Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: global drug policy
Introduction The US has a complex patch that has been demonstrated in its framework and enforcement practices that are associated with drug laws. A number of federal and state policies have been formulated that sometimes seem to overlap hence giving rise to a number of conflicts among the different level of governments. This essay will explore and demonstrate the federal drug policy that the US Federal Government is designing and the issues of federalism that the policy raises. The US Drug Policy The current US drug control policy has a big concern for the drug abuse context and the general public health especially due to the fact that it is being to young Americans. According to Gaines $ Miller (2010 p.383), the drug prevention is incorporated in form of three elements and has been put under the White House Office, National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Priorities of ONDCP Termination of drug use before initiation; this focuses on preventing use of drugs and is done by research based programs Focus on providing heals and treatment to America’s drug users and abusers. This involves programs that are of intervention and drug abuse nature which aim on sustainable recovery of drug users and provision of after care. The third focus is to unsettle the drug market. This is done by attacking the supply side of the drugs History The history of drug use dates back to the 19th century during the US Civil War. This saw a number of policies being introduced and by the year 1898, heroine was inaccessible. The next drugs that were targeted were alcohol and by the year 1906, the US Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act (PFDA) to help stop the use of such drugs. The next drug that was targeted was opium and an act was passed in 1909 to ban... ... middle of paper ... ... states have done this although in different ways. This however does not mean that the national government has been left from a constitutional perspective as it must turn to the “equal protections” clause to claim a clearer and broad mandate for action. However, it seems the Drug Policy is left open for debate. Conclusion Policymaking in federal system is fraught with challenges. The Constitution is vague on how the federal government and the national government are to share their responsibilities. There has been an ongoing challenge to sort out roles and responsibilities as far as drug regulation is concerned. However, in spite of the complexity, the federal system provides opportunities for participation by citizens and government officials. As a result, we can have a successful policy making benefits from broad participation of all involved stakeholders.
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
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
Lately it seems that drug policy and the war on drugs has been in the headlines quite a lot. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies that the United States government takes against illegal drugs are coming into question. The mainstream media is catching on to the message of organizations and individuals who have long been considered liberal "Counter Culture" supporters. The marijuana question seems to be the most prevalent and pressed of the drugs and issues that are currently being addressed. The messages of these organizations and individuals include everything from legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, to full-unrestricted legalization of the drug. Of course, the status quo of vote seeking politicians and conservative policy makers has put up a strong resistance to this "new" reform lobby. The reasons for the resistance to the changes in drug policies are multiple and complex. The issues of marijuana’s possible negative effects, its use as a medical remedy, the criminality of distribution and usage, and the disparity in the enforcement of current drug laws have all been brought to a head and must be addressed in the near future. It is apparent that it would be irresponsible and wrong for the government to not evaluate it’s current general drug policies and perhaps most important, their marijuana policy. With the facts of racial disparity in punishment, detrimental effects, fiscal strain and most importantly, the history of the drug, the government most certainly must come to the conclusion that they must, at the very least, decriminalize marijuana use and quite probably fully legalize it.
However, before the specific outcomes of Congressional influence and policy impact can be evaluated it becomes important to first review the general history and current situation of drugs today. Our present drug laws were first enacted at the beginning of the century. At the time, recreational use of narcotics was not a major social issue. The first regulatory legislation was for the purpose of standardizing the manufacturing and purity of pharmaceutical products. Shortly after, the first criminal laws were enacted which addressed opium products and cocaine. Although some states had prohibited the recreational use of marijuana, there was no federal criminal legislation until 1937. By contrast, the use of alcohol and its legality was a major social issue in United States in the early 20th century. This temperance movement culminated in the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. Recreational drug use, particularly heroin, became more prevalent among the urban poor during the early ?60s. Because of the high cost of heroin and its uncertain purity, its use was associated with crime and frequent overdoses.
Illicit drug use and the debate surrounding the various legal options available to the government in an effort to curtail it is nothing new to America. Since the enactment of the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914 (Erowid) the public has struggled with how to effectively deal with this phenomena, from catching individual users to deciding what to do with those who are convicted (DEA). Complicating the issue further is the ever-expanding list of substances available for abuse. Some are concocted in basements or bathtubs by drug addicts themselves, some in the labs of multinational pharmaceutical companies, and still others are just old compounds waiting for society to discover them.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (2009). Preventing Drug Abuse: The Best Strategy . Retrieved October 21, 2011, from http://www.nida.nih.gov/scienceofaddiction/strategy.html
The legal prohibition on most psychoactive drugs has been in place in this country for the better part of a century. This policy of prohibition, however, has never been based on reason or careful consideration, but on the paranoia of a small segment of society and the indifferent willingness of the majority to accept this vocal minority’s claims without question. Outlawing any use of a particular drug is a violation of the basic freedom of individuals to act as they please in their private lives. However, even if one does not accept this belief, an objective analysis of the United States’ history of prohibition clearly shows that attempts to enforce this policy have done far more harm than good, and have utterly failed to control behavior in the intended manner.
The following is a summary of the President’s policy emphasizing on the President’s stated objectives. Stopping drug use before it starts, providing drug treatment, and attacking the economic basis of the drug trade are the main positions the President stressed. The President’s policy was analyzed by the important tasks played by law enforcement, schools and the community. The apprehension of major drug organizations will be explained how they attribute to the policy. The effectiveness of the President’s drug policy will also be evaluated.
President Reagan established the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) following the passage of the Anti-Abuse Act of 1988 amidst mounting risk of drug dependence becoming more pervasive in American workplaces and schools. The legislation established the need for the federal government to make a good-faith effort in maintaining drug-free work places, schools, and drug abuse and rehabilitation programs for many users (Eddy, 2005). The early focus for the ONDCP’s was to curb the rising drug threat emanating from the drug cartels operating throughout South America, in...
Gerdes, Louise I., ed. At Issue: Legalizing Drugs. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 2001. Print.
“Prevent.” The Partnership at Drugfree.org. The Partnership at Drugfree.org, 2011. Web. 18 Dec. 2011. .
The drug policy “War on Drugs” implemented by the criminal justice system the in United States has failed to address the war with the use of drugs in America. The United States of America has fought for over a century, and four presidents have staged this war that has yet to produce significant results. It is a war that the US was losing and drug abusers were all over hospitals, courts, and prisons. The use of drugs has ended in violent crimes that have always resulted into damaging neighborhoods in this country, and many children have been lost and abandoned due to drug abuse (Friman, 2008).
America’s modern “war on drugs” was officially kicked off in 1971 during a press conference with president Nixon. Among other things, Nixon declared drugs to be America’s number one enemy and the phrase the “war on drugs” was born. The size and presence of federal drug control agencies dramatically increased during Nixon’s presidency. It would also prove to be the only time in our country’s history of fighting drug use that the bulk of the federal funding for this initiative was spent on demand reduction and treatment-based approaches rather than on punitive and supply control methods (Thirty). Both prior to and since this period, America’s drug policies have always taken a decidedly different course. In recent years such policies have come
In the United States, there is a remarkable diversity of policies at state and local levels. Currently, 13 states have decriminalized use or possession of cannabis, and 16 states have recognized medical use of cannabis, with some states opting for both policies. Due to legislative and voter initiatives, the overview of state and local control policies is constantly changing, generally toward more lenient control regimes. A major gap is emerging, where in many countries strict drug control legislation has impeded access to and availability of essential medicines such as morphine, methadone or ephedrine, in other countries pharmaceutical painkillers are generating the most problematic patterns of nonmedical drug use, replacing heroin. And recently, a new
Drug abuse has been a hot topic for our society due to how stimulants interfere with health, prosperity, and the lives of others in all nations. All drugs have the potential to be misapplied, whether obtained by prescription, over the counter, or illegally. Drug abuse is a despicable disease that affects many helpless people. Majority of those who are beset with this disease go untreated due to health insurance companies who neglect and discriminate this issue. As an outcome of missed opportunities of treatments, abusers become homeless, very ill, or even worst, death.