Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
analyze the history of the war on drugs
analyze the history of the war on drugs
analyze the history of the war on drugs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: analyze the history of the war on drugs
Society’s view of drugs has vastly changed based on the sociological imagination of the times. Sociological imagination basically means that we are able to view ourselves as a part of one large group rather than individuals. Human’s behavior and attitude have evolved based on the social forces that have adjusted around them. This changing of ideas has been clearly apparent in the Americas and is a prime example of the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. The illegality of alcohol provided the Mafia with an opportunity to produce liquor and therefore it had considerable control over those who wanted their alcohol and service. The part that the Mafia played in the 1920's has been developed into the drug dealers and drug cartel of this century. The justification they used to legalize alcohol under Amendment 21 in 1933 should be just cause to legalize most Narcotics today. With the legalization of Narcotics, many deaths related to drugs would decrease and the price would also decrease because big businesses could produce large amounts of Narcotics at less cost. Thus reducing crime that was once committed to support illegal drug habits. Another drug that has played a large role in American society is Nicotine. For hundreds of years, cigarettes have been a very popular and legal drug within the United States. Only through research and education has the popularity and the use of cigarettes declined within the past decade. Physically, the actual consequences of using illegal Narcotics are much less than those of commonly used drugs like alcohol or cigarettes. Illegal Narcotics can and will be made safer than they currently are in the present system. Economically, the production of drugs in the United States would greatly bene... ... middle of paper ... ...aused by the war on drugs. It would respect the right of individuals to make personal choices about what they consume, while still holding them responsible for the harm they cause others. It would free up real money for prevention and treatment programs that currently enjoy more lip service than funding. And it would encourage the deviant to seek help rather than force them underground. Clearly, there will be some increase in drug use if Narcotics are made legal and accessible at a reasonable price. Yet the benefits of legalization will outweigh the negatives: less crime, more funding available for greater rehabilitation efforts, fewer jail cells and prisoners, better utilization of law enforcement personnel, greater respect for the law and fewer deaths from impure substances. When today’s sociological imagination catches up with reality progress can be made.
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
So long as people continue to use illicit drugs, the drug trade and all the problems that go with it will continue. This fact has led to an enormous debate as to whether legalizing drug use will reduce the problem. Many think that, if drugs were legalized, this would take the profit out of the sales, and reduce the drug cartels’ ability to generate the revenues necessary to conduct their operations. Legalization of drugs also would enable the U.S. government to tax the sale of drugs, and to use those revenues for programs designed to help stop people from using them. That debate, however, is the subject of another civics presentation.
However, before the specific outcomes of Congressional influence and policy impact can be evaluated it becomes important to first review the general history and current situation of drugs today. Our present drug laws were first enacted at the beginning of the century. At the time, recreational use of narcotics was not a major social issue. The first regulatory legislation was for the purpose of standardizing the manufacturing and purity of pharmaceutical products. Shortly after, the first criminal laws were enacted which addressed opium products and cocaine. Although some states had prohibited the recreational use of marijuana, there was no federal criminal legislation until 1937. By contrast, the use of alcohol and its legality was a major social issue in United States in the early 20th century. This temperance movement culminated in the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. Recreational drug use, particularly heroin, became more prevalent among the urban poor during the early ?60s. Because of the high cost of heroin and its uncertain purity, its use was associated with crime and frequent overdoses.
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.
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 a removal of non-violent citizens from society- either directly by incarceration or indirectly by death - that is genocidal in quantity and essence.
Is Prohibition (defined as a government decree against the exchange of a good or service) actually successful in reducing recreational drug consumption and drug-related violence? This is the question that will be analyzed in this paper. Drug enforcement officials frequently cite drug-related violence as a reason that drugs must be eliminated from our society. A contrary belief is that the system of drug prohibition actually causes most of the violence. Similar to alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and the rise of organized crime, drug prohibition inspires a dangerous underground market that manifests itself with violent crime throughout the U.S. and, in fact, the world. The illegal nature of drugs has significantly increased the price and the
This topic is very controversial topic because it deals with a growing body of citizens whose lives have greatly been affected by the United States government drug policies. In order to tackle the problem effectively, we need to look how it relates to economic problems, health issues, the criminal justice system and etc in our communities I look at bureau of justice statistics for statistics on National Drug Budget control, National household survey on drug abuse, prison statistics and book written by scholars on the issue.
“[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.
Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage; therefore, anybody could afford it (367). Wilson stated that during 1960’s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts until the number of addicts increased fivefold. He argued that cocaine is not a “victimless crime.” Addicts victimize children by neglect and spouses by not providing (370). Wilson upholds that illegality of drugs increases crime because users need to pay for their habit (372). He believes the benefit of illegal drugs is it forces patients who enter under legal compulsion to complete their treatment due to the pressure and drug-education programs in the schools (374). Wilson is convinced the difference between nicotine and cocaine is that while tobacco shortens one’s life, cocaine debase it and destroys the addicts humanity (375). Wilson’s argument is strong because he demonstrates his knowledge of the subject and supports it with many clear, scientific facts and historical examples of drug usage. He interprets facts differently by seeing “logical fallacy and factual error” (371) in what other perceive as being a true. He also acknowledges his opposition by addressing how the advocates of legalization respond to his position. Wilson recognizes that that he may be wrong about his conclusions of drug legalization. Yet he states if he is wrong, money will be saved, while if he is right, and the legalizers prevail, then millions of people, thousands of infants and hundreds of neighborhoods will live a life of disease (377-8). In the article “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” by William J. Bennentt, drug legalization was not supported. Bennett wants to address the “root causes” of drugs by means of...
In this essay I will define drug abuse and show the economic impact of the sales of illicit drugs. I will introduce an argument for legalization and the impact to the economy. Next I will discuss some of the economic cost from lack of productivity, health care cost and other cost associated with Drug abuse.
... decided that it is a valid and necessary solution to our countries drug problem. By implementing such a program the American population can use its money and resources to combat the problem through the legal system. Legalization will decrease violent crime associated with drug dealers, it will decrease the number of users and will lower the wasteful cost which is connected with the current system. Such legalization will not destroy our youth in any way and will only be accessible to adults in the country. If we continue with our current system we will never solve the problem. Drug dealers and addicts will crown our prisons and plague our streets.
The sale and import of narcotics was first banned in 1914 in the United States; the full ban on narcotics emerged in in 1920. Failure followed closely since this prohibition made the drug trade go underground. 1 At the onset of the 1920s, the Narcotics Bureau, the predecessor of the Federnal Narcotics Bureau, was utilized by the federal government for “domestic suppression.” Protestant churches and the US mebers of Leagues of Nations united to lead America's limited international suppression in which the recent “long crusade” against the legal smoking in Asia had accelerated the formation. The US with...
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior by criminalizing drug use does not work still leaves us looking for a solution, so what other options exist? This paper will discuss the pros and cons about one option: decriminalizing drugs.
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.
One of the most prevalent misconceptions, Benson and Rasmussen, contend is the notion that a large percentage of drug users commit nondrug crimes, what might be called the “drugs-cause-crime” assumption implicit in the government’s drug-war strategy. If true, then an effective crackdown on ...