Perhaps Americans take what they have for granted and forget that there are other countries with problems. Why does America care about what is happening in other countries like Columbia, when they have their own problems with drugs? The Untied States of America has a rather large drug trafficking problem but compared to Columbia it is fairly small. To help Columbia solve their problem the U.S. senate has decided to send troops over there and take control. This new involvement will have many consequences in and what can you make for instance the cost of a war, the loss and gain of jobs, and physical side effects. Now war is a very serious subject to study for sociologists, this gives them a chance to study people and how they react to certain environment. Sociologists have three main paradigms that they can coincide with people to learn they function under certain circumstances. The paradigms used are the Structural-Functional, Social-Conflict and Symbolic-Interaction. Here is a brief description to help make the sociologist perspective more understandable. The Structural-Functional paradigm has multiple interrelated parts; morally desirable functional consequences and conflict is often destructive. How is society integrated? What consequences are there for these various parts? The Social-Conflict paradigm is what you have when a society is a competitive situation. Some groups have power and others that want it, some win and some lose. Last the Symbolic-Interaction paradigm is that society is like a stage where people define and redefine meaning as they interact with one another. This brief description should help make this writing about the sociologist view of the war on drugs a little easier to understand. In the events of war people usually tend to suffer great losses financially, the reason for this is because prices go up to cover for the loss of other things. Money becomes very scarce in war because there is a cost for machinery such as guns, tanks, shelter for the troops and so on. Unfortunately this war is going to cost 1.7 billion dollars. Patrick Simms a radio announcer for national public radio has decided that he is going to name a magazine series based on this war and that series is going to be called “Putting the war into the war on drugs.” This label is pretty precise because Americans are actually paying to fight these drug lords and elim... ... middle of paper ... ... home, those who are going withdraw, the protesters that feel ending drugs was wrong and those feel it was right. All signs show people what drugs do to their society as well as their everyday living. A paradigm that could shed light on this is Symbolic-Interaction because people fought for what they believed in and succeeded making those people symbols. If people did not for fight what they believed is that problems would continue unsolved and America would be a tragic place to live. The war on drugs is a good idea if people do not mind losing their job or even suffering, but who do shape the world we live in today. If paying for a war in another country is the only way to get the point across then it has to be done. People do not realize how society is greatly impacted by drugs because most of society is involved with them or help make them or even sell them. Sure war is costly and there are positives and negatives, but America has come to a point where everything that involves evil or the hurting of others is based on question and most likely gotten rid of, all America needs is to set an example not only as a powerful country, but a leader for all their countries to follow.
Briefly state the main idea of this article: The main idea of this article is that economic inequality has steadily risen in the United States between the richest people and the poorest people. And this inequality affects the people in more ways than buying power; it also affects education, life expectancy, living conditions and possibly happiness. Another idea that he brought up was that the American government tends to give less help to the unemployed than other rich countries.
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
Ultimately the question that we should ask,have we as a nation approach the war on drugs fairly ? Is the war on drugs about the drug or is it about our people? I can honestly say with my head held high its not about the drug but about the people. .We as a nation don't gain anything if we strip our people from their rights and abandoned them. As Lisa D. Moore, DrPH and Amy Elkavich, BA noted, “Everyone should be able to access quality health care and education inside and out of prison. We should support ex-felons after their prison terms in their attempts to find meaningful employment, housing, and education.” We all live under one nation and should strive to be the best nations and allowing people to seize our rights as citizen is irrational. We need to step up and ask for change!
Many factors contribute to the reasons why drug use still exists in America today. It provides needed job titles, it is an on going process for medical research, and acts as a contribution to help certain people in their own personal ways. Drugs have been around for nearly two decades and as the years progress, the war on drugs seems as if it has no intensions of slowing down. This problem will only continue to intensify in an inferior situation. In using both the functionalist and interactionist perspectives, several imperfections such as addiction and the fact that people use drugs in illegal ways are identified. Ultimately, it is only us as a society as a whole who can take the responsibility and can change this issue … for better or for worse.
The highest earning fifth of U.S. families earned 59.1% of all income, while the richest earned 88.9% of all wealth. A big gap between the rich and poor is often associated with low social mobility, which contradicts the American ideal of equal opportunity. Levels of income inequality are higher than they have been in almost a century, the top one percent has a share of the national income of over 20 percent (Wilhelm). There are a variety of factors that influence income inequality, a few of which will be discussed in this paper. Rising income inequality is caused by differences in life expectancy, rapidly increases in the incomes of the top 5 percent, social trends, and shifts in the global economy.
Between the end of World War II and the late 1970s, income inequality in the U.S. was reduced; but since 1970s, the situation with wealth distribution has changed. Data from tax returns in 1976 show that the top 1 percent of households received 8.9 percent of all pre-tax income. In 2008, the top 1 percent’s share had more than doubled to 21.0 percent.
Income inequality in the United States, as of 2007, has reached levels not seen since 1928. In 1928, the top one percent received nearly 24% of all income within the United States (Volscho & Kelly, 2012). This percentage fell to nearly nine percent in 1975, but has risen to 23.5% as of 2007 (Volscho & Kelly, 2012). Meanwhile, in 2007 (see
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.
The War on Drugs has been a common phrase in the United States for many decades. What exactly does this mean and how does it shape U.S. foreign policy? The War on Drugs can be defined as the systematic and aggressive policy that is determined to undermine and stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. This policy is backed by several U.S. institutions including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Army, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Customs. Also, included in this list are the numerous local law enforcement agencies across the country.
An important application is how tipping points and trend lines apply to the present status and future course of the war on drugs. According to Webster’s dictionary, a war is the “organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad” (Merriam-Weber’s online dictionary, n.d.). Most people will unanimously agree that drugs and alcohol are bad and at least potentially dangerous, especially in the case substance abuse. Alcohol, drugs, and synthetic substances are associated with crime, violence, moral decay, brain damage, higher high school dropout rates, a multitude of health issues, and a myriad of other societal issues. As a society, Americans actually pay a high toll for substance abuse. The bill for tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug abuse costs Americans more than $600 billion annually in areas such as crime, unemployment, loss of productivity, and health care cost ( National Institute on Drug Abuse, n.d.). Based upon these facts, it ma...
Inequality today is one of the most significant problems that America faces. According to Inequality.org in 2015 Household income of the top 0.1% of the population gained $6,747,439 while bottom 90% of the population got $34,074 (Inequality.org). The gap between incomes only continues to grow every year, which requires a change in social and economic policies of the country. However, it should be remembered that economic indicators can tell about working conditions, living conditions, nutrition, education of representatives of various groups of the population, but they can not show a picture of the realizability and opportunities to be successful in life for different groups of the population. That is why at the end
Compare /Contrast and describe the changes, if any, that occur with Victor as a result of this encounter with Thomas (“This is what it Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona”) and with the narrator of Carver’s “Cathedral and “Robert—the blind man.” When discussing “Cathedral,” please don’t forget to talk about the narrator’s wife, as she is crucial to the story. Consider: How does one character teach the other, and what does one learn from the other? How storytelling/art forms important in each work? How do disabilities (real or metaphorical), loss of identity, and alienation figure into each story? Marshal quotes from texts as necessary.
American law enforcement has made drug enforcement one of its highest priorities for almost forty years. However, more people than ever are beginning to question the true benefits of the Drug War. The President of the United States, Barack Obama has even referred to the Drug War as an “utter failure” in the YouTube video “Barack Obama on Marijuana Decriminalization (2004).” These kinds of negative opinions on the Drug War are not unjustified. The Drug War has cost Americans 33 billion dollars and countless lives (Miron Par. 1). The Drug War is a poor alternative to combat drug use in America as evidenced by the history of Prohibition, the crime it creates, the harmful effects it has on the lives of users, and the numerous deaths it results in. The Drug War is a failed policy and the government must respond by legalizing all recreational drugs.
Throughout American history, wealth inequality has taken many different forms, and has affected many people and groups in different ways. In the following analysis, two measures of 'wealth inequalities' will be used. First is a more traditional view, regarding the distribution of income and wealth among the upper to lower classes. The size of the gap has varied over time, widening and compressing throughout American history. While America has been thought of as a middle class nation, this is a fairly recent phenomena that began after World War II. In this context of today, this idea appears to be fading as wealth is becoming more concentrated towards the upper classes. Additionally, these effects of both the concentration and equalization of income distribution can differently affect groups of people.
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.