The term “War on Drugs” is one that carries a lot of weight, but what does this initiative really mean to the U.S society? Has it been an asset to the community or hindered and stunted growth? What are the material and human costs associated, and how does the United States compare to other countries when tackling drug policy? My artifact/literature essay will answer above questions surrounding the “War on Drugs” initiative created by former President Nixon. My artifact a documentary titled “Breaking the Taboo” offers more insight into how U.S. government officials feel about the initiative and U.S. drug policy by including exclusive interviews from previous U.S president Bill Clinton. For further support, this documentary also shares world opinions about the “War on Drugs” by incorporating statements from other countries’ leaders such as Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso and leaders of Colombia, Switzerland, Norway and Mexico. The purpose of this essay will be to explore deeper into my artifact by examining the artifact itself, the rhetor, and the context, the intended audience, and how the documentary touched society once released. Amazingly enough, the United …show more content…
My artifact “Breaking the Taboo” which is in form of an online only documentary does a great job taking us through the history of the war on drugs starting in 1961 with facts and claims that support how this drug policy has proven to be ineffective for society from various viewpoints. In order to view this documentary, viewers can visit the official website www.breakingthetaboo.info or watch it on www.hulu.com for free. Also, viewers can search #BreaktheTaboo and #WaronDrugs on Twitter for further information. Currently, there are no written transcripts that accompany the
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.
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
New York: New York, 2010. Print. The. Should the U.S. Continue Its War on Drugs? Opposing Views: Issues, Experts, Answers.
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.
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.
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).
The current “War on Drugs” involves skirmishes in an arena with two fronts: The consumer and the manufacturer. The successes and failures of the battle are not clearly identified without first looking at how the battle can be ultimately won. When it comes to cocaine, the problem of punishing the whole instead of the individual is hard to define. Many countries use the raw ingredient, the coca plant, as part of a social and cultural structure. The only way to win the “War on Drugs” is to focus war efforts on fighting the manufacturer of the finished cocaine product.
“[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.
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
Liberal and Conservative Views on the War on Drugs 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.
In 1971 on June 17, President Richard Nixon delivered a special message to the Congress on drug abuse prevention and control. During the presentation, Nixon made it clear that the United States was at war with this idea of drug abuse. What baffled Americans then, and still baffles Americans today, is that we are at war with our own nation with drugs; it is not some foreign affair like the media tends to focus on with Mexico. Nixon stated that at the time of his speech, what was implemented to control drug abuse was not working…“The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency. I intend to take every step necessary to deal with this emergency, including asking the Congress for an amendment to my 1972 budget to provide an additional $155 million to carry out these steps. This will provide a total of $371 million for programs to control drug abuse in America.”(Wolleey and Peters) Since the publicizing of the term “War on Drugs” in 1971, it has been used by many political candidates in elections over the years. In the movie, it was stated, “ every war begins with propaganda …[and] the war on drugs has never been actually on drugs… [Additionally] drug laws are shaped less by scientific facts, but more by political [reasoning].” (Jarecki) The movie, The House I Live In, directly relates to certain themes and terminology that were discussed in Martin and Nakayama’s Intercultural Communication in Contexts book, that have been used in class. Through the analyzing and comparing of The House I Live In and Intercultural Communication in Contexts an individual can begin to localize the ideals behind this everlasting war on drugs; some ideals focus on terms from the text like ethnocentrism, diversity training, and culture while ...
Shannon, Elaine. “The War on Drugs: A Losing Battle.” Time.com. Time Magazine, 3 Dec. 2010. Web. 18 Dec. 2011. .
The world has many different issues, and without them the world would be a perfect place. An issue that causes a lot of controversy is drug abuse. Though the world can never be a perfect place, humans still need to do our best to make in inhabitable as possible, and drugs cause a lot of harm towards humans. Therefore, it is my belief that the first thing that needs to be fixed should be drugs and their abuse. Many possible solutions to this problem exist.
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?
The "War on Drugs" Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1986. Kennedy, X.J., Dorothy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron, eds. The Bedford Reader. 6th ed. of the book.