“What has the War on Drugs done to the world?” Asked by the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, Ethan Nadelmann. He made his argument at the TEDGlobal in 2014, his presentation is titled “Why we need to end the War on Drugs”. His Talk is about the War on Drugs and how we should change our views toward drugs. That our drug policies is tainted by fear and not by people’s health. According to Nadelmann “the world is losing the War on Drugs and that the probation of drugs did not help with the crisis. That we need to turn our backs on the failed probation of the past and embrace new drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights. Nadelmann is determined and compassionate about his movement, that the audience had an emotional …show more content…
He didn’t mention that he is the founder of the organization and the movement that he is fighting so hard for, but its mention in his autobiography. Not stating that he found Drug Policy Alliance, can make him seem as a random human right activist that love drugs. But he isn't some random dude, he wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on international drug control and interviewed hundreds of DEA and other law enforcement agents in Europe and the Americas, about what they think is causing all the drug war. He also meets people who have lost someone to drug-related violence, prison, overdosed, or by AIDS, because our drug policies emphasize criminalization, over health. His organization helps people with drug-related activities and it also helped legalization of medical use of marijuana. His personal experience of helping people with drug problems increased his credibility. His determination of pursuing the answer of “ What have the War on drugs have done to the world”, makes him credible and aware of the issues that drugs have done to the …show more content…
“Where there is a demand, there will be supply. And if you knock out one source, another will emerge.” Stating that the drug market is like any other market, it's implying that the drug market is a multi-million dollars business and it’s nothing to mess with. Giving the audience information about how big drug business really is and how they have the power and the money to cause mayhem to the world, shows how much info he knows about the War on Drugs. Nadelmann had a lack of visual aid he didn’t use it at all to help his argument. He could have shown the pictures of people using drugs, dying by drugs, he could have even shown pictures of piles of drugs being smuggled to the U.S and even the destruction of cartels and drug kingpin have done to the world. But he didn’t show any of it and maybe he didn’t it have to, it could've hurt his argument that drugs should be
In one portion of the documentary, we see an excerpt from one of President Richard Nixon’s speeches on how he feels about America’s ongoing battle with drug abuse. In the speech, he declared that this so called “war” with drug addiction needed to be handled while proclaiming that drug abuse was “America’s public enemy number one”. Years later, the war on drugs has only become even more of a controversial issue in the United States with the consequences spanning and reaching particular groups and hinting that they are more so involved than others.
Kids start being introduced to drugs at a very young age because the first interaction with them is being told not to do any of them. Most kids have no idea what drugs are until this program is introduced in elementary schools telling kids not to do drugs. In “There’s No Justice in the War on Drugs”, Milton Friedman talks about the injustice of drugs and the harsh reality of being addicted to drugs, and the causes or side effects that come along with them. The author clearly argues the “war on drugs” and uses analysis and data to prove his argument. The author agrees that the use of government to keep kids away from drugs should be enforced, but the use of government to keep adults away from drugs, should not be enforced. The author has a clear side of his argument and the audience can clearly see that. He argues against the “war on drugs” claim that President Richard M. Nixon made twenty-five years ago, he adds ethos, logos, and pathos to defend his argument, and uses a toulmin
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.
Concerned authorities have focused essentially on criminalization and punishment, to find remedies to the ever-increasing prevalent drug problem. In the name of drug reducing policies, authorities endorse more corrective and expensive drug control methods and officials approve stricter new drug war policies, violating numerous human rights. Regardless of or perhaps because of these efforts, UN agencies estimate the annual revenue generated by the illegal drug industry at $US400 billion, or the equivalent of roughly eight per cent of total international trade (Riley 1998). This trade has increased organized/unorganized crime, corrupted authorities and police officials, raised violence, disrupted economic markets, increased risk of diseases an...
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
Initially, the organization was funded by a single donor who is credited as its founder, actor and producer Paul Walker. ...
Many people who sell drugs are people whom don’t want to live in poverty and have no other means to get food on the table. Ricky Ross is a great example of this since he himself said that he would have never imagined becoming a drug dealer and actually wanted to be a cop or a firefighter growing up. However, he needed a way to get food on the table without having to steal it from stores and get himself out of poverty. When crack cocaine hit the streets and was being advertised on every new media outlet as being the cheapest and strongest drug out there and people should stay away from it, he got into the drug business and started using marketing tactics and making turning himself into something of a person to look up to on the streets because of his success. Several people throughout the film said that the war on poverty was replaced with the war on drugs and the war on drugs is America’s last hope in combating poverty and those who live in poverty. Drugs come from poverty because it inspires crime and thus reducing confidence and pride in low income areas. It is also known that the war on drugs give people the power to sell drugs in particular neighborhoods, where it is harder for the people in the city to keep drug dealing from being done out in the open and paraphernalia from littering the streets thus making it a norm so drug dealers can go to these areas know they’ll get
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.
Men like Nixon and Reagan had a tough mentality, while Clinton and Carter were a little more lenient (Parenti). Some targeted the suppliers, some targeted the consumers, and others targeted both. One of the key faults in the War on Drugs has been targeting consumers. People are going to take drugs no matter what. In order to reduce mass incarceration, the government must stop targeting and focusing on punishing the consumers of drugs. In 2005, four out of five drug arrests were for mere possession, and the vast majority of those offenders had no history of violence (Alexander). Targeting consumers of drugs is completely detrimental to the War on Drugs. You aren’t removing the problem by getting rid of the consumers. Instead you are putting a lot of people who have never committed a violent crime into a system surrounded by hardened criminals who truly deserve to be away from society and in prison. Prison is not a safe place. After a few months or years in prison, you become accustomed to prison norms, full of aggression and violence. People who simply got caught in possession of a drug are interacting and living with rapists and murderers. 77 percent of drug offenders would be arrested again (Crimeinamerica). Putting drug addicts and users in prison doesn’t solve the problem, but only enhances it. The point attempted to be made here is not to abolish drug laws for consumers,
When societies finally become comfortable with reality, they begin to abandon the murderous laws that impede their growth. Currently, the social stigma and legislated morality regarding the use of illicit drugs yield perhaps the most destructive effects on American society. Drug laws have led to the removal of non-violent citizens from society- either directly by incarceration or indirectly by death - which is genocidal in quantity and essence. I base my support of the decriminalization of all drugs on a principle of human rights, but the horror and frustration with which I voice this support is based on practicality. The most tangible effect of the unfortunately labeled "Drug War" in the United States is a prison population larger than Russia's and China's, and an inestimable death toll that rivals the number of American casualties from any given war, disease or catastrophe.
It is also very important for people to know about this topic because the issue is not only about drugs but also the growth of inequality between the rich and poor, black and white, upper class and lower class in this country. The war of drugs deals with issues about why they were passed through congress and if there were motives that deals connect directly to black communities. The issues where brought about in Dan Baum book entitled “Smoke and Mirrors” where John Erlichmann, the chief domestic affair advisor talk about how the Drug War fever has been escalated and manipulated from its modest beginnings at the start of the Nixon administration and clarifies the various interests which that escalation has served. He talks about the Drug War on “blacks” and “hippies” but politicians could not say that so had to say the War on “heroin” and “Marijuana”. He also said that “We knew drugs were not the health problem we were making it out to be, but there were political benefits to be gained." This shows that there is more to the war of drugs that the government is letting on.
For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.
Some people feel like by doing that she is feeding the addiction of the addicts, but her main concern is the kids that get affected by the drugs. She gets the support of a few wealthy donors that think her organization is a smart idea. She also gets hate from some programs that don’t agree with what she is doing and don’t believe in her cause. In this article there are a few ethical dilemmas that are explained throughout the article.
Wolf, M. (2011, June 4). We should declare an end to our disastrous war on drugs. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.consortiumlibrary.org/docview/870200965?accountid=14473
“Getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on nondrug crime,” they write. “When a decision is made to wage a ‘war on drugs,’ other things that criminal justice resources might do have to be sacrificed.”