American Drug Policy Essay Sample
Only $13.90 / page
The American Drug Policy is a societal issue with many pros and cons. So many different countries are impacted daily by the Torahs of this policy when one tries to divide the issues and wade through the sludge and quag of what. who. where. why and when. all sense of truth and world becomes a confounding unapproachable end. Both sides of the argument have their ain set of statistics that support their statement. I suppose in order to analyse this policy ; one will hold to near this issue with an unfastened indifferent head. The job is that because of the virtuousness of the drug Torahs. it is about impossible to non take side or experience strongly one manner or the other. As I am composing this I am listening to Drug Policy Debates on CSpan. and it is really confusing to me the attitude of the moral bulk when it comes to drug policy reform. When valid points are raised about the benefits of nonprohibition or legalisation and ordinance of illegal drugs. people seem to flog out and decline to see the difficult cold facts about what prohibition has created in our universe. Intended Results
The intended result of the Americas Drug Policy was to eliminate the supply and usage of illegal drugs. When Nixon initiated the policies that are in topographic point today he had high hopes and ends about extinguishing the importation and gross revenues of illegal drugs that were doing what he called our nation’s figure one public enemy in 1971. drug abuse…Initially he spoke of intervention and instruction for drug nuts and spine Torahs for discouraging the providers. He knew the monastery costs of contending this war could be high stating “ If we are traveling to hold a successful violative. we need more money. Consequently. I am inquiring the Congress for $ 155 million in new financess. which will convey the entire sum this twelvemonth in the budget for drug maltreatment. both in enforcement and intervention. to over $ 350 million. ” ( Nixon. 1971 ) . His program involved the consolidation of nine federal organisations that at the clip worked individually. in to one more effectual subdivision of authorities that could utilize the combined resources to concentrate more straight on halting the drug job in America. He stated in his address presenting the Intensified Program for Drug Abuse Prevention and Control on June 17. 1971. “ With respect to this violative. it is necessary foremost to hold a new organisation. and the new organisation will be within the White House. Dr. Jaffe. who will be one of the briefers here today. will be the adult male straight responsible.
He will describe straight to me. and he will hold the duty to take all of the Government bureaus. nine. that trade with the jobs of rehabilitation. in which his primary duties will be research and instruction. and see that they work …” ( Nixon. 1971 ) . Nixon besides was cardinal in conveying the RICO Act into drama assisting to deter the organized offense component that is a direct consequence of prohibition of any coveted point. Nixon shortly lost sight of his attempt to eliminate illegal drugs. when the focal point of our state switched to his ain condemnable actions. President Ford brought compulsory minimal condemning guideline in to the policy. with the intended result of discouraging traders every bit good as users from continued condemnable involvment. ( Ford. 1976 ) . With the Regan disposal we saw harsher compulsory minimal condemning guidelines every bit good as the Just Say No run that swept through our nation’s school system. This plan was intended to work on bar and at hazard group intercession halting drug usage before it starts.
These betterments were non without cost nevertheless. as Regan stated in his address on October 2nd. 1982. “Since 1981. when Vice President George Bush and I took office. we have better than tripled entire Federal disbursement for drug enforcement. bar. and intervention. And we’ve requested a farther 13-percent addition that will set about $ 4 billion into the Federal attempt following year…” He besides stated about indistinguishable programs as his predecessor Nixon had promised “…for the first clip. the actions of the different Government bureaus and sections covering with narcotics are being coordinated. There are 9 sections and 33 bureaus of Government that have some duty in the drug country. but until now. the activities of these bureaus were non being coordinated. Each was contending its ain separate conflict against drugs. Now. for the really first clip. the Federal Government is engaging a planned. concerted run. ” ( Regan. 1982 ) These cardinal countries of the policy highlight what was meant to be the result of our War on Drugs.
The riddance of illegal drugs. a significant lessening in the figure of drug user every bit good as a pronounced lessening in drug related offenses were the grounds behind this policy. The Clinton epoch merely saw one time once more an addition in passing “We propose to add up to $ 175 million to seed a far-reaching media run to acquire out the facts and determine the attitudes of these immature people. We’ll be seeking fiting financess from the private sector for a sum of $ 350 million …” ( Clinton. 1997 ) . while usage among 8th graders went well up. even with the addition in support. . ( Clinton. 1997 ) Obama is the first president to even touch to the fact that alteration is necessary saying in his March 11th. 2009 address. “ . . Think traditionally the argument is interdiction. criminalisation. and longer drugs–longer prison sentences for non lone traders. but users ; that’s one attack. And so the other attack would be kind of a public wellness. decriminalisation attack. ” ( Obama. 2009 ) .
Success or Failure?
The success of this policy truly depends on whose informations you chose to travel by. Advocates of the war on drugs will state you that so we are winning the on drugs irrespective of the cost. Anti-drug war militants will pelt you with statistical informations that tells another narrative. In my research attempts into this policy I must state that I am confused as to the reluctance of our leaders to even see reconstituting this policy. Any degree headed individual regardless of their personal feelings about drugs can look at the Numberss and see that current policy is non working. Yet twelvemonth after twelvemonth we continue to dump money into uneffective drug war attempts. At the mere reference of the word legalisation or ordinance in topographic point of current prohibition policies. the call from drug policy leaders is utmost and deafening. doing the focal point to be drawn off from any possible redresss of the current conditions blighting our state. Unintended Results
With the enforcement of drug policy comes the creative activity of several different status that are holding negative effects on the people that are suppose to profit from this policy. We now have the differentiation of being the leader in figure of citizens incarcerated. Our nation’s tribunals are flooded with drug related instances and in turn our rectification system is hardly able to maintain up with the rate of strong beliefs and the high recidivism rates. along with long sentence inmates who prove to be dearly-won in footings of medical and lodging costs.
Corruptness in jurisprudence enforcement every bit good as rectification related industry must besides be viewed as unintended consequences of the high bets black market that exists as a direct consequence of drug prohibition Torahs. Current drug policy is neglecting to extinguish the usage of drugs by our citizens and when there is a demand for any merchandise. providers will travel to great lengths to supply such merchandises. Just as intoxicant prohibition brought wealth to work forces like Al Capone. drug prohibition has resulted in a multibillion dollar black market that provides fast money to those who are willing to take the hazard. With the condemnable component come the hazard of corruptness at all degrees of our authorities. The enticement of fast money does non merely appeal to the people who use drugs. it besides has pull over the people who are meant to be fight the war on drugs.
The demand to make prisons to house the of all time turning inmate population besides opens doors into legion other countries of questionable behaviour. Denationalization of our correctional establishment in an attempt to cut down the costs of this policy has seen an detonation in private tally prisons. One does non hold to be a mastermind to see that a for net income industry can sometimes seek to act upon the manner authorities act in respects to countries that straight increase or diminish the net income borders of such industries. Harsher prison footings as penalty for drug offenses has a direct consequence on private prison net incomes. The more inmates sent to prison the bigger the net incomes for this industry. As an added inducement many private prisons are seting their inmate population to good usage. Good for the net income border that is. By undertaking out inmate labour this industry is acquiring cheaper labour so even the worst slave labour type mills that we are so vehemently against in other states. Yet this is seen as morally okay because the inmates have few rights every bit long as they are under the legal power of our correctional organisations.
Other unintended effects are the impact of being a drug wrongdoer one time released from prison or gaol. The freshly released wrongdoer stands small to no opportunity of successfully reintegrating back in to a noncriminal universe. Retaining paid employment is an unsurmountable obstruction with small opportunity for success. Finding suited lodging is another demand that is hard to run into. Most wrongdoers end up housed in an country full of offense and poorness with the enticement of drugs and offense frequently to abundant to avoid. These are merely a twosome of factor that consequences in wrongdoers who see their life as on large go arounding door to our prison system.
The high cost of Americas War on Drugs leaves small budget left for our nation’s instruction demands and created high dollar industries that would fall in if this policy was of all time to alter it class. We as a state truly necessitate to make up one’s mind what is more of import. our kids or the continued captivity of our ain people for Acts of the Apostless that are equal to other Acts of the Apostless that have been deemed acceptable frailties by the powers that be. Effectiveness and Efficiency
I believe that this policy has proven to be uneffective in bring forthing the coveted result of its intended ends. We are non halting the bulk of the drug supply cargos and the usage of illegal drugs is non worsening at any significant rate. We are doing irreversible injury to the wrongdoers and must heartache and enduring to their households and loved 1s. Increased disbursement has crippled other countries of of import societal plan development. We need to turn to the grounds that people want to utilize drugs and happen ways to battle this desire to get away from one’s ain world. If we continue to handle drug dependence reprehensively so we will shortly be a state largely behind bars. The usage of condemnable justness as a remedy for drug dependence is every bit uneffective as utilizing faith healing on malignant neoplastic disease. It may work but odds are it won’t.
Our condemnable justness system was and still is over fluxing with the of all time lifting figure of drug jurisprudence lawbreakers that are non merely legion but extremely expensive and most frequently repeat wrongdoers. The supply of drugs has non decreased and the pureness of drugs has merely increased with the black market sub universe that prohibition has one time once more created. Modern twenty-four hours Al capons are platitude and the enticement of fast money has done anything but deter the importing of these illegal substances. The high cost of contending the war on drugs has left small or no money available for other societal countries such as instruction or public lodging. We continually cut budgets for our nation’s school systems yet about double the. money to be spent on drug enforcement and correctional establishments. Whether knowing or non we have targeted destitute communities and locked up significant sums of their immature grownup males. This leaves their households without positive male function theoretical accounts and perpetuates antisocial behaviours and negative public sentiments of our condemnable justness system. We need to revamp this policy if it is to of all time go effectual in take downing the sum of injury that is a consequence of drug maltreatment in our state.
Clinton. W. J. ( 1997. Febuary 25 ) . Remarks Announcing the 1997 National Drug Control Strategy and an Exchange With Reporters. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. The American Presidency Project. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. presidential term. ucsb. edu/ws/ ? pid=53779. Ford. G. R. ( 1976. Febuary 23 ) . Statement on Drug Abuse. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. The American Presidency Project. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. presidential term. ucsb. edu/ws/ ? pid=5609. Nixon. R. ( 1971. June 17 ) . Note About an Intensified Program for Drug Abuse Prevention and Control. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. The American Presidency Project. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. presidential term. ucsb. edu/ws/ ? pid=3047. Obama. B ( 2009. March 11 ) . Interview With Regional Reporters. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. The American Presidency Project. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. presidential term. ucsb. edu/ws/ ? pid=85870.
Reagan. R. ( 1982. October 2 ) . Radio Address to the State on Federal Drug Policy. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley. The American Presidency Project. hypertext transfer protocol: //www. presidential term. ucsb. edu/ws/ ? pid=43085.