FOREIGN STUDIES

US Chief Executive Ronald Reagan Declared WAR on drugs in February 1982, and pledged his
administration to the task of curtailing the burgeoning drug epidemic in the United States. To
accomplish this urgent “national security” objective, the federal government rapidly increased
expenditures for narcotics control programs during the ensuing seven years of his two-term presidency,
reaching $4.3 billion annually in 1988. Enthusiastically backing the president's initiative, the US Congress
approved tougher national drug legislation, widened the US military's involvement in the war, supported
the administration's drive to intensify interdiction efforts along US borders, and expanded USdesigned
eradication, crop substitution, and law enforcement programs in foreign source and transit countries.
First Lady Nancy Reagan launched her “Just Say No” campaign, flooding the American educational
system and the public media with anti-drug messages. Ostensibly, all sectors of American society
enlisted in the war on drugs and the country began mobilizing for battle.

Bagley, B. (2015). US Foreign Policy and the War on Drugs: Analysis of a Policy Failure. Journal of
Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 30(2-3), 189-212. doi:10.2307/165986
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-interamerican-studies-and-world-
affairs/article/us-foreign-policy-and-the-war-on-drugs-analysis-of-a-policy-
failure/CE5F2105F5D7E502B21FDACE1A771BBA

An important issue for many US citizens, particularly those who live in the inner city and in
major urban areas, is the level of administration concern regarding the impact of drugs on US
society and the relative priority the administration assigns to drugs as a policy issue.

In mid-October 1993, the Clinton administration released an interim policy statement setting
forth its proposed strategy for national drug control. Consisting of both domestic and
international components, this strategy seeks to downplay the drug issue as a priority driving the
new administration's policy agenda. Within the United States, the drug policy is linked to other
important domestic goals and is envisioned as just one of the elements in efforts to spur
economic growth, reform health care, curb violence among the nation's youth, and “empower
communities.”

Perl, R. (1994). Clinton's Foreign Drug Policy. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 35(4),
143-152. doi:10.2307/165957
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-interamerican-studies-and-world-
affairs/article/clintons-foreign-drug-policy/019742E5C2DC52D5F65CF687AD5F0E56

Increasing numbers of sovereign states are beginning to review their stance on the prohibition based UN
drug control conventions. Recent years have seen nations implement, or seriously discuss, tolerant drug
policies that exploit the latitude existing within the legal framework of the global drug control regime.
With efforts to implement pragmatic approaches to drug use at the national level, however, comes the
growing recognition that the flexibility of the conventions is not unlimited. It seems that the time is not
too distant when further movement within states away from the prohibitive paradigm will only be
possible through some sort of change in or defection from the regime. This article suggests that efforts
to implement treaty revision are fraught with difficulties. It will be shown how the UN procedures
permitting revision of the conventions allow nations supporting the current prohibition based system,
particularly the United States of America, to easily block change. The article argues that such systemic
obstacles may lead parties wishing to appreciably expand policy space at a national level to consider a
form of treaty withdrawal. It is suggested that such action by a group of like-minded revision oriented
states may be sufficient to trigger a weakening of the regime. The article contends, however, that total
withdrawal would be a problematic option, not least because it would have serious consequences for
the entire international treaty system.
David RBewley-Taylor
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395903000057

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

LOCAL LITERATURE

Shahani(2016) Fighting illegal drugs, alongside tackling poverty, is the centerpiece of Duterte’s
platform. Asserting that he will see capital punishment reintroduced for a wide range of crimes, he vows
to elevate drug abuse to a “national security issue” by mounting a relentless crackdown on syndicates
and users, and demolishing illicit laboratories using elite security forces.

How serious is the drug problem in the Philippines? According to the Dangerous Drugs Board’s 2012
National Household Survey, there were around 1.3 million drug users in the country, which translates to
about 1 percent of the population. In 2015, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) reported
that a fifth—or 8,629 out of the country’s 42,065 barangays—were “drug affected,” determined by the
presence of at least one user, pusher, manufacturer, or other drug personality in the area. In Metro
Manila, 92 percent of its barangays have some sort of drug-related problem, though it remains difficult
to determine how serious these actually are. Based on PDEA’s 2014 arrest data, methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu—reportedly used by blue-collar workers like bus drivers to keep themselves
awake—tops the list of most abused illegal drugs, followed by marijuana and costly party drugs like
cocaine and ecstasy.

In light of this, Duterte’s strategy will stress enforcement and prosecution, beefing up the police to
reduce both demand and supply, according to incoming Solicitor General Jose Calida. He intends to
recruit and arm militiamen at the barangay level—where he says drugs have proliferated due to local
officials’ inability to suppress them—to do their own policing.
 Dalizon(2015)THE Philippine National Police leadership headed by Deputy Director General

Leonardo A. Espina is pushing for the creation of a permanent PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Group knowing

that the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency alone cannot fully address the massive security threat

posed by illegal drug trafficking and abuse in the country.

Consider these: a PDEA study showed that nearly 9,000 or 20.51 percent of the country’s total 42,065
barangays are drug-affected. The sad reality is that 92.10 percent of all barangays in the National Capital
Region are drug-affected followed by 33.78 percent from Calabarzon (Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal
and Quezon) region.

PDEA chair, Undersecretary Arturo G. Cacdac Jr., also noted an alarming increase in the number of rogue
public officials and employees getting involved in illegal drug trafficking and abuse in the country amid a
report which showed that last year alone, a total of 190 government men composed of 56 elected
officials, 49 law enforcers and 85 government employees were arrested for violation of Republic Act
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In a letter to Department of the Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, Gen. Espina cited a
Department of Justice ruling which ruled that ‘there is nothing in Republic Act 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 which prohibits the PNP from setting up a permanent unit
as long as it complies with the provisions of RA 9165 on its relationship to the PDEA.’ Justice Sec. Leila
M. de Lima’s July 29, 2014 ruling reversed DOJ Legal Opinion No. 67 which was on the contrary.

HAQQI(2015) While many countries are relaxing their policies on drugs, the US still enforces
theirs strongly, leading to us to wonder about the 11 US States with the toughest drug laws. There is no
doubt that drugs can be an extremely dangerous item to consume and some of the more potent ones
such as heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine can even result in death. However, it is also important to
consider that laws in the US can often be too tough which can result in filling up prisons with moderate
drug users as well. The US, in this case, can be compared with other countries who crack down on drugs
as well, as seen in the 10 countries with the toughest drug laws in the world.
In fact, the US is the leading nation in the world when it comes to the incarceration of inmates. There
are an astounding 2.5 million people in the United States who are currently serving time in jail and
around half of such felons are in jail on drug-related charges.

The main drug or the most popular drug in the United States is marijuana. In fact, it is probably the most
popular drug in the entire world. This is mainly due to the fact that it isn’t relatively hard to cultivate and
isn’t a ‘hard’ drug, which is to say that its effects are temporary and not extreme. In fact, it is impossible
to overdose on marijuana. Yet the lives of hundreds of thousands of people have been potentially ruined
due to them being found with just a few grams of marijuana in their possession. In just 2013, 1.5 million
people were arrested on nonviolent drug-related charges. This is why we have focused on marijuana to
determine a state’s attitude towards drugs, considering its reputation as a gateway drug as well as being
the most common drug in the world.

Ministry of Home Affairs(2011) Singapore has one of the strictest laws on drug related offences. The
most well-known of these has to be the laws on drug trafficking. Notices which warn of the severity of
such offences are prominently displayed on airports and Customs to deter potential offenders.

Singapore’s laws on the legality of drugs comply with that of most other countries of the United Nations,
but may differ from other more drug-liberal countries such as Belgium or the United States. For
example, marijuana (also known as cannabis) is strictly outlawed in Singapore, but is legal to a certain
extent in certain American states. For a list of drugs prohibited in Singapore, click here.

It is an offence under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) to possess or consume drugs such as
Ecstasy. If the police have reason to believe that you have taken drugs, they have the right to subject
you to a urine test. Resisting the urine test is itself a punishable offence under the mentioned Act. For a
detailed list of the punishments pertaining to various drug offences, click here.

Due to the difficulty in proving the guilt of a drug consumer or trafficker beyond reasonable doubt, the
law adpots several presumptions which make it easier to impute the guilt of the accused person. For
example, under section 22 of the MDA, once a controlled drug is found in the urine of a person, he is
presumed to have violated drug laws, unless he can prove that the drug consumption was involuntary.
This is a difficult burden to discharge. Therefore, reasons such as “I did not know that the pill my friend
gave me was Ecstasy!” are unlikely to hold water. In addition, possession of an amount of drug greater
than an amount specified in the MDA would also result in the presumption that the possessor possessed
the drug with the intention of drug-trafficking.

Previously under the MDA, a person found guilty of trafficking in certain amounts of specified
substances would have to face the mandatory death penalty. However, drug laws have recently been
changed to lessen the severity of the punishment, especially for drug mules who had been coerced into
drug trafficking against their will. From 9 July 2012, the death penalty would no longer be mandatory if
the accused person was only a courier and had absolutely no other involvement in the supply or
distribution of drugs, and if he had either cooperated with the Central Narcotics Bureau (the
government agency in charge of drug enforcement in Singapore) in a way that is deemed “substantial”,
or was mentally impaired such that he “substantially” could not comprehend the seriousness of his
actions. In such circumstances, the accused may be sentenced to life imprisonment instead. However,
the extent of cooperation the accused must give in order for his efforts to be regarded as “substantial”
still remains to be seen.