War On Drugs Essay

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

Example #1

Since 1968, the United States has spent increasing amounts of taxpayers’ money; more than $40 billion last year trying to stop drug use through the criminal justice system. Three-fourths of federal anti-drug money goes to the police, prisons, border patrol, and interdiction efforts in countries like Colombia. Only one-fourth goes to prevention and treatment. Thirty years after the war was declared, there are no fewer drug addicts but more people in prison for drug crimes than ever before.

Half a million of America’s 2 million prisoners are locked away for drugs, and 700,000 people are arrested each year for marijuana possession alone. In 2001, a record seventy-four percent of Americans say they believe the Drug War is failing. The war on drugs has become a war against the nation’s citizens. The time for drug-law reform is now. There’s a general sense that what we have been doing in the so-called Drug War simply doesn’t work. And the situation, in many important ways, has gotten worse, not better.

PaperHelp.org Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically For You!


Check Price

There’s a sense that we’re in a losing game, and you don’t stay in a losing game. You have to keep experimenting. You have to keep researching. You have to go one small step at a time. Politicians and city members are blanketed with this problem every day and some feel it is very important by expressing their views to stop it.

When you have a young person who has experimented, you know how fast they can get in trouble with drugs. We have to get some treatment for them. We haven’t concentrated as we should on first-time offenders. They can get drugs in jails, but there’s no real education in the jails and no treatment. Keep in mind, treatment alone won’t do it. Enforcement alone won’t do it. Education alone won’t do it. We have to reduce both the demand for and the supply of drugs.

The movie Traffic drives home the point that law enforcement alone won’t solve the problem. And a lot of people have had to face the fact that their own children have experienced drugs. The first-time use of drugs has gone way up. If you look at Ecstasy alone, used by a tenth- and twelfth-graders are up sharply.

A huge portion of those who used heroin for the first time last year was under eighteen. Orrin Hatch U.S. Senator, Utah, states I don’t think there’s any law that can prevent a teenager from taking that first puff of a marijuana cigarette, that first sniff of cocaine, if I knew what it was, I would dedicate my career to passing it.

The hardest thing for most people to do is hold themselves responsible and show the strength of will and character. In order for addicts to change, there must be some reward that forces them to do what they need to do, a lever to hold them to accountability. We need more K-12 education, and when we see early uses of gateway drugs — alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana — we need to intervene and double our educational efforts.

We need to make the penalties for using and selling unattractive to people. Right now, people are going into custody as addicts and coming out as addicts. People also got out of jail and have no supervision. We have to have rehabilitation. We need a broader strategy focusing on education and health. It’s not lusting about capturing seventeen tons of drugs a year.

We know that if there’s no demand for drugs, there’s no market. It’s hard to take crime out of the drug equation. The Department of Justice has done forecasting figures — random drug tests on people arrested on non-narcotic charges. Seventy to eighty percent of them had drugs in their system. In the city of L.A., drugs are intertwined with many of our crimes, quotes Bernard C. Parks, Chief of Los Angeles Police.

The Drug War shows no signs of becoming a deterrent for drug abuse in the U.S. Education is our best hope: Quality educational opportunities for youth in the inner city, where drug abuse is especially high, can provide direction for lives that too often have none. More generally, systematic, persistent, and extensive education about the perils of drug use given to all young people in the schools; starting in preschool and continuing through to our colleges and universities is the best hope for meaningful deterrence.

Both alcohol and drugs destroy the lives of friends and family members. The abuse begins in a social context where the eventual addicts thought they were in complete control of their recreational use of drugs or alcohol. William E. Kirwan President, Ohio State University, explains his War on Drugs, The university has many programs that try to educate our students about substance abuse, starting with an orientation for new students and their parents. It’s a powerful introduction, which is followed by education programs in different settings throughout the year.

Opposing views on the War on Drugs is just as strong, providing substantial evidence to prove corrupt government and legalize drugs. This fight is bluntly ridiculous. We should be cleaning up society but most Americans do not see this on the streets until casualties start showing up in suburbs.

The concerns should be forwarded to the youth of America and stopping as many cases as possible before it starts. To accomplish this goal we must use all advertisements, police departments, and politicians to express the harm of drugs and not those who want to legalize it for their personal reasons. But in all cases, the War on Drugs has been successful in terms of individual lives saved and the billions of young people who have declined to use drugs.

But the experiment is not over, we should continue to strive until we become on a declining basis every year, without looking at the costs of the budget because in the long run, it will eventually help out financially. Along with the ideas of politicians who were furthered mentioned to promote and improve this war, and every other American we should concentrate all efforts on this situation as we would any other war, such as the fight on terrorism.

 

Example #2

This is supposed to be a free country. I don’t see that it would harm you or anybody else if someone smokes a few joints a week in moderation. What is the harm done to you? Is this enough to take fathers and mothers away from children? I know I’m not the sharpest knife in the draw but to say that drug users might abuse the stuff and cause problems for their family or neighbors is not very far from saying that because you have a knife in your kitchen draw that you might choose to use it to cause trouble for you family or neighbors.

Please tell me, by what reason should marijuana be illegal, and please speak from first-hand experience if you can. Isn’t twenty years of doing the same thing long enough? Isn’t it time to step back, gather accurate information, and objectively consider alternatives? Wasn’t there an objective once? Distinguish between soft and hard drugs like Holland did and reduce actual drug crime by 75%, actual crime, not just prohibition violations.

Treat addiction as a health problem, instead of a crime-just like alcohol is treated-and you reduce HIV infection and decrease the costs to society. I am a very opened minded person and have listened to a lot of opinions and read a lot of articles on this subject. It seems that anything we find that stimulates us or alters our state of mind in some way is stamped as a drug.

How can we take something like cocaine, which is so addictive some people have to go to a hospital to get off it and many people have died from overdoses and put it in the same category as marijuana, a part of a plant in which nobody has ever overdosed from. From my perspective, the government has no reason to make marijuana illegal, except that it acts as a stitch.

I will get to that in a minute. If it were legal, I really doubt we would have as much drug dealing and drug deal-related deaths and crimes. It could be treated like alcohol, the same rules, maybe more, but we could have an age limit and everything. (It’s (marijuana) defiantly much safer than alcohol I don’t know anybody in the right mind who could argue with that.

Alcohol is one of the biggest killers in the world, who do you ever hear on the news dying of marijuana use? Sure it may cause lung cancer, but you can eat it too. Sure somebody might be too high to drive but make rules against it. It’s too bad we couldn’t replace alcohol with marijuana. I would much rather see people in my family as well as my parents smoke pot than drink alcohol.

I could go on and on with this forever. You probably are getting the impression that I am a pothead but believe me I am not. This subject just irritates me how we can serve alcohol which makes people violent and go home and beat their wives in front of their kids but the government can’t sell a part of a plant that makes people at ease.

I feel I’m getting off subject so I’m gonna get back to my point. But, if it were legal, a lot of marijuana dealers who base most or all of their business on marijuana would turn to other drugs such as crack to base their business upon. That is what I mean by the stitch. Because we all know how to crack changed the inner cities of America.

Crack definitely increase the number of street gangs, deaths, and crimes of all kinds in this country and we all know crack is made from cocaine. So what I am saying, is that instead of trying to shoot at all drugs at once, only go after cocaine. Forget marijuana, make it legal, the government sure made a profit from cigarettes and alcohol. Make a profit from marijuana.

Use the profits to fight the war on cocaine and heroin. Because you know when the cocaine supply is weakening, so is the crack. Most of the crack sold on our streets are made inside our country by dealers who buy the cocaine that comes from outside the country. But when the cocaine supply is dying down, heroin is going to take over so that’s why we have to fight that too. It’s the hardcore drugs that ruin our society, not marijuana.

Sure there are many other drugs that are addictive, and we need to separate hardcore life destroying drugs from the recreational not so addictive drugs. We need to take things one step at a time. If you’re a thief you can’t steel everything in the store at once, you gotta take what you want most and work on getting that. (I know that’s a terrible example but I think it’s a good one to get my point across).

There are many drugs that are used for many reasons. We need to sort through the good (at least not so bad), bad, and ugly and make zero tolerance for the bad and ugly, and really reconsider the good (referring to marijuana). I think reconsidering some laws and opening our minds and putting our brains to work a little harder on this whole issue will get us the results a lot quicker and cheaper than what we are doing about the problem right now.

Annotated Bibliography The topic I choose was Iraq and its past and still ongoing problems with the United Nations. The reason I choose this topic as oppose to another topic is war and the United Nations has always fascinated me. With Saddam Hussein still being stubborn with UN weapons inspectors it was incredibly easy to obtain information regarding this topic.

The Los Angles Times; California; Feb 12, 2000; The newest article I attained was from the February 12 edition of the Los Angles Times. It was entitled “Compromise Broached on the issue of Arms Inspectors in Iraq”. It discussed how Iraq is still refusing to allow the UN weapons inspector into the nation. It also talks about the UN’s feelings on the chance of inspectors ever being allowed to do their job.

Apparently the Vice President has no intention of ever letting the inspectors into the country. Last Thursday he said, ” There shall be no return of the so-called inspection teams. We reject the infiltration by spies using such cover.” In my humble opinion, it would make life in Iraq better if the inspectors were just allowed into the country. Most importantly sanctions the UN has placed upon Iraq would be removed.

Apparently the really don’t care about the sanctions according to their deputy foreign minister Nizar Hamdoun who said they can live without sanctions “forever”. The UN has a different opinion they believe they cannot. I believe they can, they have done fine up to this point and I think they will continue to do fine. I think Iraq has many things they don’t want the UN to know about such as chemical and biological weapons.

They are a threat and need to be dealt with accordingly. New York Times; New York; Feb 8, 2000; Barbara Crossette The next article I choose was from the February 8 issue of the New York Times. This article was entitled “Iraq Suspected of Secret War Effort”.

This article sort of scared me. It was about in Britain, research and intelligence experts, also convinced that there are more germ warfare agents left in Iraq than previously known, have suggested that Iraq may have produced the organism that causes bubonic plague. But no evidence has been published in support of that theory, but American experts say, and United Nations inspectors found no trace of the plague in Iraq.

This is only because Iraq not allowing them to inspect and when the UN inspectors were allowed in they were only allowed to inspect “certain” areas. This statement made by the so-called American experts was bull they only said to comfort the American public. This expert Milton Leitenberg from the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland has been collecting information about Iraqi weapons sites and activities from two Iraqi defectors.

Milton is really not sure if the new thing is a virus and not a bacterial agent but he said in an interview that Hans Blix, the new chief inspector for Iraq might need to focus his attention on Biological weapons. Milton and other British experts say the inspector will have to be more aggressive in demanding access to Iraq. I think so too, biological weapons are illegal as a form of warfare since the Geneva Convention outlawed them.

And the fact that there are not allowed to be used as a form of warfare should be reason enough to be more aggressive not to mention the fact that these weapons of mass destruction will be if not are already in the hands of a mad man! Also according to this article, the eradication of biological weapons in Iraq may be as important or more important to the people of Iraq as to the outside world.

Experts working with the United Nations Special Commission, the first disarmament task force created for Iraq after the Gulf War said some of the bacterial and viral agents Iraq was producing then had little application for war. Evidently a fungal agent called aflatoxin can lead to liver cancer, and rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in children and the elderly.

This is just another reason for the inspectors to be more insistent in their attempt to gain entry into Iraq, their military compounds, and laboratories. World History Volume II; William J. Duiker & Jackson J. Spielvogel Pages 1136-1137 Duiker provided some insight into the history of this conflict. According to Duiker “Saddam Hussein, assumed power in Baghdad in 1979, then accused Iran of violating the territorial agreement and launched an attack on his neighbor.” (1136) It seems Saddam has been a problem from the beginning and should have been taken care of before he became a real threat like he is now.

Duiker also says during the war between Iraq and Iran poison gas was used on civilians and also defenseless children were used in the minefields. Then in August 1990 Hussein’s military forces went into the small country of Kuwait and claimed that they were stealing oil from Iraqi land. This is when the United Nations decided to get involved, after all not only was this small defenseless country under attack but our nation’s oil supply was endangered.

Really in my opinion this is the main reason we got involved not for moral reasons but the financial reasons. From here the book taught me no new information. We restored peace to Kuwait and destroyed much of Saddam’s forces. The only problem is we did not destroy enough of his forces because they are better equipped than they ever were.

I have heard that Saddam if he did possess such chemical weapons that the article spoke of he does not have the launch capability, meaning he does not possess sufficient I.C.B.M.s (Inter- Continental Ballistic Missiles) but how long before he does possess such devices. Only time will tell but for now, it is high time we tell Saddam and the Iraqi government to let us in or else threaten another military strike maybe even a nuclear attack.

Annotated Bibliography The topic I choose was Iraq and its past and still ongoing problems with the United Nations. The reason I choose this topic as oppose to another topic is war and the United Nations has always fascinated me. With Saddam Hussein still being stubborn with UN weapons inspectors it was incredibly easy to obtain information regarding this topic. The Los Angles Times; California; Feb 12, 2000; The newest article I attained was from the February 12 edition of the Los Angles Times.

It was entitled “Compromise Broached on the issue of Arms Inspectors in Iraq”. It discussed how Iraq is still refusing to allow the UN weapons inspector into the nation. It also talks about the UN’s feelings on the chance of inspectors ever being allowed to do their job. Apparently the Vice President has no intention of ever letting the inspectors into the country. Last Thursday he said, ” There shall be no return of the so-called inspection teams. We reject the infiltration by spies using such cover.”

In my humble opinion, it would make life in Iraq better if the inspectors were just allowed into the country. Most importantly sanctions the UN has placed upon Iraq would be removed. Apparently the really don’t care about the sanctions according to their deputy foreign minister Nizar Hamdoun who said they can live without sanctions “forever”.

The UN has a different opinion they believe they cannot. I believe they can, they have done fine up to this point and I think they will continue to do fine. I think Iraq has many things they don’t want the UN to know about such as chemical and biological weapons. They are a threat and need to be dealt with accordingly. New York Times; New York; Feb 8, 2000; Barbara Crossette The next article I choose was from the February 8 issue of the New York Times.

This article was entitled “Iraq Suspected of Secret War Effort”. This article sort of scared me. It was about in Britain, research and intelligence experts, also convinced that there are more germ warfare agents left in Iraq than previously known, have suggested that Iraq may have produced the organism that causes bubonic plague. But no evidence has been published in support of that theory, but American experts say, and United Nations inspectors found no trace of the plague in Iraq.

This is only because Iraq not allowing them to inspect and when the UN inspectors were allowed in they were only allowed to inspect “certain” areas. This statement made by the so-called American experts was bull; they only said to comfort the American public.

This expert Milton Leitenberg from the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland has been collecting information about Iraqi weapons sites and activities from two Iraqi defectors. Milton is really not sure if the new thing is a virus and not a bacterial agent but he said in an interview that Hans Blix, the new chief inspector for Iraq might need to focus his attention on Biological weapons.

Milton and other British experts say the inspector will have to be more aggressive in demanding access in Iraq. I think so too, biological weapons are illegal as a form of warfare since the Geneva Convention outlawed them. And the fact that there are not allowed to be used as a form of warfare should be reason enough to be more aggressive not to mention the fact that these weapons of mass destruction will be if not are already in the hands of a mad man!

Also according to this article, the eradication of biological weapons in Iraq may be as important or more important to the people of Iraq as to the outside world. Experts working with the United Nations Special Commission, the first disarmament task force created for Iraq after the Gulf War said some of the bacterial and viral agents Iraq was producing then had little application for war.

Evidently a fungal agent called aflatoxin can lead to liver cancer, and rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in children and the elderly. This is just another reason for the inspectors to be more insistent in their attempt to gain entry into Iraq, their military compounds, and laboratories. World History Volume II; William J. Duiker & Jackson J. Spielvogel Pages 1136-1137 Duiker provided some insight into the history of this conflict.

According to Duiker “Saddam Hussein, assumed power in Baghdad in 1979, then accused Iran of violating the territorial agreement and launched an attack on his neighbor.” (1136) It seems Saddam has been a problem from the beginning and should have been taken care of before he became a real threat like he is now. Duiker also says during the war between Iraq and Iran poison gas was used on civilians and also defenseless children were used in the minefields.

Then in August 1990 Hussein’s military forces went into the small country of Kuwait and claimed that they were stealing oil from Iraqi land. This is when the United Nations decided to get involved, after all not only was this small defenseless country under attack but our nation’s oil supply was endangered. Really in my opinion this is the main reason we got involved not for moral reasons but the financial reasons.

From here the book taught me no new information. We restored peace to Kuwait and destroyed much of Saddam’s forces. The only problem is we did not destroy enough of his forces because they are better equipped than they ever were. I have heard that Saddam if he did possess such chemical weapons that the article spoke of he does not have the launch capability, meaning he does not possess sufficient I.C.B.M.s (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) but how long before he does possess such devices.

Only time will tell but for now, it is high time we tell Saddam and the Iraqi government to let us in or else threaten another military strike maybe even a nuclear attack. Annotated Bibliography The topic I choose was Iraq and its past and still ongoing problems with the United Nations. The reason I choose this topic as oppose to another topic is war and the United Nations has always fascinated me.

With Saddam Hussein still being stubborn with UN weapons inspectors it was incredibly easy to obtain information regarding this topic. The Los Angles Times; California; Feb 12, 2000; The newest article I attained was from the February 12 edition of the Los Angles Times. It was entitled “Compromise Broached on the issue of Arms Inspectors in Iraq”.

It discussed how Iraq is still refusing to allow the UN weapons inspector into the nation. It also talks about the UN’s feelings on the chance of inspectors ever being allowed to do their job. Apparently the Vice President has no intention of ever letting the inspectors into the country. Last Thursday he said, ” There shall be no return of the so-called inspection teams.

We reject the infiltration by spies using such cover.” In my humble opinion, it would make life in Iraq better if the inspectors were just allowed into the country. Most importantly sanctions the UN has placed upon Iraq would be removed. Apparently the really don’t care about the sanctions according to their deputy foreign minister Nizar Hamdoun who said they can live without sanctions “forever”.

The UN has a different opinion they believe they cannot. I believe they can, they have done fine up to this point and I think they will continue to do fine. I think Iraq has many things they don’t want the UN to know about such as chemical and biological weapons. They are a threat and need to be dealt with accordingly. New York Times; New York; Feb 8, 2000; Barbara Crossette The next article I choose was from the February 8 issue of the New York Times.

This article was entitled “Iraq Suspected of Secret War Effort”. This article sort of scared me. It was about in Britain, research and intelligence experts, also convinced that there are more germ warfare agents left in Iraq than previously known, have suggested that Iraq may have produced the organism that causes bubonic plague. But no evidence has been published in support of that theory, but American experts say, and United Nations inspectors found no trace of the plague in Iraq.

This is only because Iraq not allowing them to inspect and when the UN inspectors were allowed in they were only allowed to inspect “certain” areas. This statement made by the so-called American experts was bull; they only said to comfort the American public. This expert Milton Leitenberg from the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland has been collecting information about Iraqi weapons sites and activities from two Iraqi defectors.

Milton is really not sure if the new thing is a virus and not a bacterial agent but he said in an interview that Hans Blix, the new chief inspector for Iraq might need to focus his attention on Biological weapons. Milton and other British experts say the inspector will have to be more aggressive in demanding access to Iraq. I think so too, biological weapons are illegal as a form of warfare since the Geneva Convention outlawed them.

And the fact that there are not allowed to be used as a form of warfare should be reason enough to be more aggressive not to mention the fact that these weapons of mass destruction will be if not are already in the hands of a mad man! Also according to this article, the eradication of biological weapons in Iraq may be as important or more important to the people of Iraq as to the outside world.

Experts working with the United Nations Special Commission, the first disarmament task force created for Iraq after the Gulf War said some of the bacterial and viral agents Iraq was producing then had little application for war. Evidently a fungal agent called aflatoxin can lead to liver cancer, and rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in children and the elderly.

This is just another reason for the inspectors to be more insistent in their attempt to gain entry into Iraq, their military compounds, and laboratories. World History Volume II; William J. Duiker & Jackson J. Spielvogel Pages 1136-1137 Duiker provided some insight into the history of this conflict. According to Duiker “Saddam Hussein, assumed power in Baghdad in 1979, then accused Iran of violating the territorial agreement and launched an attack on his neighbor.” (1136)

It seems Saddam has been a problem from the beginning and should have been taken care of before he became a real threat like he is now. Duiker also says during the war between Iraq and Iran poison gas was used on civilians and also defenseless children were used in the minefields. Then in August 1990 Hussein’s military forces went into the small country of Kuwait and claimed that they were stealing oil from Iraqi land.

This is when the United Nations decided to get involved, after all not only was this small defenseless country under attack but our nation’s oil supply was endangered. Really in my opinion this is the main reason we got involved not for moral reasons but the financial reasons. From here the book taught me no new information. We restored peace to Kuwait and destroyed much of Saddam’s forces.

The only problem is we did not destroy enough of his forces because they are better equipped than they ever were. I have heard that Saddam if he did possess such chemical weapons that the article spoke of he does not have the launch capability, meaning he does not possess sufficient I.C.B.M.s (Inter- Continental Ballistic Missiles) but how long before he does possess such devices.

Only time will tell but for now, it is high time we tell Saddam and the Iraqi government to let us in or else threaten another military strike maybe even a nuclear attack. Can’t find it here? Try Collegiate Care Trust Justin Cameron February 1st, 1999 Lack of trust is a reoccurring theme throughout the three cases. One might ask, why you need trust in any civil society?

Lack of trust in civil society has a society with no real stability. Trust in authority is lacking in each case. The approval rating for Bill Clinton is high. Does this mean that most Americans trust Bill Clinton?

Most polls would tell that trust is a serious issue. So, what are the consequences of Americans not having trust in there president? It can’t be too bad because the economy is doing great and the budget and finally balanced. Most Americans are happy so what is the problem? The lack of trust is a direct correlation with weak and/or illegitimate authority. Trust with our president has always been a sensitive issue.

Richard Nixion broke that trust with the country and sealed the fate for himself and his party for the short term. No one really understood why Nixon had ordered the break-in of the Democratic offices in the first place. What made matters worse is Nixion never came out and admitted his mistake even when the evidence was overwhelming.

Clinton’s case has some similarities to it. While he finally did come out and admit what he had done he showed little remorse and accusations still remain about a cover-up. The lack of trust in a political position in this country tends to the norm. It is created and redefined every day in Washington with a political figure. This creates an image and a strong stereotype for all political figures. This in turn hurts all of our civil society.

Without trust then how do you have the legitimate authority to lead the country. Most would say that Clinton’s leadership really is not the question but his judgment is. To me, that is a contradiction and that poor judgment leads to poor leadership. His poor judgment leads to his ethics and morals that he has. People with weak family values will have a hard time trusting Clinton with just recognition of their own problems.

The lack of trust is not just with Clinton in the impeachment arguments. All of the political systems seem to be lacking credibility. How much faith do people have that their representative will represent their opinion and not act in the best interest of their party? Who in all this has the best interest in the country? If Congress does not represent the majority and decides on the rationale of what party they are in then it is an illegitimate use of authority.

Canada’s theme in the early part of the book was an issue with trust. In such a community, trust was not apparent and was earned. The lack of trust went further then authority. In his neighborhood trust was earned the hard way by a serious of tests. The policy matrix in that community dictates that trust when earned is essential for survival. Trust within the subcultures of society also leads to survival. Even with individual families trust was earned.

Geoffrey Canada’s mother sent his bothers out to retrieve a jacket to prove that the family could trust each other in adversity. Federal mandates dictated massive efforts to extent efforts to improve the equality of the educational opportunity. A lack of trust was apparent in Hamilton High in the ’60s and 70’s. This was in part due to the end of segregation of schools. At such a great time of transition, there were so many outside influences trying to control the policy matrix.

Most notable was the federal government mandating the segregation. The lack of shared values during the transition played a crucial role in the process. Civil rights were supposed to be a trickle-down effect from the federal government. The problem there is that not all respected government officials believed in equality for education.

Conflict arose and with it, the side was drawn. Ho could the government decide on what a “moral education” is when such confusion existed on what morals were for many political figures. The lack of shared values weighed heavily with the trust of many just to provide a safe educational environment. The lack of values can be an argument traced back to Clinton’s scandal. Who is to say that Clinton himself did not help dictate what many people believe is a society that is severely lacking values.

 

Example #3

War on Drugs Christina Echeverry October 2017 ALC Class 18-002 War on Drugs Introduction In 1971, President Nixon created the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 commonly known as the War on Drugs.

The war on drugs was implemented to combat the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal drugs (Olaya & Angel, 2017). In 2007, law enforcement officers made approximately two million drug arrests in the United States (Potter, 2014). Supporters state that the war on drugs was successful because it lowered the number of drug users in the United States, created a deterrence in crime, as well as it provided stability in areas that were volatile and impoverished.

On the other hand, critics of the war on drugs argue that the war on drugs did not diminish crime rather it created an international drug enterprise. In addition, critics would debate the misallocation of resources and funds and it leads to an increase in crime and overcrowded prisons.

War on drugs successes To start, the war on drugs effectively decreased the number of drug users, which are the basis of the entire campaign; to ban drugs and its use. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 14.8 million Americans were drug users, compared to 25 million users in 1979 since the implementation of the war on drugs. The number of drug users was decreased due to awareness, tougher laws, and the reprisal that is issued when the war on drugs law is violated.

 

Example #4

The American “War on Drugs” war created to keep an exorbitant amount of people behind bars, and in a subservient status. First, America has a storied history when it comes to marijuana use. However, within the last 50 years, legislation pertaining to drug use and punishment has increased significantly. In the modern era, especially hard times have hit minority communities thanks to these drug laws.

While being unfairly targeted by drug laws and law enforcement, minorities in America are having a difficult time trying to be productive members of society. A famous quote attributed to Charlie Fleisher says much about the 1960s. “If you remember the 1960’s, then you weren’t there.”

In order to spread lies about marijuana use, various agencies released propaganda films, the most notable of these films is “Reefer Madness”. In this film, high school students are lured into using marijuana, which leads the students to commit murder, rape, suicide, and an overall descent into madness. Despite the strong use of propaganda, marijuana use saw an upward trend between the 1950s and the 1960s. The use of marijuana had spread to the white upper and middle classes by the 1960s, partially changing the negative connotations attached to marijuana use.

The drug was used by these middle and upper-class whites to rebel against the older generation’s way of thinking. Many teens were introduced to marijuana use in college, where various other counter-culture ideas were being expounded. While the use of marijuana experienced a rise since the 1800s to the middle of the 20th century, the use of the drug saw a strong downward trend in the 1970s through the early 1990s.

 

Example #5

Proponents against drug legalization will argue about the “ravages” of drugs on our communities and the rise of murder and crime associated with them. There is passionate support for the “war on drugs” from all affected in this war, but how effective has this drug prohibition been in the past 70 years; who have been the real winners in this war?

There is empirical evidence from our prohibition on alcohol that proves that prohibition only exacerbates the criminal element, creating more crime and murder. The current war thus far has been by arming more police officers; imposing harsher jail time for offenders; and by making the youth pledge to be “drug-free”, all of which are failing dismally.

Pledging to be drug-free on this war will not bring changes about in drug reform. As stated in season one, episode seven of the 2017 Netflix show “Ozark,” it is just not that simple. Jonah Byrde an elementary student is asked by his teacher to sign his name on a paper pledging to be “Drug-Free.”

In the show, he cites that it wasn’t so simple because it is drug money that is holding up our banking industry. That is why the stock market crash in 2008 wasn’t as bad because it was held up by $60 billion in drug money. Children recognize the hypocrisy of these failed drug programs at a very early age which leads them to ridicule and have distrust our U.S. Government.

 

Example #6

The War on drugs is a war on people and a war on progress said Michael K Williams in his CNN piece, The war on drugs is a war on people. Drug wars destroyed family’s lives, crowded our jails, prisons, and robbed the futures of black and brown communities” that’s what drugs do, they destroy people. According to Williams, the war on drugs has not made America a safer place.

The war on drugs has a way of demonizing and silencing black youth generations, for at least 45 years. Studies show that in 2014, an average of 2.2 million people was incarcerated” raising the percentage to 350% over 4 decades. As of today, 60% of people behind bars are black or Hispanic. Studies showed 1 out of 3 men who are locked up in prison are black or Hispanic.

Reports indicated that white men are less likely to end up in jail than black men. Bruce Western reported that 41% of all black males who dropped out of high school before the age of 30 have a higher risk of getting arrested and locked up in jail. The Justice Department claimed 1 out of 8 black males are locked up before the age of 30.

Jeffery A. Miron, a professor of Economics at Boston University gives his history about the war on drugs. Miron explained how the United States put away 38,000 people behind bars for drug possession and drug offenses. Miron reported that 1.2 million out of 1.5 million people are locked up in jail or prison for drug possession offenses only. Many arrests for possession occur because the arrestee violated some other laws” prostitution, theft, speeding, loitering, disorderly conduct, and so on” and was found to possess drugs.

Thus, otherwise law-abiding citizens who wish to purchase and consume drugs face minimal risk of arrest or other situation, Says Miron. Michael K Williams, a Brooklyn actor, speaks out about his experience and struggles with substance abuse. Williams claimed he received treatment to help control his drug addiction. Later, William said he would rather experience being jailed for his past addiction issues. Williams revealed how he overcame his drug addiction but never got to experience any arrests.

President Barack Obama focused on more drug offenses than any other president in the United States. The Department of Justice delivered a message to end any usage of private prisons. The United States Senator considered reducing mandatory sentencing by giving judges the opportunity to hand down sentences to fit each crime. First lady Nancy Reagan wanted to change current laws that interfered during the crack epidemic in the 1980s.

Reagan created a campaign called Just Say No to decrease demand. Although Reagan tried to send a message to the United Nations Audience on the 25th of Oct. 1988. Regan claimed to the United Nations Audience that the U.S had the highest ranking for drug abuse in the world. The war on Mexico continues with violent drug crimes and rival cartels. Anne Deslandes wrote an article on Guerro Mexico’s failed attempts on drugs. Deslandes, mentions in her article that Guerro, Mexico lost 2,318 people from violent homicide attacks involved with drug trafficking.

Deslandes talks about the war against poppy farming and crackdowns from the National Army in Mexico. Deslandes explains how Mexico should legalize poppy production to farmers in Mexico that allow the farmers to cultivate their products– without being in danger from cartels and the Mexican government. A former president, Ernst Zedillo, encouraged lawmakers in Mexico, saying: Give the benefit of the doubt to those of us who have followed the wrong policy for many years.

Later, Deslandes describes how lawmakers reached out to the national government hoping they would consider changing their policy to legalize growing the farmer’s poppy plants allowing them to use the opium for medical use and pharmaceutical use only. Statistics mentioned in Deslandes’s article show how legalizing the farmer’s poppy plants would decrease violence with drug cartels and the government.

Deslandes explained that former lawmakers agreed to consider legalizing farmers to grow poppy plants and use their opium for medical and pharmaceutical use. Deslandes points out that decriminalization would cut out drug traffickers and weaken them.

Also, Deslandes argues for the legalization of marijuana because it decreased drug cartel profits. Reproduction of poppy plants and opium would also decrease its values to cartels. Deslandes claims the farmers in Guerra Mexico came to a disagreement with the legalization of poppy plants. The farmers feared if their poppy plants were legalized it would become a major problem.

Deslandes reported that 50,000 people in Mexico who rely on the production of cultivating their poppy plants, and without poppy farming, people would be out of a job” no reliable income. Deslandes’s solution explains that legalizing the production of poppy plants can decrease government raids.

The former president-elect was on board with this law being reviewed and said he would not rule out the bill. Unfortunately, this agreement did not yet pass Today, the Mexican government and drug cartels continue fighting for territory. Cartels continue spilling blood and ruining the lives of innocent people to get what they want. In 2015, the Congressional Research Service report showed an average of 80,000 people who were killed by drug cartels in Mexico.

Drug cartels in Mexico make around 19 billion to 29 billion dollars a year in drug trafficking. The Sinaloa cartel is the highest-ranking dominant drug trafficking cartel in Mexico According to reports from the Council of Economic Advisors, opioid usage increased their costs each year” roughly $500 billion in tax revenue in 2015.

Eight billion dollars alone was used alone for criminal justice enforcement. In 2014, President Enrique Pena Nitro celebrated victory for arresting a former drug lord named El Chapo” the most successful drug lord in history for the Sinaloa Cartel. Patrick Redden Keefe mentioned how the Sinaloa Cartel makes an estimate between $18 billion dollars to $39 billion dollars a year importing and exporting drugs across the border of Mexico.

Keefe described the total amount in revenue that all cartels in Mexico derive from importing and exporting drugs across the U.S border, estimated a total amount of $6.6 billion annually each year. Keefe states that the Sinaloa Cartel achieved a market share minimum of 40% and 60% with a total of 3 billion dollars. The leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, Chapo Guzman, was known to be the most powerful and richest drug lord in Mexico of all time. Chapo Guzman’s organization made two times the amount Pablo Escobar did.

Close studies showed the Sinaloa Cartel now controls more territory around the Mexican border than any other cartel in Mexico. Keffer also claimed the Sinaloa Cartel to be the most successful organization in history today. Teri Moore described the legalization of marijuana and how it can benefit and reduce the percentages of current opioid users. Moore also states that marijuana has reduced the social harms relating to opioid use.

The University of British Columbia reviewed patient surveys which showed 63% of patients switched from opioid prescriptions to medical marijuana. Studies also showed 30% of the patients stayed on their opioid prescriptions. As a result, Moore mentioned medical marijuana legalization decreased by 23% of all opioid hospitalization visits.

Moore explained how users are most likely unaware of their dosage intake and buy opioids illegally from the black market. Moore also explained how marijuana can reduce problems if people substituted their medications. According to the National Cancer Institute, lethal overdoses from medical marijuana cannot occur because the dosage is unknown.

In 2017, a study from the American Journal of Public Health discovered opioid rates in Colorado decreased after marijuana became legalized for recreational use. Moore detailed how the black market pricing for marijuana was no longer known for having unbeatable prices because Colorado and Washington’s state decreased their market prices for marijuana to eliminate the black-market value for their products.

Moore’s pros for marijuana legalization would not only bring transparency to future business transactions but address how the war on drugs had failed. Moore claims the benefits of recreational/medical marijuana legalization can help users overcome dangerous addictions from opioids if they replace it with marijuana.

In sum, legalizing drugs can help prevent crime from cartels and minimize violence. Doing so would reduce the number of people killed in drug trafficking-related incidents and help boost economies with legally medicinal and recreational use.

 

Example #7

Policymakers often use the law as a way of controlling the selling, manufacturing, and consumption of specific goods. The Eighteenth Amendment, which deemed the selling and consumption of alcohol illegal, was passed (and later overturned) in the early twentieth century due to its failures.

This serves as a great example of how criminalization is not the best route to go when dealing with drug abuse, users, and sellers. Nevertheless, it was the first example we have, and it certainly wasn’t the last.

The War on Drugs, begun under president Richard Nixon, continues to permeate America’s fight against drug use, addiction, and subsequent drug-related crime. While it has probably become clear to the powers that be that the War on Drugs is simply not working, they do not agree with the radical belief that all drugs should be legalized. At least they don’t agree with what would be the most progressive method, which would be to establish the free market for all drugs related to the industry that currently exists, not unlike we have done with alcohol and cigarettes.

They argue that the legalization of drugs would only produce more street and violent crime and heighten accounts of drug addiction. But countries that have taken a different approach have proved this argument to be categorically untrue. While the U.S. cracked down on illicit drugs and their users, spending billions of dollars, Portugal decriminalized the use of all drugs in 2001, even heroin and cocaine, and instead decided to frame it as a public health issue.

The result after 15 years has been that “only about 25,000 Portuguese use heroin, down from 100,000 when the policy began. The number of Portuguese dying from overdoses plunged more than 85 percent before rising a bit in the aftermath of the European economic crisis of recent years. Even so, Portugal’s drug mortality rate is the lowest in Western Europe ” one-tenth the rate of Britain or Denmark ” and about one-fiftieth the latest number for the U.S” (Kristof 2017).

Portugal is the poster child of how to combat rampant drug use and has proven that if, and when, national policy objectives shift from “ stamping out drug use ” to the reduction of the damaging consequences of recreational drug usage, development is normally evident and dramatic. America’s version of how to combat this issue has been nothing more than a disheartening effort to disable and disappear the members of society that it has long hated and deemed unamerican for some reason or another. John Ehrlichman, who was a Watergate co-conspirator alongside Richard Nixon, has said himself that The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. Do you understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.

We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did. If the true intent behind the war on drugs was to incarcerate as many unwanted and disliked members of society as possible, then it was a huge success under this intention, because it has done exactly that.

The plague of imprisonment that we see in America currently is irreparably racialized because it was built this way with the help of the war on drugs. It’s no simple coincidence that more than five times as many African Americans are jailed as whites. Or that, despite the same degrees of drug usage, whites are multiple times less probable than Africans to be arrested on drug charges.

Or that this so-called “War on Drugs ” has coincided with large increases in incarceration rates, especially among dark and brown people. Despite these blatantly obvious ill intentions behind the war on drugs, our politicians and policymakers continue to live in a world where this is simply untrue and where the war on drugs continues to be a success in their eyes.

It has been proven and seen time and time again that keeping able-minded, free-willed adults from having access to recreational drugs has done much more harm than good. I think decriminalizing drugs is something that needs to be explored and considered as a serious option as we continue on. This is not because drugs are a good thing, they aren’t if they are used incorrectly, but because the “war on drugs” has been and is an utter failure.

Not unlike what we saw with prohibition, making drugs completely illegal has financed the creation of a huge criminal underworld and helps subsidize the enormous drug cartels south of our borders and even the Taliban profits from the drug trade. The same way that alcohol and tobacco have been legalized and regulated is the same thing that needs to happen with drug use because people have proven they’re going to purchase and use drugs no matter what.

The selling and use of drugs have almost destroyed inner-city neighborhoods and fueled gang warfare. I truly believe this was the intention when the war on drugs began, but I also believe we have proven to progress in our views of others’ differences since then. So while this war started on disgustingly immoral intentions, we still have a chance to turn it over to a nobler one, and the war on drugs as it stands, based on how it was created, is not our answer for the future of decreasing drug use in America.

Decriminalization is and has proven to be (in other countries of course) the answer. The tax money that would result from the sale of regulated drugs could go into the development of social programs that can begin healing these neighborhoods, eliminate wealthy drug dealers who act as role models for younger children, and create jobs within a new drug industry.

While it is unsettling for most to think about a world in which the illegal drugs we hear about ruining people’s lives being made legal, when you look at the statistics and the ways in which it would cause more help than harm, it is our most viable and logical option. But it’s not going to happen anytime soon.

 

Example #8

The War on Drugs is an American term usually applied to the United States government’s campaign of the prohibition of drugs, military aid, and military intervention, with the stated aim being to reduce the illegal drug trade. This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal.

The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by United States President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse “public enemy number one”.

In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a critical report on the War on Drugs, declaring: “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.”

The report was criticized by organizations that oppose a general legalization of drugs. On May 21, 2012, the U.S. Government published an updated version of its Drug Policy. The director stated simultaneously that this policy is something different from the “War on Drugs”.

Despite over $7 billion spent annually towards arresting and prosecuting nearly 800,000 people across the country for marijuana offenses in the US, according to FBI reports the federally funded Monitoring the Future Survey reports about 85% of high school seniors to find marijuana still “easy to obtain”. That figure has remained virtually unchanged since 1975, never dropping below 82.7% in three decades of national surveys.

The Drug Enforcement Administration states that the number of users of marijuana in the U.S. declined between 2000 and 2005 even with many states passing new medical marijuana laws making access easier, though usage rates remain higher than they were in the 1990s according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

A 2013 study found that prices of heroin, cocaine, and cannabis had decreased from 1990 to 2007, but the purity of these drugs had increased during the same time. The War on Drugs is often called a policy failure.

Since taking office on June 30, 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has carried out a “war on drugs” that has led to the deaths of over 7,000 Filipinos to date, mostly urban poor. At least 2,555 of the killings have been attributed to the Philippine National Police. Duterte and other senior officials have instigated and incited the killings in a campaign that could amount to crimes against humanity.

The Philippine president sees drug dealing and addiction as “major obstacles to the Philippines’ economic and social progress,” says John Gershman, an expert on Philippine politics. The drug war is a cornerstone of Duterte’s domestic policy and represents the extension of policies he has implemented earlier in his political career as the mayor of the city of Davao. In December 2016, the United States withheld poverty aid to the Philippines after declaring concern over Duterte’s war on drugs.

Human Rights Watch research has found that police are falsifying evidence to justify unlawful killings. Despite growing calls for an investigation, Duterte has vowed to continue the campaign. Large-scale extrajudicial violence as a crime solution was a marker of Duterte’s 22-year tenure as mayor of Davao City and the cornerstone of his presidential campaign.

On the eve of his May 9, 2016 election victory, Duterte told a crowd of more than 300,000: “If I make it to the presidential palace I will do just what I did as mayor. You drug pushers, holdup men, and do-nothings, you better get out because I’ll kill you.” Rejecting all criticism against his popular and bloody war on drugs, President Rodrigo Duterte last July 24, said that the campaign against illegal drugs in the country under his watch will be unrelenting. Duterte said he would not allow those involved in illegal drugs to “have the luxury of enjoying the benefits of their greed and madness.”

On the other hand, the Commission on Human Rights is still fighting to stop what they call “Extrajudicial Killings” of the government. According to them, if we cannot get justice here on earth, those behind the killings will be accountable in heaven. Duterte’s police have indeed shot dead thousands of people as they have scoured slums hunting drug traffickers and addicts, leading the right groups to express alarm at what they say are a wave of extrajudicial killings.

Solving the drug problem was among Duterte’s key promises during the 2016 elections. He campaigned on a platform of ending criminality in the country, including the illegal drug trade, in 6 months, but he had since extended this self-imposed deadline to the end of his term in 2022. The war on drugs is a battle yet to be won!

 

Example #9 – interesting ideas

The best way to evaluate a “war” is effectiveness. The “War on Drugs” … how close to complete failure are we? In terms of cost – Are we getting what we (the taxpayers) are paying for? How much money is spent fighting this war? How effective is the government at shutting down illegal vendors of drugs? How could this money be better spent? Would it be smarter to fight a “war of attrition” by shifting to treatment for drug offenders instead of police tactics?

In terms of the scope of the battle – Marijuana has been shown to have certain medical benefits … yet it is still listed as a “schedule 1 drug” with no therapeutic use … should marijuana be a schedule 1 drug? Available by prescription only? Freely available like tobacco and alcohol? Why?

Is it possible to win this war with a “full assault”? Is there anything in history that would teach us that bans are not effective in ridding society of popular things? Can we actually legislate our way to a drug-free America? Has any ban in the history of man been successful in legislating away popular behavior or things? Think about previous bans, Prostitution … still going strong, even though it’s illegal in most of the country! Alcohol? The prohibition saw the rise of organized crime that continues to control illegal trade today.

Should we, as a society, learn from the 18th amendment and go into “strategic retreat mode”, allowing adults the right to make their own decision concerning drug use while protecting those who do not wish to use from harm by setting limits on drug use and driving or operating machinery, etc?

There are a few ideas to get you going … by showing that the war on drugs is closely following other “battle plans” that were abject failures … maybe you can learn what the government should have long ago.


Our CIA runs cocaine up from South America to maintain the prison industrial complex. Since the CIA needs its own funding to stay off the paperwork, drugs are its best source.

They bring in drugs and break up families creating fuel for the prison industrial complex. Those drugs allow for the expansion of our military empire into South America, where dictators we installed hold power – much power derived from the funds the war on drugs brings. Obama recently expanded a covert war we have going in Columbia.

You want to score a copy of Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance. It is all about CIA drug running. Just recently a CIA plane (purchased from our military surplus) crashed coming from south America with TONS of pure cocaine onboard.


The “war” on drugs is a self-perpetuating phenomenon because the money seized from the drugs is used to supply more drugs, for more money for more drugs for more money. It justifies spending billions to wage war against drugs.

If they really went to war on drugs it would only last a year or two and then there would be no more plants and they would be out of a job. These days our only freedom is within our minds, and eventually, they’ll find a way to control that too. I’m glad I won’t be here for it.


Let’s wind back time to THE PROHIBITION, which we can rename the WAR ON ALCOHOL. That didn’t work at all, so they gave that up after 13 years (1920 to 1933).

In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs”, so that’s been going on for 45 years now; clearly it hasn’t done a bit of good so why continue with it? If anything it caused MORE problems; would people have invented all those new drugs (like crack, crystal meth, and loads of others) if the normal natural drugs had been legal?

The police etcetera spends a lot of time and effort combatting drugs, there are jails full of drugs traders and (worse) drugs users, drug traders are at war with each other over territory (okay, let them kill each other for all I care, but there are many innocent bystanders that end up hurt, hospitalized or dead too) …..

…. if drugs were legal, there’d be time for law enforcement to work on other things. AND there’d be less drug-related crime (as addicts wouldn’t have to commit so many crimes to pay for their addiction because the prices of drugs would DROP).


The War On Drugs has NEVER worked. Not at ALL. Not in the SLIGHTEST. And it NEVER, ever, ever will. And the reason is very, very, very simple.

Good laws are always based on the practical idea that people must be restrained from injuring or taking advantage of each other. Such laws are always written by reasonable people, and they ALWAYS make the world a better place.

Bad laws are always based on the nutty idea that certain behaviors are “moral” and other behaviors are “sinful.” Such laws are always written by religious idiots, and they ALWAYS cause wars, suffering, hatred, corruption, bloodshed, terror, waste, and chaos.

So, you see, you might just as well ask why it would not work to have a War On Stamp Collectors, or a War On Chocolate Lovers, or a War On People Who Sing In The Shower, or a War On People Who Like To Have Sex While Wearing Naughty Lingerie.

But actually, the War On Drugs DOES work very well for a certain privileged class, consisting of Cops, Lawyers, Judges, Prison Guards, and Drug Dealers. All of those people do VERY WELL because of the War On Drugs. And none of THEM would change it for the world.

Cite this page

Choose cite format:
War On Drugs Essay. (2020, Sep 13). Retrieved September 19, 2020, from https://essayscollector.com/examples/war-on-drugs-essay/



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *