Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
War on drugs as national security
The new Jim Crow
The importance of incarceration
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: War on drugs as national security
The War on Drugs is believed to help with many problems in today’s society such as realizing the rise of crime rates and the uprooting of violent offenders and drug kingpin. Michelle Alexander explains that the War on Drugs is a new way to control society much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. There are many misconceptions about the War on Drugs; commonly people believe that it’s helping society with getting rid of those who are dangerous to the general public. The War on Drugs is similar to Jim Crow by hiding the real intention behind Mass Incarceration of people of color. The War on Drugs is used to take away rights of those who get incarcerated. When they plead guilty, they will lose their right to vote and have to check application …show more content…
boxes that say they’re a felon. Jim Crow was used after the Civil War to prevent African Americans from their legal rights as newly announced citizens of the United States. Jim Crow continued to make African Americans slaves under laws that they had supposedly broken. The War on Drugs is being used as a mass incarceration on people of color and lower class, this stereotyping on them is leading to people of color and minorities’ legal rights as citizens being withheld. The War on Drugs uses methods of stereotyping colored people and minorities to fulfill the government’s desires and needs. Commonly, law enforcement are racially bias against people of color as well as the lower class of people by claiming they’re all criminals. They will go into certain neighborhoods to search the area for any small amount of drug use happening. News stations tend to be the most racially bias towards people of color, often describing them as less that white people. Many times two different races are described in different ways or thought of being something different for similar offences. It is stereotypically thought that many black men don’t have enough commitment and tend to leave their children at young ages. Alexander brings forward, in the chapter “The New Jim Crow” that “Hundreds of thousands of black men are unable to be good fathers for their children, not because of a lack of commitment or desire but because they are warehoused in prisons, locked in cages. They did not walk out on their families voluntarily; they were taken away in handcuffs, often due to a massive federal program known as the War on Drugs” (180). Alexander is uncovering that, despite people’s assumptions for the reasons behind a lack of a black father figure in a child’s life, the father didn’t choose to leave and was taken to jail because of a minor offence that he committed. This is important to see that the War on Drugs are hurting families and often leaving kids without one or both of their biological parental figures. It’s believed that people who cycle in and out of prison are violent offenders. In some cases, it’s true, but not all cases. Many people are taken to prison for minor drug offences, often possession. Many of them are shown nothing by cruelty. Alexander explains in “The Cruel Hand” that “A wallet could be mistaken for a gun” (141). She mentions this because many innocent people are prosecuted and shot for being believed to have a gun. People who manage to get out of prison “… do their best to survive, even thrive – against all odds” (144). They try to live normally after being released from prison. It’s hard to get back up on their feet because of all of the applications that require someone to check the felony box. It’s important to understand what other classes and people go through. Some people may not realize what’s happening in the governmental system and some continue to willingly follow such systems. If people were to realize that people who cycle out of prison usually go back because they are unable to survive on their own with the oppression that they face and need to get past to start barely living as a citizen again. The War on Drugs is being used to control the population much like Jim Crow did. The drug war is told as a war on the communities that sell drugs.
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
difficult. Mass incarceration is hidden behind the well-known title of the War on Drugs. It stereotypes people to convict them of felonies and to prevent people of color and the lower class of their rights as citizens. The War on Drugs also makes it nearly impossible for prisoners to ever fully leave prison and become living people again. If individuals were to research more on the laws of the War on Drugs, they may understand more about how the drug war is breaking up families and hurting citizens of America. Many of the misconceptions that people believe about the War on Drugs keep it from losing the profits that the government is making from other people’s loss of rights. It also utilizes certain people over others much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. The New Jim Crow is better known as the War on Drugs by preventing people their rights much like Jim Crow did in the eighties after the Civil War. It stereotypes and give people misconceptions about the War on Drugs to continue its funding. The New Jim Crow is used to prevent certain people from their legal rights as citizens by giving the government a reason to remove what they deserve as citizens. If more people become aware of what the drug war really does, then the New Jim Crow will no longer have as much power as it does now.
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
... Furthermore, the war on drugs creates a path dependency through economic interests. The policies allow the government to seize users and dealers property. In addition, some states sell bonds to build prisons and the state has deals with the companies that provide services to the inmates. The drug war is the New Jim Crow because it empowers the state with the tools to target, and denies African Americans civil rights, citizenship, and justice in the pretext of elaborate criminal changes that serve as a means to furthermore disenfranchise African Americans.
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
When it comes to the topic of war on drugs,most of us will readily agree that the war on drugs is not about the drugs But about the people. Many Politicians and law enforcement will argue that the war on drugs is about our nation's wealth and safety.however they don't see the destruction the war on drugs has caused; The war on drugs has recreated this new system of discrimination among the minority community, individuals and communities are being profiled,their rights as citizen are being seized ,individuals being stripped away from their families. They’re being locked up with no hope to live the American dream in their our country.
The film, American Drug War: The Last White Hope was directed by Kevin Booth. He lost four close people who were addicted to alcohol, nicotine and prescription pain killers. Through this film he portrayed how the war on drugs in the United States is a way for those in power and on wall street to profit meanwhile incarcerating the poor people who sell to get food on the table or are addicted to drugs. President Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency and the scheduling of drugs eventually declaring a war on drugs. Since his presidency the American government has been in a state of war on the fight against illegal drug use. There has been no advancements in this war, if anything the drugs are winning. It was stated in the film that there are
In reality, the war had little to do with drug crime and a lot to do with racial politics. The drug war was part of a strategy used by the government. The President identified drug abuse as a national threat. Therefore, they called for a national anti-drug policy, the policy began pushing for the involvement of the police force and military in drug prohibition efforts. The government did believe that blacks or minorities were a cause of the drug problem.
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.
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).
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.
Alexander focuses on the War on Drugs to illustrate the drug war affects millions in today’s society. Although many will argue that the purpose of the War on Drugs is to protect society, Alexander utilizes facts and statistics to prove that this notion is false. First, the majority of those arrested are not charged with a serious offense. Alexander states, “In 2005, for example, four out of five drug arrests were for possession, and only one out of five was for sales”. This statistic illustrates that the drug war does help the nation get rid of big-time dealers. The only thing that the War on Drugs has achieved is the significant increase in the number of people incarcerated in the United States. From 1980 to 2000, the number of incarcerated individuals has increased from 300,000 to more than 2 million. Furthermore, Alexander points to the Fourth Amendment to illustrate how all
Adolph Lyons, a twenty-four year old African-American, was pulled over by four police officers with guns drawn, simply because he had a burned-out taillight. Lyons was ordered out of his vehicle, told to face the car, spread his legs and put his hands on his head. He obeyed. When Lyons complained about the car keys he was holding were causing him pain, an officer put Lyons into a chokehold and he lost consciousness. Lyons woke up coughing up blood, had defecated himself and suffered permanent damage to his larynx. The officer issued Lyons a traffic ticket for the burned-out taillight as a means to justify the officer’s action. Welcome to the war on drugs, where both male African-Americans and Latinos are subjected to traffic stops and a variety
The war on drugs began with good intentions, but it is becoming clear that this battle is a failure. Not only do drug laws violate American’s freedoms, but they further complicate the lives of drug users. These laws have inadvertently been responsible for the deaths of thousands through bad drug deals and dirty drugs, which leads one to ask the question, “Is this a war on drugs or a war on drug users?” Body bags and HIV are becoming the most widely known side effects of drug prohibition. Contrary to what many may think, drug use will never be eliminated. Only through legalization and strict state-controlled regulations will the violent and deadly consequences of drug laws be controlled. By making these substances available, the drugs themselves will be safer and cheaper, government spending and prison population will decrease, and most importantly, Americans will be freer.
Drugs have been around for thousands of years and were used for a variety of reasons. They were used for healing aliments that one might have and for recreational reasons. However, as time went on and society advanced so did its outlook on any form of a controlled substance and their uses. We began to see the benefits they had and developed other ways to use them for everyday illnesses, which wasn’t anything new, but we finally had the ability to understand why they helped. In the late 1800s Coke-a-Cola marketed their drink, or tonic, as having healing properties and claimed that if was a cure all. But, as time wore on we began to see the negative side and decided to control it for fear of what would happen, which lead to Prohibition and the war on drugs.
The present methodology of the "war on drugs" fails to recognize both the ineffectiveness of legal deterrence as a long-term solution as well as the reality of addiction as a serious disease. Additionally, a disproportionate number of minority peoples appear to stand as primary targets of this system. Arguments even exist which suggest that social betterment is not in fact at the heart of present-day drug-related legislation, but that instead, profit for particular agencies and industries involved drives the law. However, the most compelling political argument against the war on drugs is the cost.
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?