Bush's “war on drugs”, an extension to Reagon's former battle, had “crowded the courts, filled the prisons, corrupted law officers, compromised ... civil liberties, and criminalized substantial sectors of American society.” 1 In comparison to the leniency experienced in the late 1960s under Nixon where a “specific sub-culture of some 68,088 identifiable heroin addicts” who, subject to arrest for the possession of the heroin, and successfully convicted, were “sentenced to treatment at the federal hospital in Lexington, Kentucy.”2 After the three drug wars, civil liberties were comprised; the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution regarding the “unreasonable search and seizure” was infringed. Drug checks can be conducted on any motorist, on interstate highways,and land residents are subject to summary searches.3 As The House We Live In showed, any driver caught carrying a minimum of $5000 cash will have his money and vehicle – often a truck -- seized and taken as per the US seizure law that is in effect. Under this law, random searches are conducted at road checks and cars are pulled over anywhere based on the suspicions by the law enforcement officers. Under Reagan and Bush's term, heavy mandatory minimum prison sentences were introduced. These lengthy mandatory minimum sentences were part of the new state and federal laws that affected drug offenders that would distinguish between major dealers or petty users. The “war on drugs” had led to the expansion of the US prison population to “unprecedented levels.” “Under President Reagan's campaign, annual drug arrests inside the United States doubled from 569,000 in 1977 to 1'155'000 in 1988; moreover, just 3/4 of these arrests were just for the “mere” possession of drugs, inclu... ... middle of paper ... ...seize to operate. As this paper had explored, US drug prohibition, from its inception, followed by the “war on drugs”, have failed. The repressive strategies found within the drug wars not only are not able to handle the inherently complex nature of the international drug trade, but it, as history has shown, has exasperated the problem. At the national level, the “war on drugs” effects was just as ineffective and detrimental to society with heavy mandatory minimum prison sentences and the world's highest imprisonment rate. In this regards, the drug war was a failure; however, in some other respect, it is a success. It is a success in that drug laws disproportionately affected minorities, especially the black community; moreover, it exclusively targets the lower rungs of society. As this paper has examined, the “war on drugs” is a proxy genocide of the lower class.
Gant was arrested by Arizona police because he was driving a vehicle with a suspended license. While he was being handcuffed, officers searched his vehicle and found a gun and a bag of cocaine. During the trial, Gant petitioned to suppress the gun and cocaine because the police didn’t serve a warrant to search his vehicle, in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Prior to the Supreme Courts opinion on this case, Arizona vs. Gant, it was standard practice for police to conduct a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment of a vehicle. The justifications for the search incident to arrest are to allow police to secure any weapons that the arrestee might seek to use to resist arrest or escape and preserve evidence. This case is a decision holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to a continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. ...
In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
FITZPATRICK, Michael (2001). “The Lessons of the Drugs War”, Spiked,. Online at: , consulted on March 30th, 2004.
As described in novel The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference the course of any trend, movement, social behavior, and even the spread of a virus has a general trend line that in essence resemble a parabola with 3 main critical points. Any trend line first starts from zero, grows until it crosses the first tipping point, and then spreads like wildfire. Afterwards, the trend skyrockets to its carrying capacity (Galdwell, 2000). Then the trend gradually declines before it reaches the next tipping and suddenly falls out of favor and out of memory. Gladwell defines tipping points as the “magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire” (Gladwell, 2000).
The United States of America has the world’s highest incarceration rates, for several reasons. The United States of America doesn’t necessarily possess any unique strict laws in comparison to other countries of the world, yet we still have the highest incarceration rate in the world. More federal level and state level prisons are built in order to control and hold more prisoners because most are reaching its full capacity. The United States of America’s “crime rates” increased about 40 years ago when there became a new focus in the areas of crime. The President of the United States of America at the time Richard Nixon used the term “a war on drugs” in order to shed light on public health due to substance abuse. Initially, these policies created
The New Jim Crow is the direct consequences of War on Drug. That aimed at reducing, preventing and eradicate drug usage in America through punitive means. The effect of the war on drug policies returned de jure discrimination, denied African Americans justice and undermined the rule of law by altering the criminal justice system in ways that deprive African Americans civil rights and citizenship. In the “New Jim Crow” Alexandra argues that the effects of the drug war policies are not unattended consequences but coordinated by designed to deny African Americans opportunity to gain wealth, excluded from gaining employment and exercise civil right through mass incarceration and felony conviction.
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
In his article “Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War”, Eduardo Porter, economic journalist for the New York Times, argues that despite the billions of dollars spent and countless number of lives lost, the War on Drugs has been a complete failure. Porter particularly wants us to review the methods used by the American government regarding drug control, in order to more successfully protect United States citizens and their health. He writes that the last thirty years has been spent fighting a war that cannot be won. Porter points out that in those 30 years, general use of hard drugs, as well as use of illegal drugs by teenagers, has not declined, but actually increased. Additionally, Americans on average don’t think drug use is even much of
This supports the conservative’s claim that the war on drugs is not making any progress to stop the supply of drugs coming into America. Conservative writer for the magazine National Review, William Buckley, shows his outrage towards the Council on Crime in America for their lack of motivation to change the drug policies that are ineffective. Buckley asks, “If 1.35 million drug users were arrested in 1994, how many drug users were not arrested? The Council informs us that there are more than 4 million casual users of cocaine” (70). Buckley goes on to discuss in the article, “Misfire on Drug Policy,” how the laws set up by the Council were meant to decrease the number of drug users, not increase the number of violators.
The War on Drugs in the United States has a profound influence on both the incarceration rates and activities of the criminal justice system. Many politicians and advocates of the policy claim that the War on Drugs is a necessary element to deter criminal behavior and reduce the crime rate. However, studies show that drug deterrent policies on possession and use have been inadequate and unsuccessful (Cole & Gertz, 2013). Studies also show that the War on Drugs has not attained its objectives because the policy exhibits racial discrepancy as it has led to the disproportionate incarceration of Blacks and minorities. Specifically, evidence indicates that the upper class, generally White individuals, is more likely to use powered cocaine while the lower class, generally Blacks and minorities, is more likely to use crack cocaine, but discrepancy exists between the sentencing and punishment for the two forms of cocaine (Cole & Gertz, 2013). Before the Obama Administration passed the Fair Sentencing Act in August of 2012, which reduced the sentencing discrepancy between powered cocaine and crack cocaine to 18 to one, the original sentencing disparity was 100 to one (Davis, 2011). Although recent policies have reduced the population of drug offenders in prison, the War on Drugs has affected the substantial and disproportional increase in incarceration rates and prison populations of Blacks and minorities for drug offenses.
Although president Nixon is thought to be the first initiator of the War on Drugs in America, to many scholars, the amount of damages that are caused by the drug war can be traced to President Reagan’s administration. President Reagan has officially announced the current drug war in 1982. At the time of his announcement, less than 2 % of American public viewed drugs as the most important issues facing this Country (Alexander, 49). But this fact was no disincentive for Reagan, for the drug war from the start had little to do with public concern about drugs and much to do with public concern about race. The Reagan’s administration has gone about a slightly different way of combating drugs than Nixon, waging war on a specific drugs called -- crack
The War on Drugs has not deterred the use or sale of narcotics in this country and has instead only singled out people, defined by their race. Alexander compares the mass incarceration of minorities under harsh treatment by police enforcement and court systems as the new form of the south’s Jim Crow laws. The epidemic of crack cocaine in inner cities that forced Reagan’s hand to begin the Drug War only fueled mass imprisonment of African-Americans when in contradiction, whites and any other racial group for the matter, also engage in such criminal activity. Alexander puts estimates that whites may actually use drugs more frequently in proportion to their population. But the enforcement selectively hurts minorities more frequently than it hurts
In 1971 on June 17, President Richard Nixon delivered a special message to the Congress on drug abuse prevention and control. During the presentation, Nixon made it clear that the United States was at war with this idea of drug abuse. What baffled Americans then, and still baffles Americans today, is that we are at war with our own nation with drugs; it is not some foreign affair like the media tends to focus on with Mexico. Nixon stated that at the time of his speech, what was implemented to control drug abuse was not working…“The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency. I intend to take every step necessary to deal with this emergency, including asking the Congress for an amendment to my 1972 budget to provide an additional $155 million to carry out these steps. This will provide a total of $371 million for programs to control drug abuse in America.”(Wolleey and Peters) Since the publicizing of the term “War on Drugs” in 1971, it has been used by many political candidates in elections over the years. In the movie, it was stated, “ every war begins with propaganda …[and] the war on drugs has never been actually on drugs… [Additionally] drug laws are shaped less by scientific facts, but more by political [reasoning].” (Jarecki) The movie, The House I Live In, directly relates to certain themes and terminology that were discussed in Martin and Nakayama’s Intercultural Communication in Contexts book, that have been used in class. Through the analyzing and comparing of The House I Live In and Intercultural Communication in Contexts an individual can begin to localize the ideals behind this everlasting war on drugs; some ideals focus on terms from the text like ethnocentrism, diversity training, and culture while ...
To fully understand the significance and the seriousness of a War one must first fully understand the reasons that caused it in the first place. In this specific case the solution begins with several important yet seemingly simple questions…What is marijuana? How is it used? And why is it so coveted and widely distributed in Jamaica as well as the rest of the world?… All these questions help clarify the reasoning behind the war on drugs and further investigation shows how Jamaica ends up being an important country in this puzzle as well. Lets begin with the first question, (What is marijuana), of course the dictionary definition is simply put,-a preparation of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa, for use as an intoxicating hallucinogenic drug; applied to a crude preparation of the dried leaves, flowering tops, and stem of the plant that is generally smoked. However, beyond this explanation is what is commonly known as weed, which is simply an alternative to tobacco that results in sensational relaxed feeling that is described as high. This drugs origin can be traced back to ancient days when it was used as a healing supplement to cure several different medical conditions; its been used as a drink as well as an eliminator of menstrual pain and even more ironic marijuana has served as a religious connotation as well. However, the most commonly known usage of marijuana (after its being outlawed in the 1930’s) is as a drug and smoked or consumed by other means.
In the early 1980s, policymakers and law enforcement officials stepped up efforts to combat the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. This was the popular “war on drugs,” hailed by conservatives and liberals alike as a means to restore order and hope to communities and families plagued by anti-social or self-destructive pathologies. By reducing illicit drug use, many claimed, the drug war would significantly reduce the rate of serious nondrug crimes - robbery, assault, rape, homicide and the like. Has the drug war succeeded in doing so?