Illicit drug use and the debate surrounding the various legal options available to the government in an effort to curtail it is nothing new to America. Since the enactment of the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914 (Erowid) the public has struggled with how to effectively deal with this phenomena, from catching individual users to deciding what to do with those who are convicted (DEA). Complicating the issue further is the ever-expanding list of substances available for abuse. Some are concocted in basements or bathtubs by drug addicts themselves, some in the labs of multinational pharmaceutical companies, and still others are just old compounds waiting for society to discover them.
The solution is to decriminalize all drugs. Decriminalization is not legalization; there would still be penalties such as a fine for drug possession, but there would no longer be a criminal charge. We should change prohibition laws that have proven ineffective and try a different approach. The benefits to decriminalization are obvious: Less money spent enforcing drug laws that don’t work means more money for other more pressing law enforcement challenges. Fewer drug arrests mean fewer individuals with a criminal record who may struggle to find a job. Current addicts would no longer need to fear persecution and could instead receive the help they desperately need. Law enforcement could regain the public’s trust and respect. These are all reasons why we shou...
The following is a summary of the President’s policy emphasizing on the President’s stated objectives. Stopping drug use before it starts, providing drug treatment, and attacking the economic basis of the drug trade are the main positions the President stressed. The President’s policy was analyzed by the important tasks played by law enforcement, schools and the community. The apprehension of major drug organizations will be explained how they attribute to the policy. The effectiveness of the President’s drug policy will also be evaluated.
The prohibitionist national policy towards drugs in U.S has been extremely contentious in the present times. After decades of the stance that costs billions how many each year, the paltry achievements and the countless negative externalities have led to a clamor for alternative policies instead of a “War on Drugs”.
Few, if any, would argue that drug abuse in the United States is not a serious problem. However, the issue remains how to address it. The current schema of the politicized, militarized "war on drugs" does not appear to be working to reduce drug use in this country. More and more prisons are being built, with increasing numbers of citizens (particularly among minority populations) becoming incarcerated and subsequently trapped in the cycle of the criminal justice system. The current policies for punishing drug users not only imposes strain on monetary resources and infrastructure; they are in fact perpetuating great social suffering and injustice. What is needed is a systematic transfer from an ideology of punishment to one of prevention and rehabilitation, but practically, as in most cases, money will talk loudest.
. Harm reduction is referred to as a “pragmatic” approach because it starts with accepting that individuals have and always will, use drugs and engage in high-risk behaviors in ways that pose a threat to both themselves and their community. While the focus is placed on reducing consequences, not decreasing or eliminating unsafe behaviors, harm reduction does not preclude abstinence from being a goal as long as it is one which the affected individual identifies, thus rendering it compatible with a number of preexisting treatment modalities. Due to its multidisciplinary involvement, various definitions of harm reduction exist and “reflect a diverse movement that values contributions of both individuals and communities, of scientific discovery and human rights advocacy, and of grassroots and public health movements” (Marlatt, Larimar, and Witkiewitz, 2012, p. 27).
Over the years, drug abuse has been a rising problem in almost every country in the world. Day by day more people are involved in this endless cycle of drug craving, money shortage, and drug related crimes. Congressmen and politicians of United States, seeing this unstoppable crime wave which is about to spread throughout the country, begin to address various kinds of possible solutions to end this crisis in the most efficient and effective way. As discussed in Alan M. Dershowitz's "The Case for Medicalizing Heroin" and Charles B. Rangel's "Legalize Drugs? Not on Your Life," the most popular proposition set forward by growing number of leaders now is to legalize the use of drugs; but will it help solving the problem or make it even worse? I agree with Rangel that in order to end drugs abuse completely, we have to find the root of the problem and use any forces necessary and retain the determination to keep on fighting because it will not be an easy battle.
Drug addiction is one of the hardest things to overcome in life. Once a person becomes addicted to drugs, not only does it affect them, but it affects everyone around them. There are many options for addicts, but it is very hard to admit being an addict. Drug users should have the option of what method they would like to take in order to help them with their addiction. Options, like psychotherapy and education, can be positive for the addict and help change the attitude of the addict for the better. To non- addicts, another way would be serving jail time for your “crime”. Others believe that drugs should become decriminalized so that there would people doing “illegal” things. While some either disagree or agree with jail time, the real problem at hand is how society will change when given the resources or the punishment of abusing drugs. According to California State University, “There are many people and
The harm reduction model the most prevalent ideology within the large spectrum of substance control methods, it is defined by the Centre for Mental Health and Addiction as any program or policy designed to reduce drug-related harm without requiring the cessation of drug use. In essence instead of adhering to the conventional eradication style practices aforementioned, this style focuses on helping the offender cope with their mental illness. This not only can encourage offenders to take active participation within their treatment, but makes them the directors of their own rehabilitation using their own will power to gauge treatment. Although the harm reduct...
Drug arrests occur too often and are taking up a majority of general arrests in America. “Drug arrests were the single largest category of arrests, accounting for more than 10% of all arrests in the country” (A drug, 2015). One out of ten of every arrest in the United States of America is a drug arrest. This over focus on drug arrests needs to stop as it is taking focus off of more damaging violent crimes. Overall drug arrests are up 8.3% from a decade ago” (A drug, 2015). Drug crimes are increasing because of the American government increased focus on drug crimes, despite the fact that it is not helping the problem. Even though drug arrests are going up, drug use in the United States of America is “... plentiful and widely used as ever” (Grenier,
Harm reduction itself is a heavily contested topic, predominantly with regards to its definition, but subsequently with its effectiveness, which is highly dependant on which definition is applied. It is important when discussing definition debates to consider that, as stated by Erickson (1995) "our interpretations of the term tend to change over time and this is a healthy process that is essential in the full articulation of an 'emerging public health perspective'" (Erickson, 1995: 283). There is literature to suggest that the term 'harm reduction' was firstly used only in application to programmes and policies that tried to reduce harm for individuals that continued to use substances, and as such did not include abstinence focused approaches (Single and Rohl, 1997). This deliberate exclusion from definition is beneficial in the sense that it clarifies harm reductions stance in