Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect of the war on drugs
Essay about war on drugs persuasive position paper
War Against Drugs Argumentative Essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effect of the war on drugs
The War on Drugs has been a costly failure. It empowers criminal cartels, destroys lives, infringes civil rights, and fails to reduce drug use or availability. It is time to consider alternatives to the current criminalising approach to drug control. Mr Cowdery S.C. (2011) states “drug laws need to be reformed so that minor possession, use and trafficking offences are no longer treated as criminal matters, rather, as the health and social issue that they are”. In many cases, some drug offenders and minor drug offences should be treated as health and social issues rather than a law enforcement issue. Mr Trimingham (2011) is right when he says “there is no evidence worldwide which suggests that a zero tolerance stance on drugs is working”. Harm minimisation has been the cornerstone of Australian drug policy since 1985. It has been successful in reducing the spread of blood borne viruses such as HIV and assisted addicts in receiving the help they require. In order for harm minimisation to be successful, it relies upon a whole of government response and, in particular, a strong collaborative working relationship between law enforcement and health …show more content…
From a law enforcement perspective, The New South Wales Police Force is largely involved in supply reduction, however, police also have an important role to play in reducing the demand for illegal drugs and the harms associated with their use. The NSW Police Force is involved in a number of demand reduction strategies. One example is the Cannabis Cautioning Scheme (CCS), which aims to reduce future offending by reducing the demand for cannabis. NSW has the lowest reoffending rates of all states which have cannabis cautioning schemes. More than 80% of those cautioned in NSW do not
Approximately given 80 to 90 million Americans have tried an illicit drug at least which once in their lives; marijuana alone is tried for the first time by about 6,400 Americans everyday. Furthermore, illicit drugs seem to be relatively easy to attain- in for 1999, 90 percent said which this about marijuana, also 44 percent about cocaine and finally 32 percent about heroin. Yearly, for which 35 million dollars is given just to control illicit drug trafficking. Moreover, over 400,000 of drug offenders caught are in jail, of which, some 130,000 are which for possession. Not for only are these statistics a international obvious embarrassment but because for these quantities which have been growing throughout history, we can only assume that they will get worse. We can already begin to for imagine the costs of these numbers which is it not already clear that we need for to find an alternative approach to this
A 1997 RAND Corporation study found that treatment of heavy drug users was almost ten times more cost effective in reducing drug use, sales, and drug-related crime than longer mandatory sentences (Echols, 2014). Other studies have shown that mandatory penalties have no demonstrable marginal or short-term effects on overall crime reduction either. Congress established mandatory sentences in order to incarcerate high-level drug criminals, but according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, only 11 percent of drug charged prisoners fit that description (Echols, 2014). Most of those incarcerated are low-level offenders, whose spots in drug trafficking are easily filled by other people. Mandatory minimum sentencing is essentially a waste of scarce criminal justice resources and federal funds that could be used elsewhere, and The Smarter Sentencing Act’s reduction of mandatory minimums can be the first step in eliminating minimum sentencing altogether. Ideally, given the opportunity for discretion, judges would be more inclined to issue more effective alternatives to incarceration, such as rehabilitation programs and/or
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
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
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...
We cannot afford to keep using the same approach in hopes of diminishing our drug problem in the United States. In a study posted on RAND.org, the author Jonathan P. Caulkins compares many methods we can use to help with drug crime. The first graph compares federal mandatory minimum sentences, conventional enforcement at all levels of government, and treatment of heavy users. Conventional enforcement prevented around thirty kilo grams of cocaine from being used, while federal mandatory minimums prevented around forty kilograms from being used. Treatment of heavy users blew both of the other methods out of the water.
Drug arrests occur too often and are taking up a majority of general arrests in America. “Drug arrests were the single largest category of arrests, accounting for more than 10% of all arrests in the country” (A drug, 2015). One out of ten of every arrest in the United States of America is a drug arrest. This over focus on drug arrests needs to stop as it is taking focus off of more damaging violent crimes. Overall drug arrests are up 8.3% from a decade ago” (A drug, 2015). Drug crimes are increasing because of the American government increased focus on drug crimes, despite the fact that it is not helping the problem. Even though drug arrests are going up, drug use in the United States of America is “... plentiful and widely used as ever” (Grenier,
Bruce K. Alexander’s essay “Reframing Canada’s ‘Drug Problem’” is about shifting the focus from intervention to prevention. Alexander explains that in Canada there have been three major waves of drug intervention: “Criminal prosecution and intensive anti-drug” (225), “medicinal and psychological treatment” (225), and the ‘“harm reduction’ techniques” (225) being the most resent. The “’harm reduction’” (225) consisted of: clean injectable heroin, clean needles, methadone, and housing for addicts. Although each of the methods is devoted and knowledgeable, they have done little to decrease the deaths or suppress the unhappiness. While clean heroin did work well few addicts quit using and many found
Aside from the violence and costly attempts of control that accompany drug trade, there are severe social implications of the U.S war on drugs. One of the major social topics today is that of Marijuana use and punishment in America. Since 1937, over 26 million Americans have been arrested for Marijuana use. [2] The effects and harms are still debated today, yet many people serve time in jails and prisons, waiting to be released with criminal record that will follow them for the rest of their life. Further, those incarcerated are represented by a disproportionate amount ...
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.
“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.”
Nutt, David J., Leslie A. King, and Lawrence D. Phillips. “Drug Harms in the UK: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis.” Lancet 376 (2010): 1558-65. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
With America’s war on drugs being highly focused on the increased use of marijuana, there is not much time for officers to focus on crimes of greater importance. Crimes related to illegal marijuana use are becoming more problematic due to drug deals that go bad, occasionally ending with murder. It has been estimated that one marijuana-related arrest is made every 42 seconds. With marijuana being illegal, keeping crime related activities under control cost the United States approximately twenty billion dollars per year (Sledge). According to Brian Bremner and Vincent Del Giudice, “A 2010 study by the libertarian Cato Institute, forecasted that states could save $17.4 billion annually from reduced drug enforcement costs and increased tax revenue, assuming marijuana production and sales were legal nationwide” (11). Several law enforcement hours are exhausted with pursing, questioning, and arresting citizens that are in possession of or consuming marijuana. There would be a decrease in the number of misdemeanor possession cases that are pending hearing. These cases would be dismissed, decreasing costs affiliated with each case. There are excessive numbers of people who remain incarcerated for nonviolent crimes related to illegal marijuana use. Legalizing marijuana would allow these people to be released, opening jail space for the true criminals. Legalizing marijuana would free up law enforcement officers from focusing on illegal marijuana use and allow focus to be put on more serious
nbsp; If we follow the alcohol example with all other drugs, the benefits will be obtained. Much more than that, the temptation of the forbidden fruit will disappear. The jailing of petty drug pushers will stop, together with their training as future serious criminals in the crime schools which are jails. If we transfer the huge sums wasted on efforts and punishment to serious education and rehabilitation programs, the drug problem will retreat to the trivial level it was fifty years ago. At one time all but private gambling at home was illegal.