Is military force the answer to America’s cocaine crisis?
Letters to the Editor: Is military action really the most efficient way to help American drug users?
'The cost to completely destroy cocaine trafficking from Venezuela and Colombia via naval operations could be considerable - and I don't think it will diminish demand here or stop this drug from being trafficked from other countries,' writes an L.A. Times reader.
2025-12-06T07:00:00+00:00
health, politics, los angeles, opinion, california, food-and-drink, personal-finance, casino-and-gambling, weather
A recent letter to the editor has raised concerns over the use of military force to tackle cocaine trafficking. The writer questions whether such an approach is cost-effective or even practical. Their comments come as President Trump threatens military action against Venezuela and Colombia over drug flows into the US.
The USS Gerald R. Ford, along with its escort ships, has been deployed in Latin American waters since 16 November. Operating an aircraft carrier of this size costs up to £8.4 million per day, with estimates suggesting the mission may have already cost around £168 million in just 20 days. Each individual military strike against drug traffickers can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The letter writer argues that using the military for domestic issues is both expensive and high-risk. They point out that other pressing concerns, such as youth deaths linked to firearms, may deserve more urgent attention. Meanwhile, the 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reports that about 1.5% of Americans—around 4.3 million people—used cocaine in the past year.
Treatment and rehabilitation for cocaine users also come with substantial costs. The survey highlights the financial burden of medical care and support programmes, though exact figures remain unclear.
The debate over military intervention in drug trafficking continues as costs mount. With millions spent on naval operations and treatment programmes, the effectiveness of these measures remains under scrutiny. The letter writer’s concerns reflect broader questions about priorities and spending in tackling complex social issues.
