argumentative essay on the war on drugs

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay

Article Critique

• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

The War on Drugs, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1727

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The “Drug War” should be waged even more vigorously and is a valid policy; government should tell adults what they can or cannot ingest. This paper argues for the position that the United States government should ramp up its efforts to fight the war on drugs.  Drug trafficking adversely affects the nation’s economy, and increases crime.  The increase in crime necessitates a need for more boots on the ground in preventing illegal drugs from entering this country.  Both police and border patrol agents are on the frontline on the battle against the war on drugs.  The war on drugs is a valid policy because it is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens.  Citizens who are addicted to drugs are less likely to contribute to society in an economic manner, and many end up on government assistance programs and engage in crimes.

Introduction

This paper argues that The War on Drugs is a valid policy, and that government has a right, perhaps even a duty to protect citizens from hurting themselves and others.  Fighting drug use is an integral part of the criminal justice system.  Special taskforces have been created to combat the influx of illegal drugs into the United States. The cost of paying police and border control agents is just the beginning of the equation.  Obviously, the detriment to the US economy is tremendous.  But the emotional stress on the friends and family of the drug user represent the human cost of illegal drugs.  Families are literally torn apart by this phenomen.

(1). The cost of police resources to fight the drug war is exorbitant, but necessary .  In order for a war against drugs to be successful, federal, local and state authorities must make sure that there a plenty of drug enforcement officers to make the appropriate arrests.  This means that drug enforcement officers must be provided with the latest equipment, including technology to detect illegal drugs (Benson).  The cost of providing all the necessary equipment to border patrol agents and the policemen and policemen on the frontlines is well justified.  It is necessary to have a budget that will ensure that drug enforcers have everything they need to combat illegal drugs at their disposal.

(2). The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens.   If a substance is illegal, it should be hunted down by law enforcement authorities and destroyed.  The drug user is a victim of society who needs help turning his or her life around.  Without a proper drug policy in effect, the drug user will continue to purchase drugs without the fear of criminal punishment.  That is why the drug war is appropriate.  The government has a right to tell citizens what it cannot ingest, particularly substances that when ingested can cause severe harm to the individual.  This harm may take on the form of addiction.  Once a person is addicted to drugs, the government has treatment programs to help him or her get off drugs.  The economic cost of preventing illegal drugs from getting into the wrong hands, and the cost of drug treatment is worth the financial resources expended because people who are not addicted to drugs are more involved in society and in life in general (Belenko).

(3). Anti-drug policies tend to make citizens act responsibly .  Adult drug users must understand that what they are doing is negatively impacting society.  Purchasing illegal drugs drains the nation’s economy.  These users have probably been in and out of drug rehabilitation programs many times with little to no success.  These drug programs are run by either the federal, state, or local governments (Lynch).   Each failed incident of a patient going back to the world of drugs costs the taxpayers money.  Once the drug user is totally rehabbed, he or she will realize the drag that he or she has been on society.  Therefore, the drug treatment centers are a way to teach adults how to be more responsible.

(4). Drug regulation in the United States has an effect on the international community.  America’s image to the rest of the world is at stake.  If America cannot control its borders, rogue leaders of other countries will think that America is soft on drugs.  This in turn makes America’s leaders look weak (Daemmrich).  Border patrol agents on the United States-Mexican border represent the best that America has to offer in preventing illegal drugs from entering the United States.  It is imperative that part of the drug policy of the United States provides enough financial resources for the agents to do their job.  The international community must see a strong front from the United States against illegal drugs.  Anything less is a sign of weakness in the eyes of international leaders, including our allies.

(5). Women are disproportionately affected by illegal drug use and therefore neglect their children.   As emotional beings, women have to contend with many issues that evade men (Gaskins).  The woman’s primary responsibility is to her children.  If a woman is a drug user, her children will be neglected.  Most of the children end up becoming wards of the state.  Having to cloth and feed children places a major burden on organizations that take these children of addicts in.  A drug addict cannot take care of herself, and she certainly cannot take care of her children.  Both the woman and her children will become dependent on the government for food and shelter.  This person is not a productive member of society.  Increased prison sentences may seem harsh for women with children, but these sentences may serve as deterrence from using drugs.

(6 ). If students know that the criminal penalty is severe, it may serve as a deterrent to drug related crimes.   Educating students, while they are still in school about the harmful effects and consequences of using drugs is imperative in fighting the drug war.  However, many students may tune out the normal talk about how drugs affect them physically.  The key to effectively making the point to students that illegal drug use is wrong is to present them with the consequences of having a felony drug conviction on their record (Reynolds). In fact, having a criminal record is bad enough without the felony drug conviction.  Students should know that such a record can prevent them from obtaining employment in the future.  It should be stressed that many companies will not hire anyone with a criminal record, especially if the conviction was related to illegal drugs.  The threat of extensive incarceration should also deter students from using illegal drugs or participating in drug related activities.

(7). Parents who use drugs in front of their children are bad influences and contribute to the delinquency of the minor.    Children are extremely impressionable, and starting to use drugs at a young age can be devastating to their future.  The government fights the drug war to protect law abiding citizens, and to punish criminals.  People who use illicit drugs are criminals, and parents who influence their children by introducing and approving of their drug use need to suffer severe penalties under the law (Lynch).  It is more than likely that the parents that use drugs have been incarcerated at one time or the other.  This incarceration may be drug related.  Children see their parents go in and out of jail, so that becomes their “normal.” Thus you have generational incarcerations which are an expense to prison sector and taxpayers.  The government is right in ramping up the penalties on drug use in front of children.

(8). People who use drugs are likely to drive under the influence which has all sorts of possible negative outcomes. There are so many consequences resulting from illegal drug use that they are too numerous to list.  One of the “unspoken” consequences is driving under the influence.  The entire population has made a concerted effort to curtail drinking and driving, and the deaths from alcohol related traffic accidents gave gone down significantly since strict laws have been put in place.  The government needs to find a way to crack down on drivers who are under the influence of illegal drugs (Belenko).  Drivers must be clear headed and focused to driver responsibly.  The government should get harsher, and find a way to test (as in the breathalyzer for alcohol) for marijuana.  The government has been successful in keeping the number of drunken drivers down.  However, many drivers are still legally able to pass a breathalyzer test if they are smoking marijuana, or using other drugs.  Accidents can still happen regardless of what drug the driver is under the influence of.  The government must find a way to crack down on these drivers who think that they are beating the system.

If the United States wants to get serious on the war on drugs, it should wage the war more vigorously.  Although the war on drugs is a valid policy, it needs to receive more attention and financial resources from the Federal government.  Preventing illegal drugs from crossing our borders is costly, but highly effective if there are plenty of border patrol agents on the United States-Mexican border.  This is the main avenue by which illegal drugs make it into the United States.  The argument that the government has the right to tell citizens what they can ingest is correct.  This is because it is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens.  Keeping people off of drugs makes for productive citizens who contribute to building a drug free society.

Works Cited

Belenko, Steven R., ed. Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Benson, Bruce L., Ian Sebastian Leburn, and David W. Rasmussen. “The Impact of Drug Enforcement on Crime: An Investigation of the Opportunity Cost of Police Resources.” Journal of Drug Issues 31.4 (2001): 989+. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Daemmrich, Arthur A. Pharmacopolitics: Drug Regulation in the United States and Germany. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 2004. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Gaskins, Shimica. “”Women of Circumstance”-The Effects of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing on Women Minimally Involved in Drug Crimes.” American Criminal Law Review 41.4 (2004): 1533+. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Lynch, Timothy, ed. After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2000. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Reynolds, Marylee. “Educating Students about the War on Drugs: Criminal and Civil Consequences of a Felony Drug Conviction.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 32.3/4 (2004): 246+. Questia. Web. 2 Nov. 2012.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Dr. Strangelove, Essay Example

Valuing Caring Behaviors Within Simulated Emergent Situations, Article Critique Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Drugs

Argumentative Essay On The War On Drugs

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Drugs , Family , Economics , Politics , War , United States , Government , Law

Words: 1700

Published: 01/14/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

According to the office of national drug control policy, the United States government has spent over one trillion dollars on the war on drugs. In the year 1980, the government spent 1 billion dollars on the war on drugs. Twelve years later, the figure had hit 19 billion dollars. Currently, the government spends over 15.6 billion dollars every six months on the war. The war, which began during the time of President Richard Nixon, has not yielded much. The amounts of drugs that penetrate the borders of the United States are ever increasing, with the number of addicts on the rise, as well. Research into the matter indicates that the efforts by the government to fight the drug menace are just but a way of channeling the taxpayers’ money down the drain (Miller 117). Then comes the question, is America fighting a losing battle? The answer to this question is pretty obvious considering that president Barrack Obama is thinking about giving in to the pressure to end the war on drugs. The decriminalization campaigns and efforts by various interest groups are making sense at last. This paper seeks to explain the ineffectiveness of the war on drugs and why the government should consider the possibility of having the fight abolished altogether. Although the war on drugs was formally flagged off by President Richard Nixon, it had already taken root by the mid 1960’s. During this time, the religious leaders and charitable groups had taken it upon themselves to stop the drugs menace after the government appeared reluctant to stop the tons of cocaine and heroin penetrating through the U.S borders. History has it that marijuana has been popular among the youth in the U.S for close to a century. According to Miller (120), the drug was common among jazz musicians as early as 1920. 92 years down the line, the drug has not been eliminated. Instead, it has encouraged the young and older addicts to venture into other drugs such as Methamphetamine, which arguably the most dangerous drug in the world. The drug, which is made out of chemicals and dangerous hazardous materials, is usually manufactured in rural America, in such states as Missouri. The Obama government has identified drugs as the number one public enemy. Even so, fighting drugs is proving to be a futile idea. On the contrary, experts and opinion leaders are of the idea that the government withdraws the wars and decriminalizes the consumption of narcotics. One of the key points why the war on drugs is ineffective is simply because the government is attacking the drug menace from the supply side. According to President Nixon, as long as the demand exists, the scrupulous drug lords will always find a way of making the distribution possible (Ewan 304). Handling the demand is an absolute impossibility since identifying potential drug addicts is an uphill task to the government, especially where the threat is not attacked from the grassroots. A research conducted in the year 2000 indicated that 25.3 million people had consumed had drugs the previous year. The same research indicates that only 50, 300 people had been arrested for being in possession of drugs that year. This is an understandable suggestion that the battle against drugs is ineffective since the identification of the culprits is not as easy as it may seem. Worth noting is the fact that the drugs are used by members of the boardroom equally as they are used by criminal downtown gangs and people behind bars. Another reason why the war has been ineffective all this time is because of the corrupt enforcement officials. The drug lords and mafias dealing in the illegal trade are wealthy, and will not mind parting with millions of dollars in an effort to protect their illegal drug connections. On the other hand, the ordinary enforcement officer will not resist the temptation of the million dollar bribe. As such, the drugs from such places as Mexico get their way through the boundaries into the United States where the market is flourishing. The ineffectiveness of the war on drugs can as well be connected to the fact that the politicians have made the war a play ground and a place for political trickery. Clearly all the aspirants seeking election to public office have the war on drugs on their manifestos. The war on drugs has become such an attractive manifesto maker. For this reason, politicians use it as a stepping stone to gain power (June & Gary 236). Additionally, the campaign is inadequate because the political class has made it a racial affair. Clearly, the legislation used to strengthen the war uses such race-oriented words as black, Caucasian, Negro, white et cetera. According to professionals in the area of narcotic abuse, the right channels to be applied include education, early intervention and appropriate treatment to the addicts and users of hard drugs (Miller 129). The efforts to establish education on drugs in Latin America and the Caribbean has proved fruitless after a series of researches have indicated prevalence use of hard drugs. Following the failure of all the potent solutions, the only option that the government of the United States is left with, is the abolishment of the war on drugs. Arguably, the abolishment of the war on drugs and decriminalization of the use of hard drugs is likely to come with more benefits than losses. According to research, the United States government is expected to save more resources that can be employed in other productive sectors of the economy. The arguments for the abolishment of the war on drugs can broadly be divided into two. The first part of the argument is the economic perspective while the second part of it is the social perspective. According to the economist’s view of the abolishment of the futile war, the resources being spent on the fruitless efforts of curtailing the drug menace can be invested into other sectors such as the technology sector (June & Gary 243). The government spends close to 39 billion dollars every year on the enforcement of the anti-narcotics war. Critics of the war have argued that the campaign is yielding nothing but the creation of more state penitentiaries every day. Such institutions, according to the economist, are not any significant to the economy. On the contrary, they are locking up potential human resources that can add to the expansion and development of the economy. As such, the government should stop this war, as a way of redirecting the resources into more productive uses. Arguably, the amount of resources used in conducting arrests can be used to off-set California’s deficit budget. Another economic reason why the war on drugs should be abolished is because once the use and selling of drugs have been decriminalized, the people selling the drugs will be required to possess a government issued seller’s license (Ewan 305). The implication is that such merchants will have to pay for the authorization besides being compelled to compulsorily contribute to national income through the mandatory payment of taxes. In addition to taxes, the government of the day can raise sufficient proceeds from making it a legal requirement for the consumers of hard drugs to hold a certification that is issued and renewed annually by a government department at a reasonable fee. Through such fees, the government will raise money that can be used to facilitate development projects. Economists argue and predict that a regulated drugs trade is likely to contribute significantly towards the enlargement of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The social argument for the abolishment of the war on drugs is quite extensive and touches on every part of everyday life. One of the social reasons why the war should be abolished is that, such abolishment is the most crucial step towards the reduction of the crime rates in the country (Freidman 146). Research has indicated that crime is not a result of the drug menace, but rather an integral part of the same. For instance, an investigation carried out in 2000 indicated that 63% of the robberies that took place in the down town areas of America’s largest cities were committed by drug addicts that later admitted that the money they stole or intended to steal was meant for purchase of drugs. The criminals later explained that they resorted to petty crimes because the prices of the hard drugs were too high for the average addict. Another aspect of the social argument is that of family. Activists argue that the average man behind the bars of a state penitentiary is a father. The fact that the man is behind bars implies that the kids are developing in an incomplete family. Such children are the greatest potential criminals and juvenile cases (Freidman 150). Additionally, psychologists argue that children that grow up in broken families develop emotional instabilities even later in life. Similarly, broken families are not the ideal environment for bringing up children since the parent bringing up the children on their own is likely to encounter financial problems. In conclusion, it is evident that, from the foregoing, the war on drugs is more of a cost than an advantage to the people of America. The war is both a social and an economic cost. The war is a monetary cost in the logic that the government spends so much money on enforcing the antinarcotics legislation. Enforcement entails the recruitment and training of personnel. The equipment, for example, the vehicles, required to take care of such enforcement is a significant cost, as well. From the social perspective, the war on drugs breaks families and increases the rates of crime. An increase in the rates of crime brings about increase insecurity levels. It is no mystery then, why the war on narcotics should be abolished

Works Cited

Ewan, Hoyle. The War on Drugs Has Failed. It’s Time for a War on Drugs. Prometheus, 28.3, P303–307, 2010. Print Freidman, Richard. Narcodiplomacy: Exporting the U.S War on Drugs. New York. Cornell University Press. 1996. Print June, Francis & Gary, Mauser. Collateral Damage: The War On Drugs And The Latin America And Caribbean Region: Policy Recommendations For The Obama Administration. Policy Studies 32.2, p.234-246. 2011 Print Miller, Joel. Bad Trip: How The War Against Drugs Is Destroying America. Nashville. WND Books. 2004. Print

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2689

This paper is created by writer with

ID 258578718

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

60 minutes essays, rodgers and hammerstein essays, sorin essays, employment discrimination essays, parabens essays, primark essays, pitiful essays, physiochemical essays, olivares essays, kuwait times essays, qigong essays, psychedelics essays, oneworld essays, virtual private networks case studies examples, free case study on governing defamatory expression and the intentional infliction of emotional distress, good literature review about employee health and safety, speech group activities reflection essays examples, good example of course work on ross moffitt, feedback for lee childers essays example, free food sanitation book review example, research essay examples 2, good statute of limitation on child abuse memories recovered as an research paper example, free essay about human resource management for service industries, free close reading of ode to psyche essay sample, example of case study on enrollment data, example of mills utilitarianism literature review, sample essay on environmental studies, example of research paper on hydraulic fracturing, featuring alfred russell wallace as a naturalist report, sample course work on a case study on creative edge parties, good example of essay on understanding technology, geography essays examples, exhibit 1 herman millers consolidated statements of operations fiscal years business plan samples, barbeque college essays, plough college essays, waveform college essays, air flow college essays, amazement college essays, iced tea college essays, duster college essays, thermostat college essays, avocado college essays, behold college essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay

Introduction.

Drug trafficking has become a common problem in modern societies due to the high number of its effects. People have intentionally abused drugs by using them for purposes other than the prescribed ones. This has led to the formation of laws to govern drug trafficking and drug use in most countries that are determined to eradicate this problem. Drugs are not a problem to the society; however, drug abuse causes complications that make them harmful to users and other people.

A drug is a substance taken to give the user pleasure and satisfaction. People take drugs due to various reasons including treatment of diseases, pain relieving and disease prevention (Mendoza 2010). However, some drugs are used for refreshment and entertainment like alcohol, cigarettes, cocaine, bhang and heroin. Even though, some drugs are used for curative or pain relieving purposes some people misuse them hence causing unintended effects in their bodies.

Even though, there are no exact figures to represent the actual problem of drug abuse in the modern society, there are credible statistics that offer information about drug dealing and abuse.

The results show that Afghanistan, Russia, United States, Mexico, Colombia, Iran and Australia record high number of drug trafficking, use and abuse. Most drug abusers are youths and adults experiencing stress and depression (Global Commission on Drug Policy 2011). Most people abuse drugs due to lack of jobs that make them desperate and idle.

As a result, they resort to abuse drugs to escape from world realities. Moreover, constant family conflicts between couples make them start using drugs and without knowing they end up abusing them. In addition, loss of jobs due to retrenchment or recession makes people abuse drugs as they seek ways of forgetting their predicaments (United Nations 2012).

However, most youths abuse drugs after failing to meet their academic expectations. Some also abuse drugs due to pressure from their peers and curiosity to experiment the effects of these drugs.

The “War on Drugs” refers to military steps taken to curb drug abuse, production and trade. These steps include fighting the production of prohibited drugs, educating the public on dangers of drug abuse and creating rehabilitation centres for drug addicts.

The United States formulated this policy to control the production of prohibited drugs through the provision of monetary support to finance projects aimed at curbing this problem (United Nations 2012). This fight was started in 1914 after various drug abuse cases were reported. Even though, this policy took various faces it has since been adopted by many nations as a way of fighting the effects and prevalence of drug abuse.

It is necessary to note that the legalization of prohibited drugs will have various effects in the society. Even though, this will offer room for employment opportunities and development of more houses to act as stores dealing with drugs, the side effects will be more than the benefits accrued (Cave 2012). It is true that legalizing these drugs will reduce the number of unemployed youths and offer sources of income to many families. However, the negative effects of legalizing prohibited drugs will be beyond the society’s imaginations.

Families will breakup as a result of abusing drugs at the expense of family responsibilities. Therefore, there will be separation and divorce cases. Children will suffer the consequences of being raised by single parents (Global Commission on Drug Policy 2011). Additionally, family conflicts will result in violence, injuries, death and destruction of family property like furniture and electronics.

There will be a high number of unemployed people in the society because most of them will be sacked due to engaging in drug abuse at the expense of work. This will contribute to a high number of social evils like prostitution and robbery because people will be idle and unable to raise money through legal means.

Most countries’ economies will drop due to the reduced number of manpower required to participate in productive activities. There will be less productive people as many will be spending their time in drug dens (Global Commission on Drug Policy 2011). There will be an increase in the rate of sexually transmitted infections since people will engage in carless sexual activities.

The effects of drug abuse include irrational thinking that will result in unprotected sexual activities among drug addicts. Sometimes this behaviour may extend to their families, friends and relatives leading to incest, defilement and rape.

Although, alcohol affects people’s health, it is not prohibited since there are guidelines that regulate its production (Ogutu 2012). This involves the labelling of alcohol bottles and tins to show their alcohol concentration.

Additionally, alcoholic products are brewed or distilled in a clean environment; therefore, this guarantees their users healthy products. The United Nations is against any attempts to legalize prohibited drugs. There are various seminars that continue to highlight the plight of drug users as attempts are being made to fight drug peddling.

The fight against prohibited drugs is not a complete failure since various nations and institutions are making considerable steps that will eradicate this menace. Various rehabilitation centres have been established and thus rehabilitated many drug addicts. However, people must volunteer and offer essential information to law enforcement agencies to help fight this problem.

Cave, D., (2012 ). Uruguay Considers Legalizing Marijuana to Stop Traffickers . The New York Times. Web.

Global Commission on Drug Policy, (2011 ). War on Drugs. Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy . Web.

Mendoza, M., (2010). U. S. Drug Wars has Met None of Its Targets. U. S. Security News. Web.

Ogutu, J., (2012). Three Charged over Sh4m Drug Trafficking . The Standard Digital Media. Web.

United Nations, (2012 ). Mexico General Debate, 67th Session. General Assembly. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 19). War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-drugs/

"War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay." IvyPanda , 19 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-drugs/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay'. 19 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay." June 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-drugs/.

1. IvyPanda . "War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay." June 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-drugs/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "War on Drugs and Its Effects: Analytical Essay." June 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/war-on-drugs/.

• Does Legalizing Marijuana Help or Harm the United States?
• Argument About Legalizing Marijuana in America
• Legalizing Sports Betting in the US
• The Role of American Laws in Protecting Corporations From Cybercrime
• An Introduction to Correctional Facilities
• Problems Associated With a Rape Shield Law
• Contemporary Cultural Diversity Issue: Racial Profiling
• Crimes and Criminal Law

Is the war on drugs back on? | The Excerpt podcast

On Sunday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: It's been just over 50 years since President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs. Since then, drug policy at the state level has mostly been progressing toward legalization, embracing liberal attitudes that aim to destigmatize drug use. But that experiment may soon be drawing to a close. In the wake of surging overdose deaths, Oregon has recently moved to recriminalize drug use and possession. Are we back to square one? Kassandra Frederique, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, joins The Excerpt to argue that policy makers simply didn't put the right safeguards in place.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it.  This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts:  True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

President George H. W. Bush:

All of us agree that the gravest domestic threat facing our nation today is drugs. Drugs have strained our faith in our system of justice. Our courts, our prisons, our legal system are stretched to the breaking point. The social costs of drugs are mounting. In short, drugs are sapping our strength as a nation.

Dana Taylor:

That was then President George HW Bush speaking in his first televised address from the Oval Office back on September 5th, 1989. Fast-forward 35 years, and a lot has changed with regards to how we view drug use, but have we really evolved our policy since then? Hello and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. In 2020, voters in Oregon approved Measure 110, making it the first state in the US to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs.

Today, the Oregon legislature has just passed a bill to reinstate criminal penalties for drug possession. Does the demise of Measure 110 signal a return to America's war on drugs? Here to discuss Oregon's Measure 110 and drug decriminalization is Kassandra Frederique, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the leading organization in the US, working to end the drug war. Thanks for joining me, Kassandra.

 Kassandra Frederique:

Thank you so much for having me, Dana.

Measure 110, also known as the DATRA, the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, was a significant win for drug decriminalization advocates. How did the drug policy shift in Oregon following its passage?

When Measure 110 passed, the point of it was to end the horrors of criminalization. So stopping the arresting of people with drug possession, because people recognized that arresting people for drug possession was not actually going to get people connected to the resources that they had or the resources that they needed. So when the measure passed, I think it had a rocky start in implementation, but the data and the research has shown that Measure 110 prevented tens of thousands of Oregonians from being shuttled into a horrific criminal legal system.

What we found, despite the rocky start of implementation that was created by the Oregonian bureaucracy, is that people did get connected to care. So in the first six months of implementation, Measure 110 increased services by 44%. It also improved the quality of care with 100% increase of people actually gaining access to everything from peer support to harm reduction services. And this includes 143% increase in people accessing substance use disorder treatment, as well as 296% increase in people accessing housing services, which was one of the biggest issues that people struggled with while Measure 110 was being implemented.

Your organization, the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance, has said that Measure 110 has been scapegoated by drug war advocates. How so?

So, so much of what Oregonians express frustration around were the conditions on the street. There was chronic homelessness that was exploding. There was a density population of unsheltered individuals. There was a lot of public drug use. And people made the connection to Measure 110, despite the fact that a lot of the issues and conditions that people were witnessing on the street and experiencing were a result of decades of inaction around housing.

It was about the fact that in the larger country, fentanyl, which is a more fast-acting opioid, has just made it to the West Coast, including Oregon, and that, in general, people's ability to get access to support has long been hindered by the lack of infrastructure in Oregon. And when I say the lack of infrastructure of support, Measure 110's purpose was to supplement the Oregon infrastructure.

However, what we learned was that decades of divestment in that infrastructure, as well as the Oregon Health Authority not listening to advocates about ways to improve the citation process, the ways that they needed to increase training for law enforcement about what Measure 110 did and what it didn't do, made it really difficult and confusing for Oregonians to actually see what was in front of them.

According to the CDC, in the 12 months ending January of 2020, there were 621 overdose deaths reported in Oregon. Then in the 12 months ending January of 2023, there were 1,431 overdose deaths reported, a significant increase. Is it fair to tie that increase to the passage of Measure 110?

Absolutely not. And in fact, it's not just advocates that are saying that. RTI actually came out with a study, and they're not the only ones, that they looked at the same period. What they found was that there was not a shred of evidence that showed that Measure 110 actually increased crime, increased homelessness, or increase the overdose rate.

What people are attributing that astronomical increase to is the introduction of fentanyl into the West Coast drug supply. And we know this to be true because the pattern of growth that Oregon is experiencing is similar to the pattern of growth that we saw on the East Coast, in places like New York and Massachusetts, when fentanyl entered its drug supply. And so part of the thing that it's important to disentangle is that Measure 110 was coming into implementation at the same time that the Oregon drug supply was changing.

You mentioned RTI. Who is RTI?

RTI is a research institution that held a conference a few months ago that looked at all the issues around implementation. They're also one of the academic institutions that is running an evaluation on Measure 110, about what worked and what didn't work.

Measure 110 was also enacted, as you've said, to address concerns related to incarceration rates for people of color. What kind of movement have you seen there?

So here, one of the things that the Oregon officials that focus on criminal justice statistics have said is that the recriminalization of drug possession will increase the amount of Oregonians of color that are incarcerated, or arrested, or engaged by the criminal legal system. And so this is something that continues to be an area of concern for us because part of the impetus for pushing the end of criminalization or ending the arrest was because of the historic disproportionate law enforcement engagement in communities of color, specifically that of Black, Indigenous, and Latinx Oregonians.

I know that funding from marijuana tax revenue was allocated to expand access to addiction treatment services. Have any of those programs been successful?

You're seeing a 296% increase in people getting access to housing services. That would not have occurred outside of Measure 110. The money that people are able to put into these services have been really important. And I think you know that because when the conversation of recriminalization came up, everyone, all the elected officials said that that funding has to remain in place.

Kassandra, is there any argument that substance abuse became more visible in Oregon, particularly in the Portland area, after Measure 110 passed?

I think this is a great conversation. Public drug use happens because people usually don't have access to shelter or a home. Most people who use drugs have homes and don't use drugs in the street, and most people who are unhoused don't use drugs. There is a growing population of people who are unhoused, who are using drugs in the street, and the preeminent factor in that public drug use is that they don't have a home. And so I think if you're looking at the history of how homelessness rose in this time because of the eviction laws that were passed, because of the COVID eviction moratorium protections that were lifted during this time, you'll see that the unsheltered population rose, and those that are struggling and using drugs to cope with being unsheltered became more public and more visible. And those issues can't be attributed to Measure 110. They're attributed to the longstanding issues in Oregon around homelessness.

I want to turn now to the legalization of drugs versus the decriminalization was passed with Measure 110. You've advocated for legalization. What do you see as the upside of that?

I think in the moment that we're in right now, where our drug supply is continuously changing with more fast acting drugs, more powerful drugs, drugs that we have less scientific research around, it makes it more difficult for us to actually support people when the drug supply is shifting and shifting faster than we had in past years. And so, the conversation around the regulation of drugs is really about stabilizing the drug supply so that we can create the supports for people who use drugs.

In 1970, President Nixon signed the CSA, the Controlled Substances Act, into law. Was the signing of that act the beginning of the war on drugs.

The signing of the CSA was not the beginning of the war on drugs. Unfortunately, the war on drugs globally has been going on for a very long time. And in the United States, the first evidence of it here is in the late 1800s in California, where we passed the first drug laws, in part as a political tool to control Chinese migrants who had been working on the railroad. And so, we have had a long-standing strategy around drug criminalization and drug prohibition that has honestly set up the situation that we're in today.

What do you see as the specific failures of the war on drugs?

The war on drugs, as we see it, has really focused on criminalization. And that criminalization is not just something that we see in our criminal legal system. That strategy of criminalization, of surveillance, of stigma has infiltrated all our systems, and it's made it more difficult for us to give access to support for people who need it. It's also heavily relied on the legal system, which has incurred incredible amounts of incarceration, criminalization, deportation.

It's also really ripped apart families. People often don't speak to the ways that children are taken away from their parents, forcing other loved ones to be caretakers, and the disruption that is happening in the psychic impacts of what that looks like. And I think most urgently what we're seeing now is that our strategy of prohibition has made the drug supply more toxic and made it more difficult to manage, which has made it even more difficult for us to create the healthcare infrastructure to support people who are struggling with their use.

The Drug Policy Alliance has spent the last two decades in the pursuit of alternatives to criminalization. How do we stem the tide on the abuse of drugs like fentanyl?

Part of the things that we really need to focus on is what are the supports that are necessary for people? How are we giving people access to public education about fentanyl? How are we giving public education about all drugs? How we're giving public education around testing materials, giving people the opportunity to have testing materials so that they can know what is in their drug supply before they use them. How are we increasing access to different kinds of addiction services? So not just inpatient and outpatient treatment, as people traditionally have known. But what are the additional supports that can lead to someone stabilizing their use? And I think we have to look at our healthcare system, which has also really been impacted.

Kassandra, as you know, there are people who are opposed to Measure 110 and have been since the beginning. What do you see as the path forward that will benefit all of the communities that are grappling with drug addiction and the people living there?

I think we have to remind people that criminalization is not an appropriate way to deal with drug use. We know that because overdose has gone up in the hundredfold inside jails and prisons. We know that because when people come out of a jail in prison, they are 27 times more likely than the general public to have an overdose. People are frustrated, and I can appreciate that. I'm frustrated as well. My family members are frustrated with that as well. I'm living in the same wall that everyone else is, I'm experiencing the same wall that everyone else is, and I just truly believe that criminalization is not a pathway forward for us to get the things that we say that we want.

Kassandra, thank you for being on The Excerpt.

Thank you for having me.

Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Bradley Glanzrock, for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to [email protected]. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Is the war on drugs back on? | The Excerpt podcast

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — War on Drugs — My Views On The War On Drugs In The Philippines

My Views on The War on Drugs in The Philippines

• Categories: Philippines War on Drugs

About this sample

Words: 995 |

Published: Sep 1, 2020

Words: 995 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Geography & Travel Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 561 words

5 pages / 2377 words

6 pages / 2904 words

2 pages / 844 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on War on Drugs

The Pyrrhic Defeat Theory, named after the ancient Greek general King Pyrrhus, argues that some victories in war may be so costly that they are essentially defeats. This theory challenges the conventional understanding that [...]

Tim O'Brien's short story "On the Rainy River" is a powerful exploration of the themes of shame, guilt, and the struggle to define one's own identity. The story is part of O'Brien's collection of stories in his book "The Things [...]

Safe Area Gorazde is a graphic novel by Joe Sacco that provides a harrowing account of the Bosnian War. The book is a powerful and disturbing portrayal of the war's impact on the town of Gorazde. In this essay, I will analyze [...]

The short story "The Sniper" by Liam O'Flaherty is set during the Irish Civil War and follows a young Republican sniper as he fights in the streets of Dublin. The story, which is only a few pages long, encompasses a series of [...]

America’s history with drugs can be traced back to the 1800’s when opium surged in popularity following the American Civil War. Drugs were an integral part of American life with heroin being used medicinally to treat respiratory [...]

The war on drugs: fact or fiction? Well, it depends on how you look at it. According to the film, “The House I Live In,”directed by Eugene Jarecki, the war on drugs is an overblown scare tactic that has historically not [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Psychological Aftermath of World War I: Understanding Shell Shock

This essay about the psychological aftermath of World War I, specifically focusing on the phenomenon of shell shock. It explores the origins, manifestations, and lasting impact of shell shock on individuals and society. Highlighting the pioneering work of psychologists like Sigmund Freud and William Rivers, it elucidates the complex nature of this condition and its enduring legacy in contemporary discussions on PTSD and veterans’ mental health. By acknowledging the human cost of war and advocating for greater awareness and support for those affected by trauma, the essay underscores the importance of compassion and understanding in addressing the psychological scars of conflict.

How it works

World War I, often regarded as one of the most devastating conflicts in human history, left an indelible mark not only on the geopolitical landscape but also on the psyche of millions of individuals who were thrust into its chaos. Among the myriad of physical injuries sustained during the war, there emerged a phenomenon that baffled medical professionals and challenged societal perceptions of mental health: shell shock. This essay delves into the intricate nuances of shell shock, exploring its origins, manifestations, and lasting impact on both individuals and society.

Shell shock, initially labeled as “war neurosis” or “combat fatigue,” manifested in a variety of symptoms ranging from tremors and paralysis to amnesia and hallucinations. Soldiers exposed to the relentless barrage of artillery fire and the horrors of trench warfare often found themselves overwhelmed by the constant threat to life and limb. The psychological toll of witnessing comrades fall in battle, coupled with the omnipresent fear of death, created a perfect storm for the onset of shell shock. Despite its prevalence, shell shock defied conventional medical explanations, leading to widespread skepticism and even accusations of malingering among military authorities.

One of the pivotal contributions to our understanding of shell shock came from the work of pioneering psychologists such as Sigmund Freud and William Rivers. Freud’s conceptualization of the unconscious mind and the role of trauma in shaping psychological symptoms laid the groundwork for understanding the psychodynamic underpinnings of shell shock. Meanwhile, Rivers’ compassionate approach to treating shell-shocked soldiers at Craiglockhart War Hospital in Scotland emphasized the importance of empathy and therapeutic rapport in facilitating recovery. Through innovative techniques such as talking therapy and occupational rehabilitation, Rivers and his colleagues helped countless individuals reclaim agency over their shattered sense of self.

The legacy of shell shock extends far beyond the confines of World War I, permeating contemporary discourses surrounding post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and veterans’ mental health. While the terminology and diagnostic criteria may have evolved over time, the core essence of shell shock as a profound psychological response to trauma remains unchanged. Moreover, the stigma and misconceptions surrounding mental illness persist, underscoring the ongoing need for compassion, awareness, and accessible mental health services for those affected by war-related trauma.

In conclusion, shell shock serves as a poignant reminder of the human cost of war and the enduring resilience of the human spirit in the face of adversity. By shedding light on this complex phenomenon, we honor the experiences of those who endured the horrors of World War I and reaffirm our commitment to fostering a society that values mental health and well-being. As we continue to navigate the complexities of conflict and trauma in the modern world, the lessons gleaned from the study of shell shock remain as relevant and poignant as ever.

Cite this page

The Psychological Aftermath of World War I: Understanding Shell Shock. (2024, May 21). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-psychological-aftermath-of-world-war-i-understanding-shell-shock/

"The Psychological Aftermath of World War I: Understanding Shell Shock." PapersOwl.com , 21 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-psychological-aftermath-of-world-war-i-understanding-shell-shock/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Psychological Aftermath of World War I: Understanding Shell Shock . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-psychological-aftermath-of-world-war-i-understanding-shell-shock/ [Accessed: 21 May. 2024]

"The Psychological Aftermath of World War I: Understanding Shell Shock." PapersOwl.com, May 21, 2024. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-psychological-aftermath-of-world-war-i-understanding-shell-shock/

"The Psychological Aftermath of World War I: Understanding Shell Shock," PapersOwl.com , 21-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-psychological-aftermath-of-world-war-i-understanding-shell-shock/. [Accessed: 21-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Psychological Aftermath of World War I: Understanding Shell Shock . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-psychological-aftermath-of-world-war-i-understanding-shell-shock/ [Accessed: 21-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

As Bird Flu Looms, the Lessons of Past Pandemics Take On New Urgency

By John M. Barry

Mr. Barry, a scholar at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, is the author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History.”

In 1918, an influenza virus jumped from birds to humans and killed an estimated 50 million to 100 million people in a world with less than a quarter of today’s population. Dozens of mammals also became infected.

Now we are seeing another onslaught of avian influenza. For years it has been devastating bird populations worldwide and more recently has begun infecting mammals , including cattle, a transmission never seen before. In another first, the virus almost certainly jumped recently from a cow to at least one human — fortunately, a mild case.

While much would still have to happen for this virus to ignite another human pandemic, these events provide another reason — as if one were needed — for governments and public health authorities to prepare for the next pandemic. As they do, they must be cautious about the lessons they might think Covid-19 left behind. We need to be prepared to fight the next war, not the last one.

Two assumptions based on our Covid experience would be especially dangerous and could cause tremendous damage, even if policymakers realized their mistake and adjusted quickly.

The first involves who is most likely to die from a pandemic virus. Covid primarily killed people 65 years and older , but Covid was an anomaly. The five previous pandemics we have reliable data about all killed much younger populations.

The 1889 pandemic most resembles Covid (and some scientists believe a coronavirus caused it). Young children escaped almost untouched and it killed mostly older people, but people ages 15 to 24 suffered the most excess mortality , or deaths above normal. Influenza caused the other pandemics, but unlike deaths from seasonal influenza, which usually kills older adults, in the 1957, 1968 and 2009 outbreaks, half or more deaths occurred in people younger than 65. The catastrophic 1918 pandemic was the complete reverse of Covid: Well over 90 percent of the excess mortality occurred in people younger than 65. Children under 10 were the most vulnerable, and those ages 25 to 29 followed.

Any presumption that older people would be the chief victims of the next pandemic — as they were in Covid — is wrong, and any policy so premised could leave healthy young adults and children exposed to a lethal virus.

The second dangerous assumption is that public health measures like school and business closings and masking had little impact. That is incorrect.

Australia, Germany and Switzerland are among the countries that demonstrated those interventions can succeed. Even the experience of the United States provides overwhelming, if indirect, evidence of the success of those public health measures.

The evidence comes from influenza, which transmits like Covid, with nearly one-third of cases transmitted by asymptomatic people. The winter before Covid, influenza killed an estimated 25,000 here ; in that first pandemic winter, influenza deaths were under 800. The public health steps taken to slow Covid contributed significantly to this decline, and those same measures no doubt affected Covid as well.

So the question isn’t whether those measures work. They do. It’s whether their benefits outweigh their social and economic costs. This will be a continuing calculation.

Such measures can moderate transmission, but they cannot be sustained indefinitely. And even the most extreme interventions cannot eliminate a pathogen that escapes initial containment if, like influenza or the virus that causes Covid-19, it is both airborne and transmitted by people showing no symptoms. Yet such interventions can achieve two important goals.

The first is preventing hospitals from being overrun. Achieving this outcome could require a cycle of imposing, lifting and reimposing public health measures to slow the spread of the virus. But the public should accept that because the goal is understandable, narrow and well defined.

The second objective is to slow transmission to buy time for identifying, manufacturing and distributing therapeutics and vaccines and for clinicians to learn how to manage care with the resources at hand. Artificial intelligence will perhaps be able to extrapolate from mountains of data which restrictions deliver the most benefits — whether, for example, just closing bars would be enough to significantly dampen spread — and which impose the greatest cost. A.I. should also speed drug development. And wastewater monitoring can track the pathogen’s movements and may make it possible to limit the locations where interventions are needed.

Still, what’s achievable will depend on the pathogen’s severity and transmissibility, and, as we sadly learned in the United States, how well — or poorly — leaders communicate the goals and the reasons behind them.

Specifically, officials will confront whether to impose the two most contentious interventions, school closings and mask mandates. What should they do?

Children are generally superspreaders of respiratory disease and can have disproportionate impact. Indeed, vaccinating children against pneumococcal pneumonia can cut the disease by 87 percent in people 50 and older. And schools were central to spreading the pandemics of 1957, 1968 and 2009. So there was good reason to think closing schools during Covid would save many lives.

In fact, closing schools did reduce Covid’s spread, yet the consensus view is that any gain was not worth the societal disruption and damage to children’s social and educational development. But that tells us nothing about the future. What if the next pandemic is deadlier than 1957’s but as in 1957, 48 percent of excess deaths are among those younger than 15 and schools are central to spread? Would it make sense to close schools then?

Masks present a much simpler question. They work. We’ve known they work since 1917, when they helped protect soldiers from a measles epidemic. A century later, all the data on Covid have actually demonstrated significant benefits from masks.

But whether to mandate masks is a difficult call. Too many people wear poorly fitted masks or wear them incorrectly. So even without adding in the complexities of politics, compliance is a problem. Whether government mask mandates will be worth the resistance they foment will depend on the severity of the virus.

That does not mean that institutions and businesses can’t or shouldn’t require masks. Nor does it mean we can’t increase the use of masks with better messaging. People accept smoking bans because they understand long-term exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cancer. A few minutes of exposure to Covid can kill. Messaging that combines self-protection with communitarian values could dent resistance significantly.

Individuals should want to protect themselves, given the long-term threat to their health. An estimated 7 percent of Americans have been affected by long Covid of varying severity, and a re-infection can still set it off in those who have so far avoided it. The 1918 pandemic also caused neurological and cardiovascular problems lasting decades, and children exposed in utero suffered worse health and higher mortality than their siblings. We can expect the same from the next pandemic.

What should we learn from the past? Every pandemic we have good information about was unique. That makes information itself the most valuable commodity. We must gather it, analyze it, act upon it and communicate it.

Epidemiological information can answer the biggest question: whether to deploy society-wide public health interventions at all. But the epidemiology of the virus is hardly the only information that matters. Before Covid vaccines were available, the single drug that saved the most lives was dexamethasone. Health officials in Britain discovered its effectiveness because the country has a shared data system that enabled them to analyze the efficacy of treatments being tried around the country. We have no comparable system in the United States. We need one.

Perhaps most important, government officials and health care experts must communicate to the public effectively. The United States failed dismally at this. There was no organized effort to counter social media disinformation, and experts damaged their own credibility by reversing their advice several times. They could have avoided these self-inflicted wounds by setting public expectations properly. The public should have been told that scientists had never seen this virus before, that they were giving their best advice based on their knowledge at the time and that their advice could — and probably would — change as more information came in. Had they done this, they probably would have retained more of the public’s confidence.

Trust matters. A pre-Covid analysis of the pandemic readiness of countries around the world rated the United States first because of its resources. Yet America had the second-worst rate of infections of any high-income country.

A pandemic analysis of 177 countries published in 2022 found that resources did not correlate with infections. Trust in government and fellow citizens did. That’s the lesson we really need to remember for the next time.

John M. Barry, a scholar at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, is the author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Watch CBS News

Full transcript of "Face the Nation," May 19, 2024

May 19, 2024 / 3:03 PM EDT / CBS News

On this "Face the Nation" broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan: 

• Sen. J.D. Vance , Republican of Ohio 
• Sen. Gary Peters , Democrat of Michigan
• Oksana Markarova , Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S.
• Chris Krebs , the former director of CISA and a CBS News cybersecurity expert and analyst
• Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates

Click  here to browse full transcripts of "Face the Nation."   

MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington.

And this week on Face the Nation: From the courtroom to the campaign trail, election 2024 is in full swing. Crisscrossing key states, former President Trump and President Biden spent the weekend rallying crucial voting groups just about one month before they have agreed to face off in the first presidential debate of 2024.

But will it be enough to turn out voters?

We will talk to Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, a possible running mate for Mr. Trump and one of the Republicans who showed up to support the former president in New York, where he faces charges of falsifying business records to pay off an adult film star to benefit his 2016 campaign.

And we will hear from Michigan Senator Gary Peters, who's in charge of defending Democrats' slim majority.

Plus: new threats to our elections. What do we need to know about foreign interference and the dangers of A.I.? We will get the latest from cybersecurity expert and analyst Chris Krebs.

Then: Russia's advance on Ukraine's second largest city of Kharkiv marks one of Moscow's biggest territorial gains to date. Ukrainian Ambassador Oksana Markarova will join us with the latest.

Finally, Robert Gates once led the CIA and the Defense Department, serving under eight presidents. We will get his thoughts on the state of U.S. national security, the 2024 election and more.

It's all just ahead on Face the Nation.

Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.

With Election Day less than six months away, President Biden is navigating a host of challenges at home and abroad. His national security adviser is in Israel today for talks with embattled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as the war in Gaza enters its eighth month.

Netanyahu himself is facing an ultimatum from a member of his war cabinet, Benny Gantz, who is the president of the United States who is threatening to quit government unless a postwar plan for Gaza is delivered by June 8. Earlier this week, the defense minister also publicly questioned Netanyahu's strategy.

And that conflict overseas is making waves at home. Voters' dissatisfaction with President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza is overshadowing his commencement address at Morehouse College in Atlanta this morning, where some students and faculty have protested his appearance.

The speech is just one of the stops this weekend aimed at shoring up support from black voters. Recent polling suggests he's falling behind his opponent in key states. A new CBS poll shows the president trailing Trump by five points in Arizona, despite Biden winning that state in 2020. And, in Florida, Trump is comfortably up by nine after winning that state in the last two cycles.

We begin this morning with Nikole Killion, who's in Atlanta.

PROTESTER: Free, free Palestine!

NIKOLE KILLION (voice-over): Protesters greeted President Biden outside of Morehouse ahead of his commencement address to graduates at the all-male historically black college.

KOLLIN BROWN (Morehouse Graduate): You do want to remain conscious of what's going on in the world, but, at the same time, it's a time and place for everything.

NIKOLE KILLION: Hundreds of Morehouse students and faculty petitioned college leaders to rescind Biden's invitation, arguing the president's support of Israel's war in Gaza goes against the school's legacy of social justice.

ROBERT MYRICK (Morehouse Alum): I definitely think it's an important speech. I think this is an opportunity for Biden to come out, talk – talk about what he's done for the black community, as well as address young people and voters of color's disdain for the actions of Israel in Gaza. I still think it's an opportunity for him to win us over.

JOE BIDEN (President of the United States): The fact is that, this election, a lot is at stake.

NIKOLE KILLION: Saturday, Mr. Biden stopped by a popular black-owned restaurant in Atlanta, continuing his push with black voters, as recent polls show him trailing former President Trump in several key battlegrounds, including the Peach State.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: You hear about how, you know, we're behind in the polls. Well, so far, the polls haven't been right once.

DONALD TRUMP (Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate): I think you're a rebellious bunch, but let's be rebellious and vote this time, OK?

NIKOLE KILLION: In Texas, the former president picked up an endorsement from the National Rifle Association. He encouraged gun owners to turn out, even teasing a third term, which is barred by the Constitution.

FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We won a landslide that is, here's the expression, too big, too rigged.

NIKOLE KILLION: Back here at Morehouse, some of the students and faculty are holding a silent protest, wearing Palestinian scarves or the color of the flag.

President Biden will keep making his case to black voters, heading from here to Detroit to speak at an NAACP dinner later today – Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That's Nikole Killion in Atlanta.

And we're joined now in studio by Ohio Republican Senator J.D. Vance.

Good to have you here.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE (R-Ohio): Morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning to you.

So, you were at Mar-a-Lago recently. You were in New York at the Manhattan courtroom. You were in Ohio alongside Donald Trump at a fund-raiser. I know you keep getting asked whether or not you're going to be vice president or not. And you said you haven't spoken to him about it.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Sure.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But we're also looking at a pretty tight race in the Senate. So, I wonder, do you think you're more helpful to him in the Senate or in the White House?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, I will let him make that decision, ultimately. I think he knows how to best run his presidential campaign.

And what I have said is, I'm happy to be an advocate for the agenda in the United States Senate. I think that's the best way for me to help the people of Ohio. I'm certainly interested in helping him in other ways, if that's what – what matters, because, look, Margaret, we have to reelect Donald Trump as president.

The contrast is so extraordinary between higher inflation at home and war overseas – that's the Biden record – and the Trump record of peace at home and prosperity. That is an incredible thing to run on. And, importantly, it's an incredible thing to deliver for our country. So I think we need to help Donald Trump get across the finish line.

That's why I have spent a fair amount of time with him the past couple of weeks helping him raise some resources, showing up in support in New York. But it's all about getting him elected president. I actually don't care that much who the vice president is, because Trump's ultimately going to govern.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you call yourself one of the most pro-labor Republicans in Congress.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You were out there with automakers who were striking a few months back. And you've been very broadly supportive of tariffs.

Why are you opposed to President Biden, then, putting tariffs on batteries and electric vehicles and other technology from China? It seems inconsistent.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, I think there are two things here.

First of all, many of the tariffs that Joe Biden has endorsed in the last couple of weeks are tariffs that he ran against in 2020. But now that he sees that Donald Trump is…

MARGARET BRENNAN: He kept them.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: … leading him in polls, he's adopting the Donald Trump agenda. That's not actually being a good policy president. That's shifting on politics because you know you're about to lose.

This is also important. There's another…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he's targeted these pretty directly.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: There's a second thing, Margaret, that's really important here, is, Biden's entire agenda, such that it exists, has been about protecting green energy jobs, at the expense of the industrial heartland.

If you are in Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, you are not being empowered or enriched by Joe Biden's green energy agenda. So, him applying tariffs on the green agenda stuff, does it help steelmakers? Does it help natural gas workers? Does it help the heart of the American economy? The answer is no, which is another reason why Donald Trump would make a much better president.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you know, it's, what – Chinese electric vehicles are like, less than 2 percent of the market. But the point here is…

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, but it's a lot of the supply…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … all tariffs, though on – on – but, to your point, all tariffs, which you're – you seem to be in favor of, they're inflationary.

So how is the Trump-Vance idea here going to help make things more affordable for people, if you're putting taxes on goods they're purchasing from overseas?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, I – I don't necessarily buy the premise there, Margaret.

If you apply tariffs, really, what it is, is you're saying that we're going to penalize you for using slave labor in China and importing that stuff in the United States. What you end up doing is, you end up making more stuff in America, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio and in Michigan..

MARGARET BRENNAN: That did not happen in the Trump administration, though.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And I think that – well, it – it actually did happen in the Trump administration, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Manufacturing jobs came back?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: You did have – you did have significant onshoring. You had significant increases in people investing in factory construction.

But it takes time, Margaret. And that's one of the things, one of the reasons why I think that we need a second term of President Trump, is, this stuff is not going to happen overnight. The American heartland wasn't destroyed in – in – in four years.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: It's not going to be rebuilt in four years. But you really need to double down on this policy of bringing good jobs back to the heartland and, more importantly, making stuff in America. We have to be self-reliant as a country.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. We haven't heard a lot of specifics. I mean, there's been ranges of a 10 percent to 60 percent tariffs. Do you know what the plan is?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, look, I'm not going to speak for Donald Trump, but I certainly agree that we need to apply some broad-based tariffs, especially on goods coming in from China, and not just solar panels and E.V. stuff.

We need to protect American industries from all of the competition, because here – here's the thing, Margaret. The reason China beats us, it's not because they have better workers. It's because they're willing to use slaves to make things there.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. Or it's state funding.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: We want American – we want American workers to make this stuff at good wages.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about some of the things you've said about American universities. I know you've been very critical of them.

You gave an interview in February. You said: "The closest conservatives have ever gotten to successfully dealing with the left-wing domination of universities is Viktor Orban's approach in Hungary. I think his way has to be the model for us, not to eliminate universities, but to give the choice between survival or taking a much less biased approach to teaching."

He seized control of state universities and put them in foundations that were then run by his allies. Is that what you're advocating be done in the United States?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, Margaret, what you're seeing in the United States actually is that universities are controlled by left-wing foundations. They're not controlled by the American taxpayer.

And yet the American taxpayer is sending hundreds of billions of dollars to these universities every single year.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I don't want taxpayers controlling education necessarily.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: I – I…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that what you're advocating for, federal government control?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Margaret, what I'm advocating for is for taxpayers to have a say in how their money is spent. Universities are part of a social contract in this country. They educate our children. They produce important intellectual property. They get a lot of money because of it.

But if they're not educating our children well, and they're layering the next generation down in mountains of student debt, then they're not meeting their end of the bargain. I think it's totally reasonable to say there needs to be a political solution to that problem.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, America's universities still attract talent from around the world, as you went to one of America's very top schools. But – but…

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Look, there's still good things about American universities, but it's going in the wrong direction, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But so – but Viktor Orban, in particular, as you know, I mean, he – he rewrote the constitution. He neutered the courts. He has tried to control the media.

These are not necessarily conservative principles. So why would you want to mimic him?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, look, I'm not endorsing every single thing that Viktor Orban has ever done. I don't know everything he's ever done.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: What I do think is, on the university – on the university principle, the idea that taxpayers should have some influence in how their money is spent on these universities, it's a totally reasonable thing.

And I do think that he's made some smart decisions there that we could – we could learn from in the United States.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he was just welcomed at Mar-a-Lago.

And – and, as you know, Leader McConnell just spoke out on the floor of the Senate this past week after Xi Jinping visited Hungary. He's trying to broker trade deals. They're brokering trade deals, not just with Russia, but with Iran. Orban – because of this – McConnell said it should be a red flag for anyone seriously concerned about competition with China.

So why take any policy cues from a man and a country and a strategy cozying up to America's adversaries?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, look, Margaret, Hungary is a nation of 10 million people. America is a nation of 330 million people and the most important economy in the world.

I don't think that we should take every cue. But I actually have to reject the premise here, because why is Viktor Orban getting closer to China? In part, because American leadership is not making smart decisions. We are pushing other nations into the arms of Chinese – the Chinese, because we don't make enough stuff, because we pursue a ridiculous foreign policy very often.

We have to be more self-reliant. I don't like China. I don't like that China has stolen a lot of American jobs. The reason they've done it is because American leadership has made bad decisions.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you…

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: That's our fault, and that's something we can fix as Americans.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You – you've talked a lot about the – the need for the United States to pivot to Asia…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … and let the Europeans focus on Europe. But Xi Jinping is focusing on Europe.

Why would you cede influence?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well…

MARGARET BRENNAN: You're – because you've really been opposed to helping Ukraine in its fight. You've said a lot of things that are suggestive…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … that you just want to pull – pull back.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: … let me – let me – let me address that point, Margaret.

First of all, I think the reason that we have to be smart in Ukraine is, we don't have a strategy. What is Joe Biden trying to do? What is another $60 billion accomplishing that $120 billion hasn't? We have to have a smart strategy to spend American taxpayer dollars.

But – but, on this – but on the Europe…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Eighty percent of it funds the U.S. defense industrial base from the – the supplemental that just passed.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: But, Margaret, but on – on this question, Europe and China and the intertwinement between those two, look, the reason Europe has become weaker is because they've deindustrialized.

And why have they deindustrialized? Because they've pursued a green energy agenda, following the lead of the Biden administration, and that necessarily empowers China and Russia. We need to acknowledge that it's our decisions that are making these countries stronger. We need to fix that, not whine at countries that have 10 million people.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Or – or people just like cheap stuff, no matter where they live, right? So – and they look for cheaper providers. But…

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, they'd love to have cheap energy in Europe, and they don't have it because of the policies of the green energy lobby.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about abortion…

MARGARET BRENNAN: … because we see it in our polling as so motivating.

But President Trump has adopted this position that it should be states that control abortion access.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You said back in 2022 that a proposal to limit abortion access after 15 weeks of pregnancy was something you would support and some minimal national standard.

What is the minimum national standard that you want the federal government to have on abortion?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Well, look, Margaret, I think that, first of all, we have to acknowledge that political reality is, I think, really motivating a lot of these considerations.

What Donald Trump has said, which is very consistent with what I said during my own campaign, is that the gross majority of abortion policy is going to be made at the state level.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: And I actually think, if you compare his view of saying, look, this is a tough issue, we need to let people debate and decide this very tough issue in this new environment, where it's been kicked back to democratic legislators…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. But you want a minimum federal standard.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: But – but – but, Margaret, compare this to the Biden administration approach is, we want Christians to perform abortions and we want American taxpayers to fund late-term abortions. I think…

MARGARET BRENNAN: That's not true.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: … the Trump approach – that is absolutely what Democrats have endorsed.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Prohibited under that Hyde Amendment.

But – so you don't have a – a minimum national standard?

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Margaret, what I have said consistently is, the gross majority of policy here is going to be set by the states. I am pro-life. I want to save as many babies as possible.

And, sure, I think it's totally reasonable to say that late-term abortions should not happen with reasonable exceptions.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: But I think Trump's approach here is trying to settle a very tough issue…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: … and actually empower the American people to decide it for themselves.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Vance, thank you for joining us today.

SENATOR J.D. VANCE: Thanks Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Michigan Democratic Senator Gary Peters.

Good morning to you, Senator.

SENATOR GARY PETERS (D-Michigan): Well, good morning to you.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you just heard us run through a whole bunch of these statistics with our polling data. And you are in charge of helping to defend the slim Democratic majority in the Senate.

Are you still confident that you can pick up a seat in Florida? And are you bullish that you will actually be able to pull off a win in Arizona?

SENATOR GARY PETERS: I am.

I'm still very, very confident. We have all the pieces in place to be successful. And, basically, it's very similar to how we were successful in the last cycle, when folks thought that that was not possible in a midterm with a – a party in power in the White House.

We did. We made history last cycle. We're going to do it again. And it's primarily because of candidate quality.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well…

SENATOR GARY PETERS: We have outstanding Democratic candidates, outstanding Democratic incumbents who have served their state against deeply flawed Republican candidates.

So I'm confident we're going to be able to win.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.

So, just to put up on screen, because I don't think we did that, the candidate in Arizona I was talking about, Ruben Gallego, is leading Kari Lake by 13 points. That's – that's pretty stark.

SENATOR GARY PETERS: Yeah.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, should -you - are you confident?

SENATOR GARY PETERS: It is.

And here's a – here – I – the lead is great. But I – you know, I take every poll with a grain of salt. We're still going to have a tough race. We're going to still be focused on Arizona to make sure that Ruben wins.

But if you look at the contrast, his service to the – the state of Arizona through his work in Congress…

SENATOR GARY PETERS: … versus Kari Lake, who's been an election denier, she's been traveling around the country, not in Arizona, people of Arizona want someone who's going to be there fighting for them. And that's what they have in Congressman – there.

MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. But that is what's happening down-ballot, but President Biden in the state of Arizona is down five points versus Donald Trump. So what is – what are they missing at the top of the ticket here?

SENATOR GARY PETERS: Well, I – I'm still confident that Joe Biden will win in Arizona as well. The – the election will continue to play out. These are going to be close races.

As I said, with his lead, you know, I – I always take these polls with a grain of salt, in the fact that these are competitive battleground states. By definition, they're going to be very close. We're going to win because - - not just because of the candidates, but also because of our ability to run better campaigns, reaching out to our voters, getting them engaged, getting them to the polls.

That's how you win these close races. It's what we did last cycle.

SENATOR GARY PETERS: It's what we're going to do again this year in election time.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, in Florida and Arizona, we polled in both of those states. By almost 3-1, voters say President Trump would be better for their finances than President Biden.

In Arizona, Trump has a 10-point advantage on the specific question of, who cares about people like you a lot? And the economy, again and again, number one issue. What can President Biden do to fix that?

SENATOR GARY PETERS: Well, President Biden has been focused on the economy.

And, actually, if you poll folks about their individual view about themselves, polls are pretty consistent. They feel good about what's happening in their family. And it's about focusing on that aspect. Ask people about yourself and are you better off.

But, certainly, President Biden, as well as Democrats in the Senate, have been looking to reduce costs. For example, prescription drugs, bringing down the price of prescription drugs for families, it is a focus of the president that will continue.

And, you know, you have to look back on the previous administration. You know, folks forget that, when the former president was there, we were in a pandemic.

SENATOR GARY PETERS: And he just mishandled the – that pandemic in a spectacular fashion.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that is why – that is why it is…

SENATOR GARY PETERS: … that caused so many hardships for people.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. And that is why it is so stark when people say they think he's going to be better for their finances. It's pretty stunning, frankly.

On the issue of the border, we know, just on the facts, the number of migrants crossing the Southern border has actually been declining for the past few months. And the Biden administration has talked about, you know, new efforts under way here.

But it's not showing up in any sort of better reviews for the president's border policy. That is so essential for support in the state of Arizona. He's trailing by five points. What does he have to do on the border that's going to help stop the bleeding?

SENATOR GARY PETERS: Well, as you said, the numbers are getting better. They'll continue to get better.

And – and President Biden, his administration has been focused on that. We also, as Democrats…

MARGARET BRENNAN: Does he need to talk about it more?

SENATOR GARY PETERS: He – absolutely. And that's what a campaign is about, and the campaign to make sure people have that information. As you also know, Democrats worked with Republicans to have the most comprehensive border security bill that would've been passed in decades.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And it didn't.

SENATOR GARY PETERS: That would've made it even better.

And yet Donald Trump said, don't vote for it because it's going to be a political win for Biden.

SENATOR GARY PETERS: He'd rather see problems on the border. the American people don't want that. They want solutions. They want folks who roll up their sleeves, get things done.

We were on the edge of doing that. And Donald Trump tanked that effort.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, he…

SENATOR GARY PETERS: And Republicans just listened to him. They're – they're basically hypocrites on this issue.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But he consistently talks about immigration.

President Biden very, very, very rarely discusses the things that you were talking about. And, on immigration, we just see that these policies here, 13 percent of Biden – say Biden's policies benefit U.S. citizens over immigrants. Trump policies overwhelmingly are viewed as more positive.

I mean, there's just a perception issue here. How do you battle that?

SENATOR GARY PETERS: Well, it – that – it is a perception issue. It's not a fact issue. The facts are clearly wrong when it comes to that.

President Biden has been addressing this issue. The numbers show it. And that's what a campaign is about. That's what we do, is to make sure that there's a very clear contrast painted. When voters go into the voting booth in November…

SENATOR GARY PETERS: … they will know the facts. They will see that there's a clear contrast. And they're going to vote for the person who's actually delivered, which is President Biden, as well as Senate Democrats across the country as well.

That contrast will play out as the – the campaigns get into full gear.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right.

And we know President Biden is headed to your home state of Michigan shortly. Thank you very much, Senator Peters.

Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.

(ANNOUNCEMENTS)

MARGARET BRENNAN: We're joined now by the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, who is just back from a trip to Kyiv.

Good morning.

OKSANA MARKAROVA (Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States): Good morning. Always good to be back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It's great to have you in person.

Secretary Blinken was just in Kyiv. You were there. What did you learn from these face-to-face meetings with President Zelenskyy?

AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, it was, as always, very candid, very good, very productive discussion. The secretary has been there for two days, so not just meeting with the president, which, of course, has been very deep on every aspect of our strategic friendship, but also with prime minister, with Vice Prime Minister Fedorov, so many visits.

Most importantly, I think it was good to align what are we going to do, how we are going to – to put to the best use these funds that Congress has provided. And this $2 billion announcement of FMF support, which could, by the way, go to joint production and Ukrainian-made production is, I think, a great step forward.

So, very good visit. Always good to – to – to see secretary there in person.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are the weapons arriving fast enough?

AMBASSADOR OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, there is no such thing as fast enough when we are up against such a bad enemy, and we have to catch up for a long pause in – in weapons ordering or starting the supply.

So, no, we need it to be faster.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Ambassador, we have more to talk about.

But I'm going to have to take a commercial break in order to do that and come back with a more in-depth chat with Ambassador Markarova. So, stay with us.

MARGARET BRENNAN: My colleague Norah O'Donnell interviewed the pope at the Vatican last month.

And you can watch it tonight on 60 Minutes, plus a one-hour prime-time special this Monday at 10:00 p.m.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation.

Stay with us.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. We continue our conversation now with Ukrainian ambassador to the United States.

Ambassador, President Zelenskyy has made clear on multiple occasions now that Ukraine needs more patriot missile systems. He says your country only has about 25 percent of the air defense systems it needs.

Is the United States going to provide that help?

OKSANA MARKAROVA (Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S.): Well, first of all, let me second President Zelenskyy on the need. I mean clearly I was there just for two days but every day we hear in the news just today, you know, the horrible hit in Kharkiv (INAUDIBLE) again, 27 wounded, five dead already. We don't know, maybe more.

Clearly Russia is doubling down on their war crimes. They found new friends to produce more of these glide (ph) in bombs, horrible. Just trying to destroy as many peaceful citizen in Ukraine as possible. So, the fast way to stop it is to provide us with more than air - more air defense.

It's also the efficient way, you know, because not only it will save lives, but it will save the energy generation. And everything then (ph) we will have to spend a lot of money and effort to restore and rebuild.

So, desperately need it now. We are in - in very active conversations. Literally Pentagon. And I would like to thank them as we are preparing for the new Ramstein group meeting next week, working day and night to find it. But, frankly, this is the time when everyone have to give us a little bit of theirs. So, we're very grateful to those who are providing us with their systems. We are grateful to the U.S. for looking for them, locating them, funding some of them, but we need more and it's time to literally take some brave decisions and provide us with more of this so we can see them right away where we need them two - at least two we need in Kharkiv and that area.

OKSANA MARKAROVA: But other places need to be protected as well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And Germany was looking to provide some help, as I understand it, on that front.

OKSANA MARKAROVA: Yes.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You know - you just mentioned an upcoming summit in Ramstein. C.Q. Brown, the chair of the Joint Chiefs, told reporters Ukraine has asked the United States for help to strike inside Russia. The U.S. has been afraid to have U.S. weapons used in that kind of a strike. What is it that Ukraine's seeking to do?

OKSANA MARKAROVA: Well, first of all, you remember we had this discussion for two years now. We have the right to defend ourselves. This - we are defending ourselves whether we are striking Russian troops on our territory or Russian troops outside of our territory. And we have been trying to do that. But, of course, there were some restrictions.

Now, I will not go publicly into discussions where we are on discussions with either U.S. or any of other partners. But I just want to say that it's clear that Russia is an aggressor here. It's clear when they are preparing something. So, the U.N. rules, the international law and every other rules that exist in this country, which Russia violated by the way, give us a clear right to defend ourselves and by striking an aggressor whether on our territory or for - or where they are launching or threaten (ph) the attack from.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you need more training for your troops? I know there's now a new draft, a lower age, you need more men fighting.

OKSANA MARKAROVA: And the training is ongoing. And, frankly, this is where we are cooperating with the U.S. and with other partners. We would like to see more training been done in Ukraine so that not only we're training our troops, but we are also becoming institutionally more strong, building their - our army of the future which will be protecting, not just Ukraine but all of us from Russia. So, yes, in training it's going to be one of the key discussions with the allies.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And in Ukraine. Interesting.

Ambassador, thank you for providing us that update.

We'll be right back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're joined now by CBS News cybersecurity expert and analyst Chris Krebs, who is the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Good to have you back.

CHRIS KREBS: Good to be back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, in our polling that we just carried out in Arizona in particular, it was a center of election denialism back in 2020 and we're seeing this again. I mean half - nearly half of Trump's supporters say the 2024 presidential results in Arizona should be investigated and challenged if Biden wins. Seven in ten from those who identify themselves as MAGA.

Is this going to be a repeat of 2020? I mean what - what's going to happen?

CHRIS KREBS: Well, you know, all these claims are despite any credible evidence being presented in the courts or, you know, to everyone else and the experts out there. We're continuing to see claims of problems with 2020, even 2022, the midterms. So, I think the incentive structures, the way they're aligned right now, it - it creates plenty of room and a permissive environment for those to allege that there are problems. Again, despite any credible evidence and continued investments in election security, election resilience, modernizing election systems. You know, back in 2020 we talked about having 95 percent or so of ballots, you know, cast on paper. Now that number's probably closer to 98. So, we have made improvements over the last several years.

MARGARET BRENNAN: It's interesting you make that point about paper because on the campaign trail Donald Trump claims 2020 was rigged, claims 2024 might be as well.

Listen to what he just said.

DONALD TRUMP (R), (Former U.S. President And 2024 Presidential Candidate): Our goal on election will be one day voting with paper ballots, proof of citizenship and voter I.D. It's very simple. If you want to save America and your Second Amendment, register, get an absentee or mail-in ballot, vote early or vote on Election Day, I don't care.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, two things there. Now he is for mail-in ballots. He was against them in 2020. But you just said there already is a paper trail. He's saying there is none.

CHRIS KREBS: The vast majority of votes cast in the United States right now are with a paper trail. There is a small percentage that are recorded down on election - election systems, but that's for accessibility purposes, for those that may have visual impairment or otherwise. And it's important to ensure open and accessible voting processes.

The one-day voting - this push, this drive, it's actually counterproductive. It actually is counter to participation in the democratic system and resilience in security. That longer run up, the weeks, months in advance of the election, allows us to detect if there are any issues, get on top and fix them.

If you had an election on one single day, life happens first. Somebody might get sick, you could get in a car accident, you might not be able to get to the polls. But if something happens early on, it could have this cascading, catastrophic impact on getting people to the polls and voting on election day.

So, I'm much more in favor of a - of the system we have now with early voting, with mail-in and absentee ballots.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the director of national intelligence, your successor, as I said, Jen Easterly, also testified that they are so prepared, election infrastructure has never been more secure. But then we also hear from U.S. intelligence that China, for example, is experimenting with things like generative AI to influence voters.

How do people understand that influence effort versus actually tinkering with ballots?

CHRIS KREBS: I think that's the right distinction. There's interference, which is the technical manipulation of systems, and as Jen Easterly, my successor at CISA said earlier this week in a Senate hearing, the investments we're making, the continued improvements across systems, it - I would even suggest that, you know, when - when we said in 2020 that it was a safe and secure election, it's even more safe and secure now because those continued investments, because of continued improvements across those systems.

But to your point on influence, the scope, the scale, the technology available to our adversaries, including AI and deep fakes, it is a much more precarious threat environment. The Chinese are active. The Russians are very active. They've been using deep fakes in Europe. We've seen AI pop up in Moldova, Slovakia, else - Bangladesh. So, it is - it is going to be a tool.

My sense, however, though, is threats that are AI powered or AI enabled will be much like what happened in New Hampshire with the robo call. It will be immediately detected, it will be investigated quickly, and it will be prosecuted. And that's what's happening right now.

I think the biggest concern though is that this is cumulative. It's accretive. So, rather than one single catastrophic AI enabled event -

CHRIS KREBS: It's going to be a steady drum beat where we, where the voters, the public, are just going to lose confidence and trust in the overarching information ecosystem.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're seeing that in our polling already, a lack of confidence.

CHRIS KREBS: Some might say that's part of the strategy.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That's scary.

CHRIS KREBS: Absolutely.

MARGARET BRENNAN: CNN was reporting both the Chinese and Iranian governments had tried to use fake AI content back in 2020 but chose not to deploy it. Is that accurate?

CHRIS KREBS: I - I can't speak to the specific intelligence there. It should not be a surprise though. It - we've been talking about deep fakes and AI as a risk vector for years, for half a decade at least. So, to say that - whether it's the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the North Koreans, whomever, have been tinkering or researching this technology as recently as four years ago, I think that's entirely credible. We are seeing it now though. We are seeing, as I mentioned, already in Europe. We're seeing it here as well. And I would expect that between now and the election we will continue to see AI created content pop up.

CHRIS KREBS: And this is where it's important for the tech platforms to ensure they're on the lookout for it.

CHRIS KREBS: That the AI companies are ensuring that their platforms cannot be manipulated. The challenge, of course, though is there are opensource models that can be used.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And we need to keep talking to you about this, unfortunately, in the months to come because it sounds like it will be a persistent issue.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We'll be right back.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to former defense secretary and CIA director, Robert Gates, who we spoke with on Friday from the College of William & Mary, where he serves as chancellor. We began by asking him why national security should matter to voters this election year.

ROBERT GATES (Former Defense Secretary and Former CIA Director): Our leaders need to bring these issues home to the American people in a very direct way. The world isn't going to ignore us just because we think we can ignore the world. So, the first thing is to make clear that if we don't deal with these problems early, they become very dangerous problems and very costly problems for the United States down the road.

The other is to explain to the American people, for example, how we need - how we are economically interconnected with the rest of the world.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, if President Trump were to win again, what could he do differently in a second term that would give him a stronger legacy? I know you've been critical of some of his behavior when he was in office.

ROBERT GATES: I think you'd probably see significantly different domestic policies in - in a number of areas. I think one thing he's been clear about for a long time is the need for tariffs to protect American industry and so on. I think he would also have a different approach in many - in many areas with respect to foreign policy and in terms of trying to end the war in Ukraine. It's never made quite clear how he's going to do that or what terms he would have to agree to or how he would handle the issues in the South China Sea differently.

So, you know, I think that there's an element of unpredictability in - in the - in his case of - of not knowing what he really has in mind to deal with any of these specific issues, especially on national security.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Would you be open to voting for Mr. Trump?

ROBERT GATES: Oh, I'm not even going to begin to go there.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you did write an essay in "Foreign Affairs" a few months ago where you were - you were pretty specific in criticism. You said his disdain for allies, fondness for authoritarian leaders, erratic behavior undermined U.S. credibility. You were also critical of President Biden in his withdrawal from Afghanistan, which you said further damaged the world's confidence in America.

Do you think Mr. Biden has been able to repair that damage?

ROBERT GATES: I think that he gained a lot of credibility with the speed with which he assembled the coalition of partner countries, allies and friends, before, during and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, putting together that three dozen countries willing to help Ukraine with money, with military assistance and so on. Being able to warn the allies before the Russians actually invaded so that when they did we had enormous credibility with others that we knew what we were talking about and we knew the nature of Putin's threat.

I think a lot of people would agree that there has been some unnecessary delays in getting necessary equipment to - certain kinds of equipment to the Ukrainians. And I'm not talking about the six-month late supplemental that - that was just passed by the Congress. I'm talking about going back a year and a half or two years, whether it was tanks or missiles or aircraft that after long debate and deliberation the decision was finally made to provide them.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Vladimir Putin was in China this past week visiting his ally, Xi Jinping. And he said Friday, Russian troops are advancing daily in Ukraine. What do you think it will take to stop this momentum?

ROBERT GATES: Well, this is one of the places where, frankly, the six-month delay in getting the supplemental passed is - has been a problem because - and poses a real crisis, I think. The circumstances in Ukraine right now are - are quite dire. The Russians are moving, not only around Kharkiv, but elsewhere along the front. Putin has taken the last six months to a year to rearm, reequip, to recruit. I've read numbers that he's putting as many as 30,000 new troops a month into Ukraine. They have more troops in Ukraine now, the Russians do, than they did at the beginning of the war.

MARGARET BRENNAN: During that time Russia has also built up more support for its effort with Iran, with North Korea, supplying it weapons, with China now, U.S. intelligence says, helping to reconstitute Russia's military industrial base, even jointly producing drones.

What consequence should there be for a country like China for helping this war to continue?

ROBERT GATES: There are a variety of other sanctions that are available to the administration and to the Europeans that - that could bring additional pressure on the Chinese at a time when their economy is not doing very well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Would they make a difference?

ROBERT GATES: They could. They could. The Chinese have very large stakes in other problems, in other relationships around the world, in addition to Russia. And, you know, until a year or so ago they were being pretty careful about what they were providing to the Russians. They still have not, as best we know, have not provided actual weapons to the Russians. That's been a red line for the United States.

And - and, Putin, frankly, and if you look at the cabinet changes that Putin has just made, they're all focused on militarizing the Russian economy to sustain a huge military for a long time going forward.

This is not a one-time problem with just Ukraine. Putin has decided to take Russia in a different – in a different direction that poses a real threat to all of its neighbors. And the Chinese, by helping them, are enabling that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the Chinese president was just touring through Europe, and he was in France. I wonder what you think about the French president's statement that nothing should be ruled out when it comes to sending western troops to Ukraine. I know some other European countries have also leaned into that idea. Should it be taken off the table by both Biden and Trump?

ROBERT GATES: I think the notion of deploying NATO troops into Ukraine causes a lot of domestic concern, not just in this - in the United States, but in Europe as well. I don't think you take things off the table, but I - but I also don't think you put them on the table in an explicit way.

You know, part of my problem is that our government talks too much and some other governments talk too much as well. Sometimes it's better just to do things and not tell people you're doing them.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well -

ROBERT GATES: But maybe that's the old CIA guy.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is that suggesting more training then of Ukrainian troops?

ROBERT GATES: I think - I think we are clearly - and there's going to have to be more training of - of the Ukrainians, particularly with their new conscription law and - and a number of new young people coming into the Ukrainian military.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Should that take -

ROBERT GATES: That training can take place in western Europe or it conceivably could take place in Ukraine as well.

MARGARET BRENNAN: One of the guests on our program, J.D. Vance, a senator from Ohio, has likened U.S. support for Ukraine to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, making that argument that there's like a creeping U.S. role potentially.

He also went to the Munich Security Conference but skipped meetings with President Zelenskyy and - and the head of NATO, saying he wouldn't learn anything new. What do you say to a leading Republican like him?

ROBERT GATES: Rather than get into specific personalities, I just think that people need to open their eyes and - and be willing to listen to other points of view and be willing to learn, particularly from people who have been around, like Senator McConnell and others, who - who can help him understand - help him and others understand that - that this is a different kind of aggression by far than what happened in Iraq in 2003. And - and there is no assurance that - that Putin will stop with Ukraine. And - and to not understand that potential threat, and also the degree to which it encourages other aggressors around the world, I think - I think some - some additional information, briefings and education may be required.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about the Middle East, where there already are multiple shooting wars on multiple fronts involving U.S. ally Israel.

Do you agree with President Biden's decision to withhold some specific armaments from the Netanyahu government while surging others?

ROBERT GATES: One of the things that has struck me has been the degree to which the Netanyahu government has essentially ignored the views and - and requests of his closest ally, beginning with more humanitarian assistance and - and taking care of the - of the civilians in Gaza. I think that there are - there are ways that we can pressure Israel.

The truth of the matter is, 2,000 pound bombs that are not precision guided inevitably lead to a lot of collateral damage. They basically collapse buildings. I'm all for providing all other kinds of weapons to Israel, including precision guided bombs, and - and other equipment that they may need. But I think when - when our allies ignore us, and particularly on issues that are of huge importance to us and to the region, then I think it's reasonable to take actions that try to get their attention.

MARGARET BRENNAN: There were extraordinary statements from Israel's defense minister this past week where he publicly criticized his own prime minister, saying he can't get an answer to some key questions like what happens at the end of this war. He called on Netanyahu to make a decision, declare Israel will not establish civilian control or military control over the Gaza Strip and start talking to international actors about who is going to govern. What do you think about such a public split like this in the midst of the war?

ROBERT GATES: Well, it's pretty extraordinary, but - but I think not unexpected. You know, the United States government has been asking Prime Minister Netanyahu for months, what's your plan? What happens after the shooting stops? Where are you going with this? What's the solution politically? What's the solution economically and in humanitarian terms? And there - and neither we, nor the Israelis, including his own defense minister, get any answers to those questions.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you said you've never been a fan of Bibi Netanyahu. You said you met him back in 1989. Are your concerns in regard to U.S. national security that he could draw the U.S. into a wider conflict?

ROBERT GATES: My biggest concern, and we need to back up and have a little perspective here. There are, in fact, four wars going on in the Middle East right now. Not only the war in Gaza, but the war on Israel's northern border with Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen and what - the disruption of the global supply chains through their attacks in the Red Sea, and then the militias in - in Syria and in Iraq. There is one power behind all four of these conflicts, and that's Iran. And what we're not talking about, we've become so preoccupied with Gaza, what we've failed to talk sufficiently about is, how do we deal with an Iran that is basically the - the one providing the arms, the planning, and the intelligence in all four of these conflicts, and that Iran is the source of the problem.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Thanks for watching. For FACE THE NATION, I'm Margaret Brennan.

More from CBS News

Transcript: Sen. J.D. Vance on "Face the Nation," May 19, 2024

Transcript: Chris Krebs on "Face the Nation," May 19, 2024

Transcript: Sen. Gary Peters on "Face the Nation," May 19, 2024

Transcript: Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates on "Face the Nation," May 19, 2024