Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
War on drugs, the effect
The war on drugs and its effect on society
Conflict theory on the american war on drugs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: War on drugs, the effect
While the War on Drugs may have been portrayed as a colorblind movement, Nixon’s presidency and reasoning for its implementation solidifies that it was not. Nixon coined the term “War on Drugs” in his 1971 anti-drug campaign speech, starting the beginning of an era. He voiced, “If there is one area where the word ‘war’ is appropriate, it is in the fights against crime” (DuVernay, 13th). This terminology solidified to the public that drug abusers were an enemy, and if the greatest publicized abusers were black, then black people were then enemy. This “war” started by Nixon claimed it would rid the nation of dealers, but in fact, 4/5 of arrests were for possession only (Alexander, 60). Nixon employed many tactics in order to advance the progress …show more content…
One aspect of financial incentives lay in the concept of forfeiture. Law enforcement agencies were granted authority to keep the bulk of cash and assets seized when making arrests, which allowed the drug war’s perpetual existence. The drug market then needed to be profitable and successful so that police forces could make money (Alexander, 78-79). A person could be found innocent of a crime and their property could still be subjected to seizure, and “those who were targeted were typically poor or of moderate means, lacking the resources to hire an attorney or pay the considerable court costs” (79). Ultimately, this process was highly lucrative for police. Those with assets could buy their freedom, while those who lacked financial means were subject to arrest. Additionally, there was no real justification for many of the raids. For example, some officers took as little as 93 cents in raids, even though by no means could that amount be considered drug money (82). Property could also be considered “guilty”. For example, a woman who knew her husband sometimes smoked marijuana could have her car forfeited since she allowed him to use her car (83). Unfortunately, forfeiture cases are left unchallenged 90% of the time, since the primary targets of this practice cannot afford lawyers to fight the case. Additionally, federal funding to police departments provided incentives for police arrests in the drug war. Law enforcement agencies that made drug-law top priority were given large sums of money, leading to competitions between departments and higher arrest rates (Alexander, 74). And not only cash assets, but military equipment was doled out by the Pentagon to local police departments in hopes that it would increase arrest rates
The war on drug not only change the structure of the criminal justice system, it also change the ways that police officers, prosecutors and judges do their jobs. Even worse, the way politicians address crime. The tough stand on drugs started during the Nixon presidency, most of the resources was focus on medical treatment rather than punishment. Although it was a better strategy and alternative than the drug war policies that exist today, it was a very divisive issue between the conservatives and the liberals. The war on drug ignited during the Reagan administration, two third of the financial resources were being spent on law enforcement. In addition, the end of the cold war left the United States with weaponry and resources that needed to be repurposed. As a result, small town were given high power grade artilleries and weaponry, and means to form specialized tactical units such as SWAT teams in case of unusual event. To maintain and justify the need for these new expenditures, SWAT teams are used in any drug warran...
However, the main motive of the War on Drugs was to prevent a population of people from their legal rights as citizens. People believe that drug abuse was starting to rise when the drug war was issued. Michelle Alexander points out, in the chapter “The Lockdown” from The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness that “Drug use and abuse is nothing new; in fact, it was on the decline, not on the rise when the War on Drugs began” (72). Alexander explains that the War on Drugs wasn’t started because of the ‘sudden rise of drug abuse’ but rather a different reason. The motive of the start of the War on Drugs was for income for many agencies to confiscate the goods and income that the incarcerated person had in possession. Understanding the actual motive is important because the War on Drugs needs to be further researched before people fully accept it as something that is helping everyone. Mass incarceration is the hidden motive under the War on Drugs and many people believe that the prosecutors are given fair and equal rights when facing a jury trial for their crimes. It’s common that it’s not the case and many times they are lead to plead guilty and often lose their rights to vote as well as having to ‘mark a box’ that labels them as a felon. Nearly all applications have the felon question. It leads many people who are trying to get their lives back together after going to prison nearly impossible. Many can’t affording housing and their families are skeptical on allowing them to live with them. Few can still get back on their feet after being prosecuted and released from prison, but it’s
“[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.
Woolley, John T., and Gerhard Peters. "Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control." The American Presidency Project. The American Presidency Project, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
The war on drugs, a war made invisible to society, but one of the most destructive wars in our nation today.Politician’s call it a successful proposition for the nation, following the motto- go hard or go home,Politician's Increasing the sentencing of drug related crimes by the hour, Law enforcements cleaning up the streets.Locking up every drug offender that cross their paths. Politicians and law enforcements making the war on drugs a number one priority for our nation's wealth and safety.Politicians believing these method will teach the drug offenders a lesson and stop corrupting our streets. Government official’s call it a successful investment for our country.More prisons systems mean more employment opportunities for our government employees. Its a win win situation ,employment increase and drug offenders are off the streets. you would think?
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.
The economy, in most countries, is the number one priority. A country’s prosperity is judged on its economic value and the amount of capital that it acquires. Bringing more funds into the police force will give the economy a boost in many different ways. First, funding the force will create many new jobs. “In San Juan and Carolina, Puerto Rico, the federal government provided money for the police force which created over 118,000 new jobs that involve law enforcement” (Walsh). The majority of people agree that creating jobs leads to a much greater economy and can help to get money into the hands of the poor who can not find work. Karen Dillon, a former police chief, stat...
In 1971 Nixon claimed that drug addicts/Dealers steal more than $2 billion worth of property every year. The FBI however the total value of all property stolen in the United States that year was $1.3 billion which was still a big deal anyway .Despite all these kinds of problems, fighting drugs became a crucial weapon in the war on crime.with
The argument over drug reform and the current prohibition has been going on for years. It seems to be an argument between a wise parent and a young teenager, but as generations change more and more of the parents seem to switch sides. While prohibitionists say the mainstream drugs like cocaine, heroin, LSD, and marijuana are harmful and immoral, legalizers argue the opposite (Rachels 223). While they are both valid and interesting arguments the drugs named above still remain illegal. Many organizations and respected citizens have come to America’s attention in their support for drug reform or complete legalization of certain drugs. These people range from normal citizens who support the recreational use of marijuana to judges and ex- law enforcement agents who say the war on drugs has been a failure. The drug issue in the United States of America has been going on for years with the counterculture of the sixties up until the more recent medicinal marijuana debates today, and it seems that it is not going to go away anytime soon.
The war on drugs began with the presidential term of President Nixon in the 1970s. According to drugpolicy.org, “He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs.”
The “War on Drugs” is the name given to the battle of prohibition that the United States has been fighting for over forty years. And it has been America’s longest war. The “war” was officially declared by President Richard Nixon in the 1970’s due to the abuse of illegitimate drugs. Nixon claimed it as “public enemy number one” and enacted laws to fight the importation of narcotics. The United States’ War on Drugs began in response to cocaine trafficking in the late 1980’s. As the war continues to go on, winning it hardly seems feasible. As stated by NewsHour, the National Office of Drug Control Policy spends approximately nineteen billion dollars a year trying to stop the drug trade. The expenses shoot up, indirectly, through crime, hospital stays and such. However, people spend approximately three times as much money buying drugs as the government spends fighting against them. How can this war be won when the government has to spend so much money combating in opposition to it??
There are more people in prison and jails today just for drug offenses than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980. The absence of significant constraints on the exercise of police discretion is a key feature of the drug war’s design. It has made the roundup of millions of Americans for nonviolent drug offenses relatively easy. Furthermore so long as a police officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity and dangerous, it is constitutionally permissible to stop, question, and frisk them even in the absence of probable cause. Police officers also have the habit of following vehicles in the hopes that they make an illegal drive procedure so they may stop them. The average person feels obligated to let the police
The War on Drugs, as previously stated, was first introduced by Nixon and reinforced by its preceding presidents. It is a campaign that was launched in 1971, by President Richard Nixon during his time in office, but was not enacted into full force until the 80s when Ronald Reagan was in office. Between 1980 and 1984, FBI anti-drug funding went from eight million to 95 million dollars. During the same time, funding for treatment and prevention was reduced (Florio 2016). As a result, convictions for drug offenses, after the announcement of the War on Drugs, are the single most important cause of the explosion of incarceration rates in the United States (Alexander 2012:60). That is to say that if the War on Drugs was not introduced and reinforced following Nixon, the United State’s prison system could have avoided mass incarceration, exceptionally for people of color. To illustrate, nothing has contributed more to the systematic mass incarceration of people of color in the United States than the War on Drugs (Alexander 2012:60). Sadly, it is more than obvious that it appears that the War on Drugs was a certain phenomenon that was distinctly formulated to target individuals of color. Although the War on Drugs was in reality created to diminish the drugs and punish those that were located with them, it did absolutely the opposite. Few would guess that the
During the late 1800's, the United States changed their methodical approach to drug policy. During this era, the US moved away from the practice of laissez-faire to one that is more authoritarian. Many will call this policy shift the start to the "War on Drugs". The(is) so-called "War on Drugs" started to shift the current population away from crime, dependence, and toxicity. On November 15, 1875, San Francisco implemented the nation's first anti-drug law.
Not only has the drug war failed to reduce violent and property crime, but, by shifting criminal justice resources (the police, courts, prisons, probation officers, etc.) away from directly fighting such crime, the drug war has put citizens’ lives and property at greater risk, Benson and Rasmussen contend. “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 have to be sacrificed.” To support this conclusion, Benson and Rasmussen compare data on drug law enforcement and crime trends between states, and debunk numerous misconceptions about drug use and criminality.