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.
3.3 UK Drug Policy: where are we now
Although the UK already took a prohibitionist stance towards many psychoactive substances prior to this, for example the Dangerous Drugs Act 1920, the MDA consolidated, much of this earlier legislation, and introduced some important changes, whilst creating a more heavily committed model of prohibition backed by higher law enforcement and punishment (Gossop, 2000). Other than some minor changes that we aim to explore further, this piece of legislation still largely remains the staple of the UK’s approach to substance misuse. The act claims that “It shall be the duty of the Advisory Council to keep under review the situation in the United Kingdom with respect to drugs which are being or appear to them
…show more content…
It states that it sets out to achieves this by imposing a complete ban on the possession, supply, manufacture, the import and export of controlled drugs except as allowed by regulations or by licence from the Secretary of State. It was hoped, that by doing so drug misuse and the societal problems associated with it can not only be prevented, but in the long-term almost eradicated (Gossop, 2000). For the first time the legislation broke down illegal substances into three categories of A, B, C (See appendix 1 for table). The basis for the classification system in the MDA is intended to be the harmfulness and danger that is associated with each type of controlled drug. Therefore, the punishment received would be respectable to the classification of the drug one possessed, for example, an individual caught in possession of a class A substance such as heroin could face upwards of 7 years in prison (see appendix 1). However, the Act does not give a criteria of harm or dangerousness by which they may be judged. This leaves a gap that has been filled with repeated debates over how harm should be defined, on which drugs are more harmful and about why the controlled drugs should be treated no differently to two licit drugs, alcohol and tobacco, each of which cause more mortality and morbidity than all the controlled drugs combined (Reuter & Stevens, 2007). As shown with the disparities in sentencing for
6. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drugs-law/Class-a-b-c/, article title: ?Class A,B and C drugs?, by the home office, accessed 12th June 2008.
We live in a “recreational drug culture”, with the current criminalization of illicit drugs being driven by the common but not entirely universally accepted assumption that negative externalities will instead be placed in on society. Addressing the seemingly ever-infinite "war on drugs", in "Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use", Douglas Husak argues in favour of the decriminalization of drugs in terms of not criminalizing the use of such recreational drugs. In this paper, I will dispute that Kusak 's argument succeeds because of the lack of justification for prohibition, and the counterproductiveness and how numerically evident the ineffectiveness of these contemporary punitive policies are.
“[The war on drugs] has created a multibillion-dollar black market, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of government officials throughout the world,” noted Eric Schlosser in his essay, “A People’s Democratic Platform”, which presents a case for decriminalizing controlled substances. Government policies regarding drugs are more focused towards illegalization rather than revitalization. Schlosser identifies a few of the crippling side effects of the current drug policy put in place by the Richard Nixon administration in the 1970s to prohibit drug use and the violence and destruction that ensue from it (Schlosser 3). Ironically, not only is drug use as prevalent as ever, drug-related crime has also become a staple of our society. In fact, the policy of the criminalization of drugs has fostered a steady increase in crime over the past several decades. This research will aim to critically analyze the impact of government statutes regarding drugs on the society as a whole.
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 Australia the Government uses three methods to tackle drugs; Demand reduction, supply reduction and harm minimization. Needle and syringe programs are under harm minimization category. Supply reduction is focused on drug dealers and drug makers and is brought about by law enforcement. In the Demand reduction method it is tried to decrease the number of people taking drugs through anti-drug advertisements and campaigns, legislation, rehabilitation centers. On the other hand harm minimization recognizes the fact that drugs can never be eradicated fro...
“Based on the 2011 final report of the New Zealand Law Commission, and following consultations with the industry, the new approach aims to balance the demand for access to such substances with the risk of likely harm to individuals and society” (EMCDDA 4). It is important that if we were to legalize such substances, we be sure take proper precautions. New Zealand has set the age limit to 18 and the drugs are not to be sold in convenience stores or places selling alcohol. Any drug legalized goes through extensive testing. In order for this legalization to be beneficial to communities and the society in general, it needs to be kept
America's War on Drugs: Policy and Problems. In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis, I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed.
Contrary to popular belief, when the Dutch parliament revised the country's drug laws in 1976, it did not actually legalize any narcotic substances. Rather, it separated illegal drugs into two distinct categories: drugs with unacceptable health risks (such as heroin and cocaine), which were classified as "hard drugs,” and drugs with a lesser medical risk (such as cannabis), which were classified as "soft drugs" (Bransten, para. 3). The Dutch Parliament then decided to decriminalize soft drugs.
Nadelmann, Ethan. "DRUGS: THINK AGAIN." European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies. Sept.-Oct. 2007. Web. 02 Mar. 2011. .
The war on drugs and the violence that comes with it has always brought around a hot debate about drug legalization. The amount of violence that is associated with drugs is a result from harsher drug laws and prohibition.
The National Drug Control Strategy was issued two years ago to reduce drug use among teenagers and adults. The success of the President’s drug policy can be measured by its results. The student drug testing approach has reduced drug use and discouraged first time users significantly. Communities have been more actively involved in anti-drug programs for youth and adults. The increase in budget for law enforcement will enhance their effectiveness in detaining drug lords and cartels.
In Douglas Husak’s essay titled “Three Points About Drug Decriminalization”, Husak argues that use of drugs should not be considered a criminal offense. He says that there is a plausible explanation to why it should not be criminalized. By “decriminalization” the author means that the use of a given drug should not be a criminal offense. He emphasizes on how the meaning of decriminalizing can differ and how he is looking for alternatives to punishment and not just different mode of punishments. His claim is that if the production and selling of drugs is banned and not possession or using, then it would be decriminalization of drugs.
Over the last decade, Southwest border violence has elevated into a national security concern. Much of the violence appears to stem from the competing growth and distribution networks that many powerful Mexican drug cartels exercise today. The unfortunate byproduct of this criminality reaches many citizens of the Mexican border communities in the form of indiscriminate street gang shootings, stabbings, and hangings which equated to approximately 6,500 deaths in 2009 alone (AllGov, 2012). That same danger which now extends across the border regions of New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California has the potential for alarming escalation. Yet, despite the violence, evermore-brazen behavior continues to grow, as does America’s appetite for drugs. Even though drug-related violence mandates that law enforcement agencies focus on supply reduction, the Office of National Drug Control Policy should shift its present policy formulation efforts to only drug demand reduction because treatment and prevention efforts are inadequate and strategy has evolved little over the last three decades.
The current situation of drug control in the United States is imperfect and inadequate. Millions of men and women, both young and old, are affected by illicit drug use. It costs the United States about $6,123 every second because of drug use and its consequences (Office). Moreover, 90 percent of all adults with a substance use disorder started using under the age of 18 and half under the age of 15. Children who first smoke marijuana under the age of 14 are five times more likely to abuse drugs as adults than those who first use marijuana at age 18. Finally, the children of alcoholics are four times more likely to develop problems with alcohol (Prevent). Current legislation that has to do with the United States’ drug control policy is the Controlled Substances Act, which regulates the manufacture, importation, possession, use, and distribution of certain substances (Shannon). In 1966, Congress passed the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act also known as the NARA. This legislati...
When it comes to fighting the war against drugs it has come to our attention that for more than fifty years since the war on drugs was declared, the other international laws like those of human rights and public health have been continuously absent and are viewed as irritative by many UN agencies and governments (War on drugs report 2011). Human rights abuses associated with drug control policies present in different countries are not just perpetrated by the individual governments but by the drug control system itself (Joanne Csete p.1). The drug control system by its aims, current operation, interpretation and implementation of the policies makes the abuses more likely to happen. It is evident that the system focus their energy and every other resources on illicit manufacture or production etc. while intentionally avoiding to combat important but controversial issues just to preserve their international consensus. Therefore, it is right to say that human rights abuses associated with drug control policies are systematic in its nature, that is the drug control system itself is the one that is causing the abuse of other international laws and if a stop is to be made to these abuses, there must be an immediate attempt to resolve the institutional weaknesses and gaps in the international drug control regime itself (Barret Damon).