The War on Drugs was meant to stop the violent criminals who were profiting from drug trafficking. The penalties often carried disparities finding no equal ground between the drug king pin, and the struggle addict punished for committing a crime against themselves. With longer prison sentences resulting from mandatory sentences. The disparities of drugs like crack vs. cocaine serve no real equal punishment for drug criminals. Social and Political stigma has kept drug criminals to be treated as lower-scale person. Incarcerating illicit drug violators has still yet to stop drug use and drug trafficking. Finding a new solution is not so farfetched. The U.S. waged a war on drugs four decades ago by Richard Nixon, the reason …show more content…
A first time offender can be sentenced to 5 years in prison for having 5.1 grams of cocaine. The difference is he has 5.0 grams of cocaine. Where his minimum sentence is at one year over a difference of quantity. (Caulkins. Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences. p. 16). New sentencing guidelines are needed to stop these disparities in quantity. The result is a substantial differences in the penalty for the same offense. The biggest political issue with the drug charges being so harsh. “No one supports drug abuse; virtually everyone is opposed”. This tends to leave drug offenders with no one to speak on their behalf. So no contest the ideas for harsher sentences.”(Meire. Western Political Quarterly. 1992.).Politicians will push for stricter polices on drug control to gain support for their campaigns. If convicting every drug user is working, then we should see a drop in drug trafficking and drug use? Well we still have illicit drugs making their way across the border even with all the drug bust. As for the use of …show more content…
became harsher on drugs by enforcing mandatory minimums towards people violating our illegal drug policies. Sending them to prison with mandatory minimums widened the cost of this war. These minimums have not tackled the real issue of abuse of these controlled substances. Not taking care of prisoner with drug abuse causes them to be irrational, and leading them to commit crimes to feed their addiction. Are policies against drugs come with disparities for drug users, spending money on drug enforcement seems to not be cost-effective. Society has over the years ostracized illicit drug users. We have to consider the quality of treatment among lower social class people. Treating drug abusers is considered, but how effective can it be when it’s offered only to those able to afford it. The drug court is an alternative model to treat drug offenders able to be accepted in the program. In the program individual are provided with intensive treatment to stay sober. They are regulated by a Drug Court judge with drug test and, given goals to achieve sobriety. This offers them to have less criminal justice supervision focusing on their treatment (Carey et al. Cost and Consequences. 2008.). Eligibility varies depending on state and local guidelines targeting adult drug offenders, but do not accept violent offenders. The problem with this treatment is the availability limiting the opportunity for this more suitable alternative for people convicted of drug
On the typical day, over 90 people will die at the hand of opioid abuse in America alone (National). In fact, as of 2014, nearly 2 million Americans were dependent and abusing opioids. The Opioid Crisis has affected America and its citizens in various ways, including health policy, health care, and the life in populous areas. Due to the mass dependence and mortality, the crisis has become an issue that must be resolved in all aspects.
Harrell’s essay also introduces other facets of drug courts to be researched in an effort to understand inconsistences in drug court practices from jurisdictions across the country. In particular, Harrell notes that eligibility, treatment availability, and court practices vary significantly from one drug court to the next. He brings light to the possible correlation between drug court practices and recidivism, and the importance of understanding which court practices contribute positively toward successful program
Within our society, there is a gleaming stigma against the drug addicted. We have been taught to believe that if someone uses drugs and commits a crime they should be locked away and shunned for their lifetime. Their past continues to haunt them, even if they have changed their old addictive ways. Everyone deserves a second chance at life, so why do we outcast someone who struggles with this horrible disease? Drug addiction and crime can destroy lives and rip apart families. Drug courts give individuals an opportunity to repair the wreckage of their past and mend what was once lost. Throughout this paper, I will demonstrate why drug courts are more beneficial to an addict than lengthy prison sentences.
Drug courts were first established in Miami in 1989 and have continued to grow today. Over the past twenty-four years, drug courts have provided a treatment-orientated approach to help defendants with drug-related crimes. The constant interaction of the drug court provides the needed structure for participants to maintain their involvement in the program. Understanding the overall goals of the drug court and the outcomes of participants in the drug court program are the key factors in measuring the success of the drug courts.
In the novel High Price, Dr. Carl Hart talks about the injustice caused by the war on drugs. He proclaims that the war on drugs causes more problems than the effects of using drugs. The war on drugs is racially discriminatory and punishes Africans Americans as well as other minorities more often and severely than whites. When individuals predominantly African Americans get caught with drugs they are often locked up for a significantly longer period. As a criminal justice major, I know that incarcerating drug related offenders is ineffective and can damage society. Due to the war on drugs, there is a higher than the average incarceration rate, and our prisons and jails are over populated. Instead of detaining these offenders, we should develop
We cannot afford to keep using the same approach in hopes of diminishing our drug problem in the United States. In a study posted on RAND.org, the author Jonathan P. Caulkins compares many methods we can use to help with drug crime. The first graph compares federal mandatory minimum sentences, conventional enforcement at all levels of government, and treatment of heavy users. Conventional enforcement prevented around thirty kilo grams of cocaine from being used, while federal mandatory minimums prevented around forty kilograms from being used. Treatment of heavy users blew both of the other methods out of the water.
The war on drugs began with the presidential term of President Nixon in the 1970s. According to drugpolicy.org, “He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. Nixon temporarily placed marijuana in Schedule One, the most restrictive category of drugs.”
Right now in the United States there are over 2 million people incarcerated in the country’s prisons and jails. Out of this population about one-quarter of these inmates have been convicted of a drug offense. With drug offense arrests increasing nationwide and the prison population increasing there is an alternative to incarceration has been used over the past two decades in many cities across the country. This alternative is in the form of local drug courts that are now found in most major cities in the United States. A drug court is a specialized court in which the judge, prosecutor, public defender or private attorney, probation officers, and treatment counselors work together to help chemically dependent offenders obtain needed treatment and rehabilitation in an attempt to break the cycle of addiction and further criminal offenses. Some argue that treatment rather than incarceration is a waste of time and valuable resources that could be used elsewhere. Research however has shown that court ordered treatment is the best option for drug offenders. Treatments through drug court has proven to be less expensive than incarceration and has also been shown to reduce crime and provide a lower relapse and re-arrest rate for offenders that are placed in drug courts as opposed to those that are not.
War is a cruel and nasty enterprise. However, it is essential to human history and societal change. These two facts together might seem paradoxical and incomprehensible, or they might reveal deeply disturbing aspects of human character. Drugs bring in an abundance of illegal activity like gangs fighting over turf. This type of fighting causes high percentages of fatalities. We see this in every part of the globe when listening to the news media. Almost every American knows someone who has been touched by the abuse of drugs, whether it be drug dealing, imprisonment, prescription drug usage or someone being killed because of the drug trade. I am of the opinion that war comes with underlying currents from power conflicts to economic growth. The Structural Perspective approach to the war on drugs is to function as described by Linda Mooney, David Knox, and Caroline Schacht state in chapter 15… of Understanding Social Problems (2013), “Wars... function inspire scientific and technological
The drug problem that overtook the United States was not just your average run of the mill small time street hustling drugs. The problem was much larger, with several contributing factors. During the 70s, at the beginning of the war on drugs, there
The United States of America has 5 percent of the world’s population and currently is responsible for 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated individuals. This is an alarming number. This disproportionate ratio has been growing over recent decades. The war on drugs that was started under the administration of President Ronald Reagan has caused this measure to worsen. Most arrest are concentrated in lower income communities that are predominantly non-white and are at the lower end of the income range. This has caused an already medically underserved community to suffer further disparities in health care and overall health. This review concludes that the policy of over-incarcerating the individuals, who would be better served through rehabilitation and community intervention, is causing a devastating destruction of family units and the health of our citizens.
“Getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on nondrug crime,” they write. “When a decision is made to wage a ‘war on drugs,’ other things that criminal justice resources might do have to be sacrificed.”
“The House I Live In” has a collection of strongly informed and articulate interview subjects who have decades of research and practice in the subject. The war on drugs is costly and it has not worked. It has actually torn apart families and communities. It mainly targets the poor and minorities and has filled the prisons with many nonviolent offenders, most of them serving insanely long sentences. The director makes a well-reasoned case that society would be better assisted if most drug offenders were reformed instead of imprisoned. While the drug war is for many synonymous with the Reagan administration, it was actually officially launched under Richard Nixon. Of the 2.3 million persons imprisoned in the United States, more than 500,000 are for nonviolent drug crimes. In the meantime, the amount of drug use has continued relatively constant, and in some areas actually gone up.
The war on drugs began in June 1971, President Nixon decided to take a dramatic increase in size and presence on the federal drug control agencies. In the beginning, the main focus was on marijuana, but eventually the focus has been spread among all different types of narcotics. Since the war on drugs has started the United States has wasted around $51,000,000,000 (50 billion) yearly, and is rising more and more each year. It has spent over a trillion dollars total. Although, the government uses billions of dollars yearly not much gets accomplished, proving that the war on drugs is failing. I believe that the war on drugs is considered a failure, should be terminated and or restructured.
Drug abuse has been a hot topic for our society due to how stimulants interfere with health, prosperity, and the lives of others in all nations. All drugs have the potential to be misapplied, whether obtained by prescription, over the counter, or illegally. Drug abuse is a despicable disease that affects many helpless people. Majority of those who are beset with this disease go untreated due to health insurance companies who neglect and discriminate this issue. As an outcome of missed opportunities of treatments, abusers become homeless, very ill, or even worst, death.