Editing Drug prohibition (section)

==History==
The cultivation, use, and trade of [[psychoactive]] and other [[drug]]s has occurred since ancient times. Concurrently, authorities have often restricted drug possession and trade for a variety of political and religious reasons. In the 20th century, the United States led a major renewed surge in drug prohibition called the "[[War on Drugs]]".

===Early drug laws===
[[File:Huichol-Fadenbild.jpg|thumb|right|[[Huichol people|Huichol]] religion worshiped the god of [[Peyote]], a drug.]]
The prohibition on [[alcoholic beverages|alcohol]] under Islamic ''[[Sharia]]'' law, which is usually attributed to passages in the ''[[Qur'an]]'', dates back to the early seventh century. Although Islamic law is often interpreted as prohibiting all [[intoxicant]]s (not only alcohol), the ancient practice of [[hashish|hashish smoking]] has continued throughout the [[history of Islam]], against varying degrees of resistance. A major campaign against hashish-eating [[Sufi]]s were conducted in [[Egypt]] in the 11th and 12th centuries resulting among other things in the burning of fields of [[cannabis (drug)|cannabis]].{{citation needed|date=February 2016}}

Though the prohibition of [[Illegal drug trade|illegal drugs]] was established under Sharia law, particularly against the use of hashish as a [[recreational drug]], classical [[Ulema|jurists]] of medieval [[Fiqh|Islamic jurisprudence]] accepted the use of hashish for [[Islamic medicine|medicinal and therapeutic purposes]], and agreed that its "medical use, even if it leads to [[Islamic psychology|mental derangement]], should remain exempt [from punishment]". In the 14th century, the Islamic scholar Az-Zarkashi spoke of "the permissibility of its use for medical purposes if it is established that it is beneficial".<ref name=Mathre>{{Cite book |title=Cannabis in Medical Practice: A Legal, Historical and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana |first=Mary Lynn |last=Mathre |year=1997 |publisher=McFarland |isbn=978-0-7864-0361-5 |pages=40–41 }}</ref>

[[File:William John Huggins - The opium ships at Lintin, China, 1824.jpg|thumb|left|A painting of opium ships sailing into [[Qing dynasty|China]]. Chinese attempts to suppress opium smuggling sparked the [[First Opium War]].]]
In the [[Ottoman Empire]], [[Murad IV]] attempted to prohibit [[coffee]] drinking to Muslims as ''[[haraam]]'', arguing that it was an [[intoxicant]], but this ruling was overturned soon after he died in 1640.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://accidentalhedonist.com/food-stories-the-sultans-coffee-prohibition/ | title=Food Stories: The Sultan's Coffee Prohibition | last=Hopkins | first=Kate | date=March 24, 2006 | access-date=September 12, 2006 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121120105621/http://accidentalhedonist.com/food-stories-the-sultans-coffee-prohibition/ | archive-date=November 20, 2012 | df=mdy-all }}</ref> The introduction of coffee in Europe from Muslim Turkey prompted calls for it to be banned as the devil's work, although [[Pope Clement VIII]] sanctioned its use in 1600, declaring that it was "so delicious that it would be a pity to let the infidels have exclusive use of it". [[Bach]]'s [[Coffee Cantata]], from the 1730s, presents a vigorous debate between a girl and her father over her desire to consume coffee. The early association between [[coffeehouse]]s and seditious political activities in England led to the banning of such establishments in the mid-17th century.<ref>{{cite book|last=Allen|first=Stewart|title=The Devil's Cup|publisher=Random House|isbn=978-0-345-44149-2|year=2003}}</ref>

A number of Asian rulers had similarly enacted early prohibitions, many of which were later forcefully overturned by Western colonial powers during the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1360, for example, King [[Ramathibodi I]], of [[Ayutthaya Kingdom]] (now [[Thailand]]), prohibited opium consumption and trade. The prohibition lasted nearly 500 years until 1851 when King [[Rama IV]] allowed Chinese migrants to consume opium. The Konbaung Dynasty prohibited all [[intoxicant]]s and [[stimulant]]s during the reign of King Bodawpaya (1781–1819). After Burma became a [[British rule in Burma|British colony]], the restrictions on opium were abolished and the colonial government established monopolies selling Indian-produced opium.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1080/07075332.2013.820769| title = How the East Influenced Drug Prohibition| journal = The International History Review| volume = 35| issue = 5| page = 1185| year = 2013| last1 = Windle | first1 = J. | s2cid = 154123029| url = http://roar.uel.ac.uk/4815/1/2013%20Windle%20How%20East%20Influenced%20Prohibition.pdf}}</ref>

In late [[Qing dynasty|Qing China]], [[opium]] imported by foreign traders, such as those employed by [[Jardine Matheson]] and the [[East India Company]], was consumed by all social classes in [[Southern China]]. Between 1821 and 1837, imports of the drug increased fivefold. The wealth drain and widespread social problems that resulted from this consumption prompted the Chinese government to attempt to end the trade. This effort was initially successful, with [[Lin Zexu]] ordering the [[destruction of opium at Humen]] in June 1839. However, the opium traders lobbied the British government to declare war on China, resulting in the [[First Opium War]]. The Qing government was defeated and the war ended with the [[Treaty of Nanking]], which legalized opium trading in Chinese law<ref>.[https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/first-china-war-1839-1842 Patterns of intergenerational child protective services involvement]</ref>

===First modern drug regulations===
[[File:Illustration Papaver somniferum0.jpg|thumb|''[[Papaver somniferum]]''. The sale of drugs in the UK was regulated by the [[Pharmacy Act 1868]].]]

The first modern law in Europe for the regulating of drugs was the [[Pharmacy Act 1868]] in the United Kingdom. There had been previous moves to establish the medical and pharmaceutical professions as separate, self-regulating bodies, but the [[General Medical Council]], established in 1863, unsuccessfully attempted to assert control over drug distribution.<ref>
{{citation |title=Opium and the People, Opiate Use in Nineteenth-Century England |first1=Virginia |last1=Berridge |first2=Griffith |last2=Edwards |year=1981 |url=http://www.druglibrary.eu/library/books/opiumpeople/pharmact.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131225190914/http://www.druglibrary.eu/library/books/opiumpeople/pharmact.html |archive-date=December 25, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}
</ref> The act set controls on the distribution of poisons and drugs. Poisons could only be sold if the purchaser was known to the seller or to an intermediary known to both, and drugs, including [[opium]] and all preparations of opium or of [[poppy|poppies]], had to be sold in containers with the seller's name and address.<ref>{{citation|title=Pharmacy Act 1868|work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]]|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/pharmacy-act-1868|access-date=June 18, 2013|archive-date=December 22, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121222014834/http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/acts/pharmacy-act-1868|url-status=live}}</ref>
Despite the reservation of opium to professional control, general sales did continue to a limited extent, with mixtures with less than 1 percent opium being unregulated.

After the legislation passed, the death rate caused by opium immediately fell from 6.4 per million population in 1868 to 4.5 in 1869. Deaths among children under five dropped from 20.5 per million population between 1863 and 1867 to 12.7 per million in 1871 and further declined to between 6 and 7 per million in the 1880s.<ref>{{harvnb|Berridge|Edwards|1981|loc=Ch. 10}}</ref>

In the United States, the first drug law was passed in [[San Francisco, California|San Francisco]] in 1875, banning the smoking of opium in [[opium den]]s. The reason cited was "many women and young girls, as well as young men of a respectable family, were being induced to visit the Chinese opium-smoking dens, where they were ruined morally and otherwise." This was followed by other laws throughout the country, and federal laws that barred Chinese people from trafficking in opium. Though the laws affected the use and distribution of opium by Chinese immigrants, no action was taken against the producers of such products as [[laudanum]], a [[tincture]] of opium and alcohol, commonly taken as a [[panacea (medicine)|panacea]] by white Americans. The distinction between its use by white Americans and Chinese immigrants was thus a form of [[Racial discrimination in America|racial discrimination]] as it was based on the form in which it was ingested: Chinese immigrants tended to smoke it, while it was often included in various kinds of generally liquid medicines often (but not exclusively) used by Americans of European descent. The laws targeted opium smoking, but not other methods of ingestion.<ref>[http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu6.htm Licit and Illicit Drugs – Chapter 6, Opium Smoking Is Outlawed]. Druglibrary.org. Retrieved May 25, 2012.</ref>

Britain passed the All-India Opium Act of 1878, which limited recreational opium sales to registered Indian opium-eaters and Chinese opium-smokers and prohibiting its sale to emigrant workers from British Burma.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/opium_india.cfm|title=Opium and the British Indian Empire|author=Richards, John |date=May 23, 2001|access-date=September 24, 2007}}</ref>

Following the passage of a regional law in 1895, Australia's [[Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897]] addressed opium addiction among [[Aboriginal Australians|Aborigines]], though it soon became a general vehicle for depriving them of basic rights by administrative regulation. Opium sale was prohibited to the general population in 1905, and smoking and possession were prohibited in 1908.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/liac/hot_topic/hottopic/2000/4/2.html|author=Legal Information Access Centre|title=Drug laws in Australia}}</ref>

Despite these laws, the late 19th century saw an increase in opiate consumption. This was due to the prescribing and dispensing of legal opiates by physicians and pharmacists to relieve [[menstruation]] pain. It is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 opiate addicts lived in the United States at the time, and a majority of these addicts were women.<ref name="kand"/>

===Changing attitudes and the drug prohibition campaign===
[[File:Brassey1.JPG|thumb|[[Thomas Brassey, 1st Earl Brassey|Thomas Brassey]] was appointed the head of the [[Royal Opium Commission]] in 1893 to investigate the opium trade and make recommendations on its legality.]]

Foreign traders, including those employed by [[Jardine Matheson]] and the [[East India Company]], smuggled opium into China in order to balance high trade deficits. Chinese attempts to outlaw the trade led to the [[First Opium War]] and the subsequent legalization of the trade at the [[Treaty of Nanking]]. Attitudes towards the opium trade were initially ambivalent, but in 1874 the [[Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade]] was formed in England by [[Quaker]]s led by the [[Frederick Storrs-Turner|Rev. Frederick Storrs-Turner]]. By the 1890s, increasingly strident campaigns were waged by [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Mission (Christian)|missionaries]] in China for its abolition. The first such society was established at the 1890 Shanghai Missionary Conference, where British and American representatives, including [[John Glasgow Kerr]], [[Arthur Evans Moule|Arthur E. Moule]], [[Arthur Gostick Shorrock]] and [[Griffith John]], agreed to establish the Permanent Committee for the Promotion of Anti-Opium Societies.<ref>Lodwick, Kathleen L. (1996). ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gT42B-69owoC Crusaders Against Opium: Protestant Missionaries in China 1874–1917]''. University Press of Kentucky. {{ISBN|0-8131-1924-3}}</ref>

Due to increasing pressure in the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|British parliament]], the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] government under [[William Ewart Gladstone]] approved the appointment of a [[Royal Opium Commission|Royal Commission on Opium to India]] in 1893.<ref>Ocampo, J. A. (2009) ''100 Years of Drug Control'', United Nations. {{ISBN|978-92-1-148245-4}}, p. 30</ref><ref>Buxton, J. (2006) ''The political economy of narcotics: production, consumption and global markets'', Zed Books, {{ISBN|978-1-84277-447-2}} p. 29</ref> The commission was tasked with ascertaining the impact of Indian opium exports to the [[Far East]], and to advise whether the trade should be banned and opium consumption itself banned in India. After an extended inquiry, the Royal Commission rejected the claims made by the anti-opium campaigners regarding the supposed societal harm caused by the trade and the issue was finalized for another 15 years.<ref>Brook, T and Wakabayashi, B. (2000) ''Opium Regimes: China, Britain and Japan 1839–1952'', University of California Press, {{ISBN|978-0-520-22236-6}} p. 39</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Baumler|first=Alan|title=The Chinese and Opium under the Republic: Worse Than Floods and Wild Beasts|year=2007|publisher=[[State University of New York]]|isbn=978-0-7914-6953-8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dfAKoolkV-wC|page=65|quote=Although the Royal Commission killed opium suppression as an active political issue for the next fifteen years, the anti-opium crusaders continued their campaign, denouncing the commission as a whitewash and attempting to counter it with data of their own.}}</ref>

The missionary organizations were outraged over the [[Royal Commission on Opium]]'s conclusions and set up the Anti-Opium League in China; the league gathered data from every Western-trained medical doctor in China and published ''Opinions of Over 100 Physicians on the Use of Opium in China''. This was the first anti-drug campaign to be based on scientific principles, and it had a tremendous impact on the state of educated opinion in the West.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6hX1ycCAZJcC|title=Healing Bodies, Saving Souls: Medical Missions in Asia and Africa|editor=Hardiman, David |year=2006|publisher=Rodopi|page=172|isbn=978-9042021068}}</ref> In England, the home director of the [[China Inland Mission]], [[Benjamin Broomhall]], was an active opponent of the opium trade, writing two books to promote the banning of opium smoking: ''The Truth about Opium Smoking'' and ''The Chinese Opium Smoker''. In 1888, Broomhall formed and became secretary of the Christian Union for the Severance of the British Empire with the Opium Traffic and editor of its periodical, ''National Righteousness''. He lobbied the British parliament to ban the opium trade. Broomhall and [[James Laidlaw Maxwell]] appealed to the London Missionary Conference of 1888 and the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 to condemn the continuation of the trade. As Broomhall lay dying, an article from ''[[The Times]]'' was read to him with the welcome news that an international agreement had been signed ensuring the end of the opium trade within two years.

[[File:An Opium Raid (1912 headline).jpg|thumb|left|Newspaper article from ''The Daily Picayune'', [[New Orleans]], [[Louisiana]] in 1912 reporting on a drug arrest, a month after the [[International Opium Convention]] was signed and ratified at The Hague]]

In 1906, a motion to 'declare the opium trade "morally indefensible" and remove Government support for it', initially unsuccessfully proposed by [[Arthur Pease (MP)|Arthur Pease]] in 1891, was put before the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]]. This time the motion passed. The Qing government banned opium soon afterward.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Windle|first=J.|date=2013|title=Harms Caused by China's 1906-1917 Opium Suppression Intervention|url=https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/48f2cb7a02646f510ccec4a0566d80e532f8ef5ba7775eeba124d7a4ed60364c/248399/Harms%2520caused%2520by%25201906%2520intervention%2520-%2520pre-print%2520copy.pdf|journal=International Journal of Drug Policy|volume=24|issue=5|pages=498–505|doi=10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.03.001|pmid=23567100}}</ref>

These changing attitudes led to the founding of the [[International Opium Commission]] in 1909. An [[International Opium Convention]] was signed by 13 nations at [[The Hague]] on January 23, 1912, during the First International Opium Conference. This was the first international [[Drug prohibition law|drug control treaty]] and it was registered in the ''League of Nations Treaty Series'' on January 23, 1922.<ref>''League of Nations Treaty Series'', vol. 8, pp. 188–239.</ref> The Convention provided that "The contracting Powers shall use their best endeavors to control or to cause to be controlled, all person manufacturing, importing, selling, distributing, and exporting morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts, as well as the buildings in which these persons carry such an industry or trade."

The treaty became international law in 1919 when it was incorporated into the [[Treaty of Versailles]]. The role of the commission was passed to the [[League of Nations]], and all signatory nations agreed to prohibit the import, sale, distribution, export, and use of all [[narcotic]] drugs, except for medical and scientific purposes.

===Prohibition===
In the UK the [[Defence of the Realm Act 1914]], passed at the onset of the [[First World War]], gave the government wide-ranging powers to requisition the property and to criminalize specific activities. A [[moral panic]] was whipped up by the press in 1916 over the alleged sale of drugs to the troops of the [[British Indian Army]]. With the temporary powers of DORA, the [[British Army|Army Council]] quickly banned the sale of all psychoactive drugs to troops, unless required for medical reasons. However, shifts in the public attitude towards drugs—they were beginning to be associated with [[prostitution]], [[vice]] and [[immorality]]—led the government to pass further unprecedented laws, banning and criminalising the possession and dispensation of all narcotics, including opium and cocaine. After the war, this legislation was maintained and strengthened with the passing of the [[Dangerous Drugs Act 1920]] ([[10 & 11 Geo. 5]]. c. 46). [[Home Office]] control was extended to include [[raw opium]], [[morphine]], [[cocaine]], [[ecogonine]] and [[heroin]].<ref>''[[The Manchester Guardian]]''; "Sale Of " Dope " Drugs: New Control Regulations"; January 8, 1921</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/body-and-mind/drugs-and-dora-2/|title=Drugs and DORA|access-date=December 17, 2012}}</ref>

Hardening of Canadian attitudes toward [[Chinese Canadians|Chinese-Canadian]] opium users and fear of a spread of the drug into the white population led to the effective criminalization of opium for nonmedical use in Canada between 1908 and the mid-1920s.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.projectcork.org/bibliographies/data/Bibliography_Historical.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030125153032/http://www.projectcork.org/bibliographies/data/Bibliography_Historical.html|url-status=dead|archive-date=2003-01-25|author=Carstairs, C.|title=Jailed for Possession: Illegal Drug Use, Regulation, and Power in Canada, 1920–61|year=2006}}</ref>

The [[Mao Zedong]] government nearly eradicated both consumption and production of opium during the 1950s using social control and isolation.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kurlantzick|first1=Joshua|title=China's Drug Problem and Looming HIV Epidemic|journal=World Policy Journal|date=2002|volume=19|issue=2|pages=70–75|jstor=40209806|doi=10.1215/07402775-2002-3003}}</ref> Ten million addicts were forced into compulsory treatment, dealers were executed, and opium-producing regions were planted with new crops. Remaining opium production shifted south of the Chinese border into the [[Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia)|Golden Triangle]] region.<ref name="McCoy opium">{{cite web|url=http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi010.htm |title=Opium History, 1858 to 1940 |author=Alfred W. McCoy |access-date=May 4, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070404134938/http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi010.htm |archive-date=April 4, 2007 }}</ref> The remnant opium trade primarily served Southeast Asia, but spread to American soldiers during the [[Vietnam War]], with 20 percent of soldiers regarding themselves as addicted during the peak of the epidemic in 1971. In 2003, China was estimated to have four million regular drug users and one million registered drug addicts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD29Ad01.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040610075853/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FD29Ad01.html|url-status=unfit|archive-date=June 10, 2004|title=Banned in China for sex, drugs, disaffection|author=Michael Mackey|date=April 29, 2004|access-date=June 8, 2007}}</ref>

In the US, the [[Harrison Act]] was passed in 1914, and required sellers of [[opiate]]s and cocaine to get a license. While originally intended to regulate the trade, it soon became a prohibitive law, eventually becoming [[legal precedent]] that any prescription for a narcotic given by a physician or pharmacist – even in the course of medical treatment for [[Substance use disorder|addiction]] – constituted conspiracy to violate the Harrison Act. In 1919, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruled in ''Doremus'' that the Harrison Act was constitutional and in ''Webb'' that physicians could not prescribe narcotics solely for maintenance.<ref name="kand">{{cite book |author=Kandall, Stephen R. |title=Substance and Shadow: Women and Addiction in the United States |url=https://archive.org/details/substanceshadoww00kand |access-date=May 25, 2012 |year=1999 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-85361-4 |df=mdy-all |url-access=registration }}</ref> In ''Jin Fuey Moy v. United States'',<ref>''Jin Fuey Moy v. United States'' 254 U.S. 189 (1920)</ref> the court upheld that it was a violation of the Harrison Act even if a physician provided prescription of a narcotic for an addict, and thus subject to criminal [[prosecution]].<ref>Brecher, Edward M. [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cu8.html Chapter 8. "The Harrison Narcotic Act (1914)"] in ''The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs''. Consumer Reports Magazine. Druglibrary.org. Retrieved May 25, 2012.</ref> This is also true of the later [[Marijuana Tax Act]] in 1937. Soon, however, licensing bodies did not issue licenses, effectively banning the drugs.<ref>[https://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-war-on-drugs The War on Drugs Begins]</ref>

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the [[interstate commerce]] clause of the [[U.S. Constitution]].

====Alcohol prohibition====
{{Main|Prohibition}}
The prohibition of alcohol commenced in Finland in 1919 and in the United States in 1920. Because alcohol was the most popular recreational drug in these countries, reactions to its prohibition were far more negative than to the prohibition of other drugs, which were commonly associated with ethnic minorities, prostitution, and vice. Public pressure led to the repeal of alcohol prohibition in Finland in 1932, and in the United States in 1933. Residents of many provinces of [[Prohibition in Canada|Canada]] also experienced alcohol prohibition for similar periods in the first half of the 20th century.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/topic/prohibition-alcohol-interdict prohibition,alcohol interdict]</ref>

In Sweden, [[1922 Swedish prohibition referendum|a referendum]] in 1922 decided against an alcohol prohibition law (with 51% of the votes against and 49% for prohibition), but starting in 1914 (nationwide from 1917) and until 1955 Sweden employed an alcohol rationing system with personal liquor ration books ("[[motbok]]").

===War on Drugs===
{{main|War on Drugs}}
[[File:DEA Operation Mallorca, 2005.jpg|thumb|American drug law enforcement agents detain a man in 2005.]]
[[File:Afghanistan 16.jpg|thumb|[[Opium poppies]] growing in [[Afghanistan]], a major source of drugs today]]

In response to rising drug use among young people and the [[Counterculture of the 1960s|counterculture]] movement, government efforts to enforce prohibition were strengthened in many countries from the 1960s onward. Support at an international level for the prohibition of [[psychoactive drug]] use became a consistent feature of United States policy during both Republican and Democratic administrations, to such an extent that US support for foreign governments has often been contingent on their adherence to US [[drug policy]].{{Citation needed|date=February 2010}} Major milestones in this campaign include the introduction of the [[Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs]] in 1961, the [[Convention on Psychotropic Substances]] in 1971 and the [[United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances]] in 1988. A few developing countries where consumption of the prohibited substances has enjoyed longstanding cultural support, long resisted such outside pressure to pass legislation adhering to these conventions. [[Nepal]] only did so in 1976.<ref>Charles, Molly (2001). [http://www.india-seminar.com/2001/504/504%20molly%20charles.htm "The drug scene in India"]. India-seminar.com. Retrieved May 25, 2012.</ref><ref>[http://www.unodc.org/pdf/india/publications/south_Asia_Regional_Profile_Sept_2005/12_nepal.pdf UNODC: Nepal, Executive Summary]. (PDF). Retrieved May 25, 2012.</ref>

In 1972, United States President [[Richard Nixon]] announced the commencement of the so-called "War on Drugs". Later, [[Ronald Reagan|President Reagan]] added the position of [[drug czar]] to the [[Executive Office of the President of the United States|President's Executive Office]]. In 1973, [[New York (state)|New York]] introduced [[mandatory sentence|mandatory minimum sentences]] of 15 years to [[life imprisonment]] for possession of more than {{convert|4|oz|g|order=flip|0}} of a so-called [[Hard and soft drugs|hard drug]], called the [[Rockefeller drug laws]] after New York Governor and later Vice President [[Nelson Rockefeller]]. Similar laws were introduced across the United States.

California's broader '[[three strikes law|three strikes and you're out]]' policy adopted in 1994 was the first [[mandatory sentencing]] policy to gain widespread publicity and was subsequently adopted in most United States jurisdictions. This policy mandates life imprisonment for a third criminal conviction of any felony offense. A similar 'three strikes' policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997. This legislation enacted a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for those convicted for a third time of a drug trafficking offense involving a class A drug.

===Calls for legalization, relegalization or decriminalization===
{{Main|Arguments for and against drug prohibition}}
{{See also|Drug liberalization|Illegal drug trade#Effects of the illegal drug trade on societies|Prohibition of drugs#Legal Dilemmas|Harm reduction#Decriminalisation|Prohibition of drugs#Social control}}

The terms relegalization, legalization, legal regulations, or decriminalization are used with very different meanings by different authors, something that can be confusing when the claims are not specified. Here are some variants:

* Sales of one or more drugs (e.g., [[marijuana]]) for personal use become legal, at least if sold in a certain way.
* Sales of an extracts with a specific substance become legal sold in a certain way, for example on prescription. 
* Use or possession of small amounts for personal use do not lead to incarceration if it is the only crime, but it is still illegal; the court or the prosecutor can impose a fine. (In that sense, Sweden both legalized and supported drug prohibition simultaneously.) 
* Use or possession of small amounts for personal use do not lead to incarceration. The case is not treated in an ordinary court, but by a commission that may recommend treatment or sanctions including fines. (In that sense, Portugal both legalized and supported drug prohibitions).

There are efforts around the world to promote the [[drug relegalization|relegalization]] and [[drug decriminalization|decriminalization]] of drugs. These policies are often supported by proponents of [[liberalism]] and [[libertarianism]] on the grounds of individual freedom, as well as by [[leftism|leftists]] who believe prohibition to be a method of suppression of the working class by the ruling class. 

Prohibition of drugs is supported by proponents of [[conservatism]] as well various [[NGOs]]. A number of NGOs are aligned in support of drug prohibition as members of the [[World Federation Against Drugs]].<ref name="WFAD">[http://www.wfad.se/ WFAD members]</ref><ref>[http://www.wfad.se/papers/974-drug-legalisation-an-evaluation-of-the-impacts-on-global-society Drug Legalisation: An Evaluation of the Impacts on Global Society] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131113123610/http://www.wfad.se/papers/974-drug-legalisation-an-evaluation-of-the-impacts-on-global-society |date=November 13, 2013 }}, [[World Federation Against Drugs]], 2011</ref> In the WFAD constitution, the "Declaration of the World Forum Against Drugs" (2008) advocates for "no other goal than a drug-free world", and states that a balanced policy of drug abuse prevention, education, treatment, law enforcement, research, and supply reduction provides the most effective platform to reduce drug abuse and its associated harms and calls on governments to consider [[demand reduction]] as one of their first priorities. It supports the UN drug conventions, the inclusion of cannabis as one of the "hard drugs", and the use of criminal sanctions "when appropriate" to deter drug use. It opposes legalization in any form, and [[harm reduction]] in general.<ref>{{Cite web |date=June 26, 2009 |title=Constitution of World Federation Against Drugs (Appendix I: Declaration of the World Forum Against Drugs) |url=https://wfad.se/wfad-declaration/wfad-declaration-wfad-declaration/constitution-of-world-federation-against-drugs/ |access-date=Mar 31, 2024 |website=[[World Federation Against Drugs]]}}</ref>

According to some critics, drug prohibition is responsible for enriching "organised criminal networks"<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/09/banning-khat-one-most-dangerous-decisions-made-during-war-drugs New Statesman Banning Khat is one of the most dangerous decisions made during the 'war on drugs' 9 September 2013]</ref> while the hypothesis that the prohibition of drugs generates violence is consistent with research done over long time-series and cross-country facts.<ref name="WhatEconomistsKnow">{{cite book |last1=Dills |first1=Angela K. |title=The Economics of Crime: Lessons for and from Latin America |last2=Miron |first2=Jeffrey A. |last3=Summers |first3=Garrett |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-226-15374-2 |editor-last=Di Tella |location=Chicago |chapter=What Do Economists Know about Crime? |doi=10.3386/w13759 |editor2-last=Edwards |editor3-last=Schargrodsky |s2cid=154952733}}</ref>

In the United Kingdom, where the principal piece of drug prohibition legislation is the [[Misuse of Drugs Act 1971]],<ref name="UK 1">[https://archive.today/20120526214407/http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=The+Misuse+of+Drugs+Act+1971&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1367412&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0 ''Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (c.38)'', the text of the act, OPSI website, accessed 27 January 2009]</ref> criticism includes:

* ''[[Drug classification: making a hash of it?]]'', Fifth Report of Session 2005–06, House of Commons [[Science and Technology Committee]], which said that the present system of drug classification is based on historical assumptions, not scientific assessment<ref>[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf ''Drug classification: making a hash of it?'', Fifth Report of Session 2005–06, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, accessed 29 January 2009]</ref>
* ''Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse'', David Nutt, Leslie A. King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore, [[The Lancet]], 24 March 2007, said the act is "not fit for purpose" and "the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from the Misuse of Drugs Act is, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary"<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nutt |first1=D. |last2=King |first2=L. A. |last3=Saulsbury |first3=W. |last4=Blakemore |first4=C. |year=2007 |title=Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse |journal=The Lancet |volume=369 |issue=9566 |pages=1047–1053 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4 |pmid=17382831 |author-link1=David Nutt |author-link4=Colin Blakemore |s2cid=5903121}}</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6474053.stm?ls#drugs ''Scientists want new drug rankings'', BBC News website, 23 March 2007, accessed 27 January 2009]</ref>
* The ''[[Drug Equality Alliance (DEA)]]'' argue that the Government is administering the Act arbitrarily, contrary to its purpose, contrary to the original wishes of Parliament and therefore illegally. They are currently assisting and supporting several legal challenges to this alleged maladministration.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Drug Equality Alliance (DEA) - Cases |url=http://www.drugequality.org/cases.htm |access-date=February 28, 2022 |archive-date=March 31, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220331092625/http://www.drugequality.org/cases.htm |url-status=usurped }}</ref>

[[File:Cape Town cannabis march.jpg|thumb|People marching in the streets of [[Cape Town]] against the prohibition of cannabis in [[South Africa]], May 2015]]
In February 2008 the then-president of [[Honduras]], [[Manuel Zelaya]], called on the world to legalize drugs, in order, he said, to prevent the majority of violent murders occurring in Honduras. Honduras is used by [[cocaine]] smugglers as a transiting point between [[Colombia]] and the US. Honduras, with a population of 7 million, suffers an average of 8–10 murders a day, with an estimated 70% being a result of this international drug trade. The same problem is occurring in [[Guatemala]], [[El Salvador]], [[Costa Rica]] and Mexico, according to Zelaya.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080226143644/http://www.laprensahn.com/index.php/ediciones/2008/02/23/zelaya_sugiere_a_eua_legalizar_drogas Zelaya sugiere {{not a typo|a}} EUA legalizar drogas]. laprensahn.com (February 23, 2008)</ref> In January 2012 [[Colombia]]n President [[Juan Manuel Santos]] made a plea to the United States and Europe to start a global debate about legalizing drugs.<ref>[http://colombiareports.co/santos-reiterates-call-on-global-drug-legalization-debate-video/ Santos reiterates call on global drug legalization debate]. Colombia Reports. January 29, 2012</ref> This call was echoed by the [[Guatemala]]n President [[Otto Pérez Molina]], who announced his desire to legalize drugs, saying "What I have done is put the issue back on the table."<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/23/world/americas/guatemala-drug-legalization/index.html Guatemalan president leads drug legalization debate]. CNN. March 23, 2012</ref>

In a report dealing with [[HIV]] in June 2014, the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) of the [[UN]] called for the decriminalization of drugs particularly including injected ones. This conclusion put WHO at odds with broader long-standing UN policy favoring criminalization.<ref>[https://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2014/07/illicit-drugs "The WHO calls for decriminalisation"], ''The Economist'', July 17, 2014. With link to "Consolidated guidelines on HIV prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care for key populations", WHO, July 2014. Retrieved July 20, 2014.</ref> Eight states of the United States (Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington), as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized the sale of marijuana for personal recreational use as of 2017, although recreational use remains illegal under U.S. federal law. The conflict between state and federal law is, as of 2018, unresolved.

Since Uruguay in 2014 and Canada in 2018 legalized cannabis, the debate has known a new turn internationally.

On March 14th, 2025, the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs decided to create a panel of independent experts to rethink the global drug control regime.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Fordham |first1=Ann |last2=Cots Fernández |first2=Adrià |date=2025-03-18 |title=CND68: Historic vote initiates overdue review of UN drug control "machinery" |url=https://idpc.net/blog/2025/03/cnd68-historic-vote-initiates-overdue-review-of-un-drug-control-machinery |access-date=2025-03-19 |website=IDPC |language=en}}</ref>