discrimination accused as being followed by all the previous Administrations (White Jr., 2011). There are some scholars who are even suggesting that the War on Drugs is nothing but propaganda which seeks extension of paramilitary and military operations. Some other scholars are claiming that the vast amounts of money that is provided for drug control and elimination programs through War on Drugs actually goes to foreign countries to fight communist and leftist insurgencies. In order to eliminate the leftist insurgencies the funds are given to groups that are also involved in drug trafficking in large scale. The example of such possibility is seen in the corrupt members in Columbian military.

Chapter 4. Organizational Behavior

Organizational behavior refers to the study which basically analyzes the impact which a whole structure, group or individuals have on their behavior in an organization. Overall, organizational behavior indicates the interdisciplinary field which incorporates the communication, management and sociology and also complements the study of theories of respective organization. It encompasses the evaluation of an organization from various viewpoints, levels of analysis and the methods.

Considering the committee and the teams set up comprising the members from all over the world on account of ‘war on drugs’, the examination of organizational behaviors of these teams or initiatives signify the fact that the impact caused on the whole structure or the group of personnel involved and the end participant is highly influential. When people involved in a system or organization interact there are various factors which come into picture. Some of the recent organizational studies rather extend an attempt to apprehend and wireframe the basic factors. For example, every modernist, organizational studies and social science seek to predict, explain and control. At times, the organizational behavior is also been criticized as one of the primary tools of powerful. Overall, it plays a vital role in complete organizational development or commitment or satisfaction and performance.

One of the primary objectives of organizational theorists is to revitalize and develop an organizational theory to better organizational conceptualized life. Now, focusing on to the impact on whole structure of U.S. policies on illegal drug trade in collaboration with multiple other countries require a thorough study on the impacts caused due to this course of practices. These impacts are described below in detail which rather vary from socio economic effects, influence social communities, influence on growers, public opposition and more.

Discussing the organizational behavior of the committee or the teams set up in worldwide to check drug trade, containing the leaders from various countries, the impact that this initiative caused on the team members and its acts are significant. The view points and the multiple stands of every member of the committee were rather considered as the considerable inputs to act on the illegal trade of drugs. This again highlights that the organizational behavior features the considerable traits of ideal practices which a standard organization must practices in order to accomplish its objectives.

Suppose the elements of organizational behavior is not meeting the fundamental requirements like support, individualism, rebellion, conformity and transparency then gradually the organization tends to be slower in its course of objective accomplishment or sometimes ends up causing the negative impacts on the immediate society. Similarly, in the committees (organizations) designed on account of ‘war on drugs’ featured the lack of fundamental attributes like transparency and the space for each organization member to demonstrate or practice their own plan and this resulted in many misunderstanding, variances in the members thoughts and proposals and finally resulted causing various effects on the society. These effects are described in detail below.

Socio-economic Effects

The War on Drugs has been criticized for cyclic creation of permanent underclass due to status of poor and black which are punished for drug related offences from the strict implementation of the provisions of laws enacted for this purpose. The punishments for the drug offences for the youth usually resulted in removing them from the opportunities for education. They will also strip them the voting rights and get them in criminal records. All of this would make it difficult for them to find employment.

According to some authors, the war on drugs has created permanent class of people who will have no education or job opportunities. This is due to their being punished for their crimes as they attempted to make a living even though they had no education or the job opportunities. This is the reason the policy is accused of creating permanent underclass.

Influence on growers

In countries like Columbia and Bolivia, the status of the cocoa growers has become a political issue. In Bolivia the president Evo Morales has promised that he will legalize cultivation and use of cocoa. He is a former union leader of cocoa growers. The policy of eradication of growing coca is criticized in the South American countries because of the effect on the growers. People in many areas of these countries use coca leaves in tea and for cultural and religious purposes. It is also chewed and used for medical properties. They claim that illegality of growing coca is unjust. US military and government forced its eradication without giving alternate crops. Also their food and market crops are destroyed as well (Curtis, 2010).

Public Support and Opposition

The War on Drugs has remained highly controversial topic ever since it was initiated. According to a poll conducted in 2008 it is found that 3 in 4 Americans think that the War on Drugs has failed. Columbian and American citizen saw the effects of the War on Drugs through the documentary of the same name. In a meeting held by the three of American presidents, at Guatemala in 2008, offered alternatives as the War on Drugs had failed. The alternatives included “decriminalization”. At the American Summit, Columbia asked for drastic changes in the policy initiated by Nixon four decades earlier, which had shown catastrophic effects on Columbia (Drennan & Richey, 2012).

The War on Drugs has been criticized for cyclic creation of permanent underclass due to status of poor and black which are punished for drug related offences from the strict implementation of the provisions of laws enacted for this purpose. The punishments for the drug offences for the youth usually resulted in removing them from the opportunities for education. They will also strip them the voting rights and get them in criminal records. All of this would make it difficult for them to find employment. According to some authors, the war on drugs has created permanent class of people who will have no education or job opportunities. This is due to their being punished for their crimes as they attempted to make a living even though they had no education or the job opportunities. This is the reason the policy is accused of creating permanent underclass.

Influence on growers

In countries like Columbia and Bolivia, the status of the cocoa growers has become a political issue. In Bolivia the president Evo Morales has promised that he will legalize cultivation and use of cocoa. He is a former union leader of cocoa growers.

The policy of eradication of growing coca is criticized in the South American countries because of the effect on the growers. People in many areas of these countries use coca leaves in tea and for cultural and religious purposes. It is also chewed and used for medical properties. They claim that illegality of growing coca is unjust. U.S military and government forced its eradication without giving alternate crops. Also their food and market crops are destroyed as well (Curtis, 2010).

Legality of the War on Drugs

The very legality of the War on Drug is under scrutiny and it is questioned on the basis of six main points. It violates the “Substantive due process”, which is a principle that the benefits claimed under the said law do not justify violation and encroachments of rights and liberties given by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of US constitution. In 2011, July 27th Mary S Scriven, US District Court Judge ruled that legislation in Florida supposed to eliminate drug crime possession was totally unconstitutional.

Native American Church allows use of peyote as part of religious exercise; thus the law violates the freedom of religious conscience as guaranteed by Free exercise Clause of First Amendment. Commerce clause implies that only states have the power to regulate drugs not by federal law. The war shows inequity in prosecuting only certain drugs leaving alcohol and tobacco is questionable. Alcohol Prohibition had required Eighteenth Amendment and no such Amendment was made against marihuana.

The reverse burden of proof followed in drug related prosecution is inconsistent with the rule of law. This makes the power of convict taken away by the courts and can be used by those who could plant evidence. Even if it is argued that the War on Drugs is legal, issues have been raised about the prosecution inequality which is seen as targeting certain communities and ethnic groups.

Chapter 5. Economic Impacts and Statistics

The war on drugs not only affects the lives of the locals and the integrity of a nation, it also has a great impact on the local and international economic status. From the years 2004 to 2012, the Federal Drug Control budget was allocated into two divisions including “Demand Reduction” and “Supply Reduction”. Demand reduction covers the costs of treatment and prevention whereas the supply reduction included the interdiction, international efforts and law enforcement. According to Drug War Facts (2001, para. 2)

“The trend in these budgets leans toward “Supply Reduction” over “Demand Reduction,” with the share of latter increasing by about 5% over the past nine years. In sum, approximately 40% of the U.S. drug control budget is devoted to reducing the demand for drugs through treatment and prevention programs, while about 60% is the province of law enforcement for reducing the supply of drugs, both internationally and in the United States.”

The inflation of the budget of federal drug control has been obvious since the year 2004. In fact, it has increased by over one third from 2004’s budget. The government has also allocated approximately one quarter increase in the demand reduction budget and around 50% increase for the supply reduction, likewise the international cost under the supply reduction budget increased by 100%. These data resulted to a gross expenditure amounting to $208.8 billion for the past nine years (Criminal Justice Statistics, 2012).

In spite of these investments on the War on Drugs, leaders of different nations still fail to control the illegal drug markets and suppliers resulting to more drug pushers and users. In fact, opium production is still rampant wherein 85% of the national yields come from Afghanistan and 12% from the western region (Tierney, 2010). It was also found out that on the analysis of Jamestown Foundation (2007) that arrangements between drug traffickers and senior leadership in Quetta are extensive whereas the leaders are paid by narcotics principals in exchange of the operation of Talibans.

For the past 20 years, the United States government has been trying to counteract the production of narcotics in Afghanistan predisposing to expenditures amounting to around 2 billion dollars (US Department of State, 2009). In Canada, which is one of the highly developed states in the United States, drug abuse is still extensive regardless of the leadership of several people against narcotics. Thomas et al. (2007) analyzed the Canadian dollar cost of substance abuse and they found out these statistical data:

“Important findings … include the fact that (1) total direct social costs associated with alcohol ($7,427.5 million) are more than double those for all illicit drugs combined ($3,565.5 million); (2) direct alcohol-related health care costs ($3,306.2 million) are nearly three times as high as for all illicit drugs, excluding cannabis ($1,061.6 million), and over 45 times higher than the direct health care costs of cannabis ($73 million); and (3) annual direct costs for health care ($4,440.7 million) are 31 times higher, and annual direct costs for enforcement ($5,407.7 million) are 36 times higher than annual costs for prevention and research ($147.6 million).”

These expenditures, if illegal drug use would be eliminated, can add to the budget for social, infrastructure and educational development of a state or nation. The cost for health care is indeed big and can be redirected to other health problems and more relevant diseases if the government officials could locate and close all the black markets selling narcotics. The leaders of the United States undeniably try to eradicate the use of illegal drugs not only in their nation but also to other countries as well. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office of the United States:

“In the source zone, U.S. assistance supports eradication and interdiction efforts and related programs for alternative development and judicial reform, primarily in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. In the transit zone, the United States provided about $365 million in assistance—primarily to El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Mexico —to support interdiction and other law enforcement programs. For fiscal year 2006, the Administration has requested an additional $735 million for countries in the source zone and $77 million for countries in the transit zone. From fiscal year 2000 through 2005, the United States provided about $365 million in assistance to countries in the transit zone. Of this, Mexico received approximately $115 million to support its efforts to eradicate opium poppy and marijuana, and improve surveillance and intelligence capabilities.”

Regardless of these prevention programs and assistances, the prevalence of drug use is still influenced by the various factors established in a nation. The leadership skills of the government officials and the proper implementation of law reflect on the prevalence rate of drug use in particular region. For instance, the Netherlands employ numerous liberal drug policies as well as the Swedish government does restricted approaches against drug use thus contributing to a low prevalence on their countries.

Chapter 6. Conclusion

There is indeed failure in the leadership skills of the frontrunners of some nations. Although, it is not generalized, the effect of this failure is felt worldwide both by the locals of the society and the economic sector as well. The inefficient implementation of policies against illegal drug use has resulted to thousands of deaths in countries including Columbia, Peru and Mexico. Likewise, the failure of the leaders of each nation to enforce these policies contributed to political instability. This instability reflects the failure of leaders to do their responsibilities and solve public issues.

War on drugs has been with the world nations for the past years and it has resulted to thousands of prisoners, deaths and violence. War on drugs would not stop until the people supporting this would not realize its negative impacts to every nation and consumer. This battle is hard to terminate because there are a lot of people and narcotics kingpin that benefit from these illegal drugs transactions.

Chapter 7. Recommendations

Upon studying the impacts of war on drugs and the failure of leaders to enforce the policies against illegal drug use, the following recommendations are provided by the author. (1) Both Republican and Democratic government should provide stricter policies against illegal drug use. These include the detection and closure of illegal markets and arrest of the narcotics kingpins. (2) The government officials should again review their old policies to determine what is lacking or what should be improved and changed. (3) Since most of these countries are well-developed, they could spend their funds on creating more educational programs for the citizens. These programs include consultation, information consolidation and rehabilitation. (4) Trade policies should be reviewed. Government officials should determine the root behind the presence of shipments from narcotic producing nations. (5) The United Nations should also provide their assistance for countries that are not well-educated about the impacts of illegal drugs use to their locals and economy.

References

Akers, M. A. (1999). leadership. California: Springe.

Bradley, G. O. (1997). CGSC. CGSC Journal , 11 (2), 44.

Calhoun, J.C., The Papers of John C. Calhoun: A Disquisition on Government and a Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States – University of South Carolina Press, 1971, p482

Curtis, E. (2010). Essential leadership skills for motivating and developing staff. 55.

Dickinson, E. (2012). Fighting the Last War. Washington Monthly .

Dobkin, C., & Nicosia, N. (2009). The War on Drugs: Methamphetamine, Public Health, and Crime. American Economic Review; , 15, 55-102.

Dolan, C. J. (2005). United States’ Narco-Terrorism Policy: A Contingency Approach to the Convergence of the Wars on Drugs and Against Terrorism. Review of Policy Research , 11.

Drennan, F. S., & Richey, D. (2012). Skills-Based Leadership The First-Line Supervisor Part I. Professional Safety; , 15, 45.

Francis, J. N., & Mauser, G. A. (2011). Collateral damage: the ‘War on Drugs’, and the Latin America and Caribbean region: policy recommendations for the Obama administration. Policy Studies; , 14, 11-96.

Girion, L., Glover, S. & Smith, D. Drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in U.S., data show – Los Angeles Times, 2011 (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918)

Kellner, T. (2010). Inside Mexico’s Drug War. World Policy Journal; , 44, 33-85.

Kleiman, M. (2011). Surgical Strikes in the Drug Wars. Foreign Affairs; , 45, 45-87.

Law Enforcement Information on Drug-Related Police Corruption, United States General Accounting Office, 1998

O’Neil, S. (2009). The Real War in Mexico. Foreign Affairs , 20.

Parloff, R. (2011). THE NEW DRUG WAR. Fortune; , 45.

Small, D. (2001). The War on Drugs Is a War on Racial Justice. Social Research , 11, 14-89.

Timeline: America’s War on Drugs, NPR (Publisher), 2007 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9252490)

Weigley, R. F. (1977). The American way of war: a history of United States military. New York: Springe.

White Jr., R. D. (2011). Measuring The War On Drugs: A Cybernetic Model For Analyzing The Relationships Between Drug Severity, Drug Salience And Drug Funding. Policy Studies Review; , 34

Appendix A. Leadership Statement

A good leader focuses on the more of optimized and efficient solutions to come up with the end result. An ideal leader is the one who always apprehends the current environment and is always able to utilize the fundamental and efficient approach to resolve the problem and also motivate his followers with his good deeds or influential acts which in turn can turn out to be beneficial to the whole team. A leader who not just creates space for himself but also strives to create a comfort zone to his followers always tends to create and achieve something big at the end.

According to me transformational leadership is one of the highly influential and effective leadership trait which not just impact the whole team or organization but rather manages to influence the whole society associated. This leadership rather looks at the whole scenario with a whole of new vision and eventually revitalizes the entire system with positive impacts.

The transformational leadership brings a strong platform which creates a specific comfort zone to each team member to enforce their ideas on the subject and thus help them contribute in their own way. The transformational leadership rather encourages the team work and sets up an environment where each team member can easily interact with each other.