More than two-hundred years ago, thirteen young nations defeated a tyrant thousands of miles away. The prize for such a victory was self-government. For the first time in human history, a nation had handed over supreme executive power to the masses. Exercising this power has become a hallmark of being an American. Even today it is thought of as one of the most patriotic acts one can undertake. The thought of a nation run by popular vote is a comfortable enough idea, but in the case of the United States, a self-governed population threatens to destroy itself and possibly the world through wasteful spending, unregulated pursuit of profits, and a blotted military budget. The United States of America, more than any other nation on earth, squanders its wealth on extremely impracticable endeavors. One example is drug regulation. State and federal institutions spend billions of dollars annually to keep recreational drugs illegal. Such laws, however, have yielded mixed results. Perhaps the worse effect of drug prohibition is the black market trading of these substances. Much like alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s, strict drug laws give criminals access to vast amounts of wealth and power thorough the sale of illegal substances. I believe firmly that an all encompassing drug legalization bill would greatly reduce the quantity and severity of violent crimes committed in the United States. What’s stopping such a legalization bill? Right-winged fundamentalists who are sure that drug legalization would decay the morel decency and destroy the productive spirit that Americas hold dear. What I find most ridiculous about this position is that there is already an extremely dangerous substance available to any American over the age of 21. Alcoh... ... middle of paper ... ...gers, the United States continues to spend billions of dollars on military endeavors. The dogmas of the stormy past will no longer suffice for the calm future. Being the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in anger, I believe that the United States needs to be the first nation to drop its nuclear armament count to zero. These are just a few of the numerous problems with the federal government. My faith in the common man’s ability to elect politicians intelligent enough to deal with such problems is dead. Democracy might have worked in the days of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, but will not suffice for the problems of today. The United States should be run by intellectuals, not by the lawyer who can shake the most hands and dump the most money into his/her campaign. Government policies should be decided on their practicality rather than their popularity.
The United States is a privileged country with freedoms and opportunities many countries strive to achieve. People come into the United States in hopes to obtain these rights and make a better life for themselves; they strive to achieve “The American Dream.” Citizens are given the chance to vote, speak their mind, and live according to their desires without prejudice. However, the same government that promises hope has flaws that frustrate the American people; the Electoral College is one topic of debate. Many feel this system is a safe way to regulate who leads the country, while others feel that issues should be left to popular vote.
Legalizing the use of soft drugs would help bolster the U.S. economy, partially because the government would have the ability to tax these drugs. This includes marijuana used for medicinal purposes, which, according to a 1995 article in The Journal of the American Medical Association, can “counteract the toxicity of chemotherapy, treat migraines, minimize pain, and treat moderate wasting syndrome in AIDS patients.” The economy would also benefit from the legalization of drugs because fewer drug offenders would crowd the prisons, and the government could spend the money they saved from this reduction in prison populations on other public expenses. With drug busts running at 750,000 cases a year nationwide, (mostly for marijuana,) prisons are bulging, and those imprisoned for drug-related crime account for only a fraction of America’s drug users. In Elliot Currie’s essay, “Toward a Policy on Drugs,”...
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
The United States of America is often touted as the guiding beacon of democracy for the entirety of the modern world. In spite of this tremendous responsibility the political system of the United States retains some aspects which upon examination appear to be significantly undemocratic. Perhaps the most perplexing and oft misunderstood of these establishments is the process of electing the president and the institution known as the Electoral College. The puzzle of the Electoral College presents the American people with a unique conundrum as the mark of any true democracy is the citizens’ ability to elect their own ruling officials. Unfortunately, the Electoral College system dilutes this essential capacity by introducing an election by
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
Adding this all up, I have concluded that the United States democracy is unhealthy, yet I still believe there is hope. If I had to give the current condition of democracy a letter grade, I would give it a C. I got this grade because even though the United States maintains many civil right and liberties, a strong number of interest groups, and diverse political parties, it just isn’t enough to carry the poor conditions of ideologies, voter turnout, education, economics, and media. Democracy is surly not thriving in America, but at this point, there is still hope.
In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed. Additionally, I will highlight and evaluate the influences acting on individual legislators' decisions to continue support for these ineffective policies as a more general demonstration of Congress' role in the formation of our nation's drug policy strategy. Finally, I will conclude this analysis by outlining the changes I feel necessary for future progress to be made. Primary among these changes are a general promotion of drug education and the elimination of our current system's many de-legitimating hypocrisies.
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
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 the removal of non-violent citizens from society- either directly by incarceration or indirectly by death - which is genocidal in quantity and essence. I base my support of the decriminalization of all drugs on a principle of human rights, but the horror and frustration with which I voice this support is based on practicality. The most tangible effect of the unfortunately labeled "Drug War" in the United States is a prison population larger than Russia's and China's, and an inestimable death toll that rivals the number of American casualties from any given war, disease or catastrophe.
Some of the most prominent economists already involved in the issue are Jeffrey Miron and Mark Thornton. One strand of the discussion comes from Jeffrey Miron 2004. He discusses the current battle with the regulation and legalization of drugs in the United States and provides an analysis of the problems associated with prohibition. Miron offers a balanced, sophisticated and in-depth analysis of the true costs, benefits, and consequences of strictly enforcing drug prohibition. He argues that the effects of prohibition on drug use have been modest at best and have numerous highly unfavorable detrimental side effects. Specifically, prohibition is shown to directly increase violence, even when it deters drug use. Miron's analysis leads to the alarming discovery that the more resources given to the war on drugs, the higher the homicide rate. He provides a cost-benefit analysis on several alternatives to the war on drugs. His conclusion is indisputable. He proclaims that any of the numerous and widely discussed alternatives are likely to be a substantial improvement over the current policy of total
Lately it seems that drug policy and the war on drugs has been in the headlines quite a lot. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies that the United States government takes against illegal drugs are coming into question. The mainstream media is catching on to the message of organizations and individuals who have long been considered liberal "Counter Culture" supporters. The marijuana question seems to be the most prevalent and pressed of the drugs and issues that are currently being addressed. The messages of these organizations and individuals include everything from legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, to full-unrestricted legalization of the drug. Of course, the status quo of vote seeking politicians and conservative policy makers has put up a strong resistance to this "new" reform lobby. The reasons for the resistance to the changes in drug policies are multiple and complex. The issues of marijuana’s possible negative effects, its use as a medical remedy, the criminality of distribution and usage, and the disparity in the enforcement of current drug laws have all been brought to a head and must be addressed in the near future. It is apparent that it would be irresponsible and wrong for the government to not evaluate it’s current general drug policies and perhaps most important, their marijuana policy. With the facts of racial disparity in punishment, detrimental effects, fiscal strain and most importantly, the history of the drug, the government most certainly must come to the conclusion that they must, at the very least, decriminalize marijuana use and quite probably fully legalize it.
"United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. The system gradually evolved, from Jeffersonian Democracy or the First Party System to Jacksonian Democracy or the Second Party System and later to the Third Party System. In Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens, and they were given the vote as well." (Web, 1)
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior by criminalizing drug use does not work still leaves us looking for a solution, so what other options exist? This paper will discuss the pros and cons about one option: decriminalizing drugs.
It is important to be informed of what we are defending, and in this case it is to not legalize drugs. One may ask, what are drugs? Drugs are chemicals, that may affect your body in many different ways, whether it be good or bad. However, most of the time, it 's not always a positive outcome. Some drugs even leave lifetime damage to your brain and body. Although, there are many different ways to take drugs, some of the most common ways are; inhalation, ingestion, and injection. All three ways, however affect the body differently. You don 't always know what you are ingesting or injecting and even inhaling. Most of the time, because drugs are illegal, they are sold through drug dealers