A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily
function.[3]There is no single, precise definition, as there are different meanings in
drug control law, government regulations, medicine, and
colloquial usage.[4]
ary.com defines a drug as "a chemicalsubstance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being."
[4] Drugs may be prescribed for a limite
d duration, or on a regular basis for chronic disorders.[5]
chemical substances that affect the central nervous system, such as opioids orhallucinogens.[5] They may be used for perceived beneficial effects onperception, consciousness,personality, andbehavior.[5][6] Some drugs can cause
Drugs are usually distinguished fromendogenous
biochemicals by being introduced from outside the organism.[citation needed] For example, insulinis a hormone that is synthesized in the body; it is called a hormo
ne when it is synthesized by the pancreas inside the body, but if it is introduced into the body from outside, it is called a drug.[citation needed]
Many natural substances such as beers, wines, and some mushrooms, blur the line between food and drugs, as when
ingested they affect th
e functioning of both mindand body.The War on Drugs is a prohibition campaign undertaken by the United States government with the assistance of participating countries, intended to reduce the illegal drug trade – to curb supply and diminish demand for specific
psychoactive substances deemed immoral, harmful, dangerous, or undesirable.
This initiative includes a set of laws and policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of targeted substances. The term was first used by PresidentRichard
Nixon in 1969,[1] and his choice of words was probably based on the War on Poverty, announced by President Lyndon B
. Johnson in 1964.
On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, signaled that the Obama Administration would no longer use the term "War on Drugs,"
as he claims it is counter-productive and is contrary to the policy favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce drug use.
Plan Colombia
As part of Plan Colombia, the U.S. Government fundedcoca eradication through private contractors such asDynCor
p and helped train the Colombian armed forces to eradicate coca and fight left-wing guerrillas such as theFARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and right-wing paramilitaries such as the AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia), both of which have been accused of participatin
g in the illegal drug trade in their areas of influence. Private U.S. enterprises have signed contracts to carry out anti-drug activities as part of Plan Colombia. DynCorp, the largest private company involved, was among those contracted by the State Department, while others signed contracts with the Defense Department.
In 2000, 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.[13]Subsequently, the U.S. government certified that the Colombian government ha
d taken steps to improve respect for human rights and to prosecute abusers among its security forces.[14]The U.S. has later denied aid to individual Colombian military units accused of such abuses, such as the Palanquero Air Force base and the Army's XVII Brigade. Opponents of aid given to the Colombian military as part of the War on
Drugs argue that the U.S. and Colombian governments primarily focus on fighting the guerrillas, devoting less attention to the paramilitaries although these have a greater degree of participation in the illicit drug industry. Critics argue that Human Rights Watch, congressional committees and other entities have documented the exis
tence of connections between members of the Colombian military and the AUC, and that Colombian military personnel have committed human rights abuses which would make them ineligible for U.S. aid under current laws
.
Legality
In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution,[21]Libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the Constitution.Alcohol prohibition requiredamending the Constitution, because this was not a power granted to the federal government. Hager asserts if this is true, then marijuana prohibition should likewise require a Constitutional amendment.
www.wikipedia.com
www.grugs.com
www.drug.com
