Claiming an effective campaign against illegal drugs — considering the record P62-billion shabu haul in the past three years — is quite challenging to swallow since common sense indicates it means that more narcotics are circulating.
The value of the shabu seized in three years, including the recent P8.87-billion haul, suggests, according to the Philippine National Police (PNP), improved interdictions by authorities and community vigilance, such as local fisherfolk reporting “floating shabu.”
The unprecedented volume of seizures, however, suggests the supply chains of the syndicates remain robust.
A successful campaign, when measured against the previous administration, means disrupting networks at their source, strengthening border security, expanding prevention and rehabilitation efforts and having broader societal impacts, such as reduced addiction and crime.
The sheer volume of the intercepted substances logically indicates a growing supply, potentially pointing to a robust smuggling network and increased production likely linked to international syndicates.
The proliferation of drugs suggests that demand remains high and the supply chains remain intact, more so now with the police hobbled by too much human rights protocol and the previous Philippine National Police chief holding the belief that shabu is necessary to raise labor productivity.
The large volume of drugs suggests a sophisticated network, reflected in the “floating shabu” recently intercepted off Luzon shores that was believed to be decoys for a bigger volume to be slipped in.
Syndicates have long exploited the country’s dire lack of advanced surveillance and patrol vessels to smuggle narcotics into the country.
Corruption within law enforcement and local government units makes the battle against narcotics doubly challenging.
Unrelenting anti-corruption measures, including stricter oversight and enhanced penalties, are considered essential for a successful anti-drugs campaign.
A positive development favoring the current dispensation is the community-based prevention, which Mr. Marcos credited for the interception of the record volume of drugs.
The anti-drugs campaign’s success should not be measured solely by the volume of drugs seized, however, as this may reflect a supply proliferation rather than control.
Reduced drug-related crime rates, lower addiction prevalence and dismantled syndicates, metrics used in the past, are better indicators.
In the previous regime, the war on drugs was offered as a solution to bring down crime incidents.
Many Filipinos, particularly in urban areas and regions like Mindanao, credited the hardline approach against drugs with improving their safety.
Heinous crimes such as murder and theft were reduced by targeting drug-related criminality.
Despite the popularity of the campaign, it faced significant criticism due to extrajudicial killings, which some political forces exploited by claiming it was directed at the urban poor.
Public sentiment, particularly among OFWs, was overwhelmingly positive due to the campaign’s perceived impact on peace, order and crime reduction.
Mr. Marcos’ less violent and more holistic campaign now faces skepticism due to the large drug hauls that suggest ongoing supplies.
Gauging the success of the program would need transparent and accurate data related to index crime rates and addiction prevalence instead of the supposed volume of apprehended shabu, which becomes self-serving when it comes from the police force.
The true determinant of an effective anti-drugs push, however, that is hard to dispute is the Filipinos’ peace of mind that had been attained but is in danger of being lost again.