Questioning Authority: The Morality and Efficiency of the Current Policy

The current policy to halt the illegal drug trade:

1.) Stopping the drug use before it begins by educating the community
2.) Treating current drug users and helping them to reach a drug free lifestyle
3.) Disrupt the market for illicit drugs

These steps above may seem simple and effective, but how effective are they really? Thinking of a better solution is difficult, but these methods do not prove to be very effective. According to a household poll on drug use given by the government, the amount of drug use from 1985 to 2001 rose, as did the amount of drug use by teenagers. These facts are frightening becasue more and more efforts are being put in to decrease this usage and trade, but they consistently prove to be ineffective.
As a student, it is common to see commercials such as Above the Influence, and other things like that, but it is just as common to hear these ads as a joke in the cafeteria. What more needs to be done in order to prove that drugs are bad? Although people are getting the message that drugs are bad, what makes them continue to use them?
It seems as if the community doesn't want to cooperate with the government efforts to prevent this. Is harsher punishment necessary? This is a proposal from many people, which in some ways be effective, but in others just plain dumb. Being that minor drug use is so common in American society, do those who get caught up in the pressures of society really deserve such harsh punishments, when so many like themselves will never get caught. Also, harsher punishment leads to more secrecy, which would cause more problems for the government also.

Here's something I've been questioning for a while:

When someone is caught doing or dealing drugs, it is very common that the police will lower their charges in exchange for information on other drug deals or information. In some ways this plan seems like it would be beneficial to the cause, but harmful to society in many other ways. Is this constitutional? This is not the way that the United States court systems were designed to work, and in no other cases is one able to bargain their way out of punishment. By doing this, the police may be making an advancement, but be leaving behind a drug dealer who will just continue what they were doing. This policy lets many drug offenders think that they may not even risk serious punishment. However, there is also a lot of danger in this policy. In some ways, these ideas could cause rivalries between people who have "ratted" on each other. Therefore, gang violence is easily related to drug crimes because of the fear of being exposed by the other group. If the US government is not acting constitutional, how do they expect the people in the country to trust them when they say they should?

Also, as seen on the chart at the bottom of the page, the DEA is getting better at exposing drug trade agencys, but they are not making much progress on stopping them. This is extremely frightening and disturbing for many reasons, especially since the current policy almost seems fool proof. What needs to be done is that the efforts of administrations such as the DEA need to be bigger and put more efforts into this control, which is the base of all drug use. Unfortunately, this is more difficult to do than to propose, and the world has many more problems. It is questions like these that make me question if the illegal drug trade ever can be stopped.