With different drugs having alternatives, the shift in supply of one drug only increases the supply and demand of its substitute. Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins assert this outcome, stating that the concentration and eradication of a drug source would only bring about the production to move from one place to another.2 With a high need for a certain drug, and the unavailability of a legal drug that would give the same satisfaction, the production of new drugs that had equal effects gave the premise for why the United States' drug policy was incapable of wiping out the illegal drug market. As the reality of the approach became clearly undeniable, leaders like President Nixon moved the approach to drug policy to intensely concentrate on the enforcement of laws with the belief that it would be a more accurate way to deal with the issue.3 As upheld by "The War on Drugs," one principle segment on which the drug war in the United States was constructed was mainly through law enforcement.4 .
As a result of a system that only targeted drug abusers, the addicts would often be incarcerated and never get the correct restoration needed to truly end addiction. The essential imperfections of drug policy in the United States lies in the view of who and what the real problem is. The drug trade is an exchange that includes a horde of clients, distributors, manufacturers, and specialists. With such a decentralized structure, the drug market remains astoundingly adaptable and strong.52 Due to these problems, it is evident why the war on drugs in the United States was a failed attempt. .
While drug policy in the United States proved to be ineffective, the government on the other hand did not fail to complete its hypocritical plans in its attempt to end drug trade in America. One way that drug policy was duplicitous was the way that the administration made its laws and regulations applicable to whoever they chose.
