The document discusses the negative impacts of the war on drugs in the United States. It argues that the war on drugs has failed to reduce drug use and instead disproportionately impacts minorities and the poor. The war on drugs generates billions of dollars for the criminal justice system and private prisons but treats a small fraction of drug addicts while drug-related deaths have doubled. Some naturally occurring plants with therapeutic benefits have been made illegal due to the war on drugs despite evidence that legalizing and regulating certain drugs could generate tax revenue for treatment programs and have fewer negative consequences than current policies.
The document discusses several key points regarding the war on drugs:
1. Many nations have waged costly wars against drugs with little success, as drug problems continue and drug trafficking remains difficult to control.
2. The war on drugs has been hugely expensive for countries like the US, Colombia, and Mexico, costing billions annually with thousands of lives lost but failing to curb drug supply or demand.
3. Some experts and politicians argue the war on drugs approach has been a failure and advocate alternative strategies like decriminalization, legalization, and treatment programs instead of incarceration.
This document discusses the impacts of the crack cocaine epidemic and the laws enacted in response. It presents perspectives from a congressional representative, a journalist, and a documentary director on how the laws focused on incarcerating drug dealers and users while overlooking addiction and poverty issues. Arrest data is also presented showing a rise in drug-related arrests of black individuals compared to other types of crimes. Prevalence data on cocaine and crack use in the US by demographics is included as well.
The document summarizes Amos Lee's essay on the War on Drugs policy in the United States. It provides background on the declaration of the War on Drugs by President Nixon in 1972 and the subsequent aggressive criminal justice policies that led to mass incarceration for drug offenses. While intended to reduce drug use and trafficking, the policy has failed in its goals while infringing on civil liberties and disproportionately impacting minority communities. The essay discusses alternatives like decriminalization and treatment-focused approaches, citing Portugal's successful policy shift away from criminalization as an example of a more effective model.
Illegal Drug Use_Illegal Prostitution_and Money Laundering_Anderson_RichardRichard Anderson
Illegal drug use, prostitution, and money laundering are serious problems that negatively impact society. Illegal drug use is defined in penal codes and contributes to violence and relationship difficulties. Incarcerated individuals often abuse drugs to cope with prison violence and stress. Prostitution programs now focus on buyers to reduce demand and associated street problems. Money laundering involves placing illegally gained money into banks and moving it to hide origins, with an estimated $1 trillion laundered annually using modern technology. Reducing these criminal activities would help create a safer environment.
The document discusses the history and ongoing debate around the War on Drugs. It begins by defining drugs and their effects. It then outlines how the War on Drugs was officially declared in 1971 in response to rising drug abuse. The document notes there are two sides to the debate around legalizing drugs, with conservatives supporting the War on Drugs and liberals arguing it has been a failure. Both perspectives are presented. It concludes by emphasizing the negative health impacts of drugs and the government's role in protecting citizens.
The United States has spent over $1 trillion on the war on drugs since 1971, resulting in hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Enforcement of drug laws has led to over 1.5 million arrests annually for nonviolent drug offenses and mass incarceration that disproportionately impacts minority communities. Treatment is more effective than incarceration for drug offenders, though only a small portion of the war on drugs budget supports public health policies. The war on drugs has also failed to curb drug use and has contributed to tens of thousands of deaths in Mexico from drug cartel violence.
This document provides background information on the organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). It discusses how FAMM was founded in 1991 to advocate against mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws that were stripping judges of discretion and imposing severe punishments. The document outlines FAMM's strategies, which include putting a human face on the issue by sharing personal stories, building diverse coalitions, and mobilizing families affected by these laws to advocate for reform. It also discusses some of FAMM's legislative successes at the federal and state levels in pushing back against mandatory minimums.
The document discusses the origins and consequences of the wars on crime and drugs in the United States since the 1960s. It traces how political protest during the civil rights movement was framed as criminal activity, fueling public concerns about lawlessness. Conservative politicians in the 1960s-1980s leveraged these concerns to justify harsher criminal justice policies. Major legislation in the 1980s and 1990s increased incarceration by imposing mandatory minimums, restricting parole, and emphasizing law enforcement over rehabilitation. This led to exponential growth in the U.S. prison population and a shift towards a punitive crime control model focused on deterrence through harsh punishment.
The document discusses several key points regarding the war on drugs:
1. Many nations have waged costly wars against drugs with little success, as drug problems continue and drug trafficking remains difficult to control.
2. The war on drugs has been hugely expensive for countries like the US, Colombia, and Mexico, costing billions annually with thousands of lives lost but failing to curb drug supply or demand.
3. Some experts and politicians argue the war on drugs approach has been a failure and advocate alternative strategies like decriminalization, legalization, and treatment programs instead of incarceration.
This document discusses the impacts of the crack cocaine epidemic and the laws enacted in response. It presents perspectives from a congressional representative, a journalist, and a documentary director on how the laws focused on incarcerating drug dealers and users while overlooking addiction and poverty issues. Arrest data is also presented showing a rise in drug-related arrests of black individuals compared to other types of crimes. Prevalence data on cocaine and crack use in the US by demographics is included as well.
The document summarizes Amos Lee's essay on the War on Drugs policy in the United States. It provides background on the declaration of the War on Drugs by President Nixon in 1972 and the subsequent aggressive criminal justice policies that led to mass incarceration for drug offenses. While intended to reduce drug use and trafficking, the policy has failed in its goals while infringing on civil liberties and disproportionately impacting minority communities. The essay discusses alternatives like decriminalization and treatment-focused approaches, citing Portugal's successful policy shift away from criminalization as an example of a more effective model.
Illegal Drug Use_Illegal Prostitution_and Money Laundering_Anderson_RichardRichard Anderson
Illegal drug use, prostitution, and money laundering are serious problems that negatively impact society. Illegal drug use is defined in penal codes and contributes to violence and relationship difficulties. Incarcerated individuals often abuse drugs to cope with prison violence and stress. Prostitution programs now focus on buyers to reduce demand and associated street problems. Money laundering involves placing illegally gained money into banks and moving it to hide origins, with an estimated $1 trillion laundered annually using modern technology. Reducing these criminal activities would help create a safer environment.
The document discusses the history and ongoing debate around the War on Drugs. It begins by defining drugs and their effects. It then outlines how the War on Drugs was officially declared in 1971 in response to rising drug abuse. The document notes there are two sides to the debate around legalizing drugs, with conservatives supporting the War on Drugs and liberals arguing it has been a failure. Both perspectives are presented. It concludes by emphasizing the negative health impacts of drugs and the government's role in protecting citizens.
The United States has spent over $1 trillion on the war on drugs since 1971, resulting in hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Enforcement of drug laws has led to over 1.5 million arrests annually for nonviolent drug offenses and mass incarceration that disproportionately impacts minority communities. Treatment is more effective than incarceration for drug offenders, though only a small portion of the war on drugs budget supports public health policies. The war on drugs has also failed to curb drug use and has contributed to tens of thousands of deaths in Mexico from drug cartel violence.
This document provides background information on the organization Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). It discusses how FAMM was founded in 1991 to advocate against mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws that were stripping judges of discretion and imposing severe punishments. The document outlines FAMM's strategies, which include putting a human face on the issue by sharing personal stories, building diverse coalitions, and mobilizing families affected by these laws to advocate for reform. It also discusses some of FAMM's legislative successes at the federal and state levels in pushing back against mandatory minimums.
The document discusses the origins and consequences of the wars on crime and drugs in the United States since the 1960s. It traces how political protest during the civil rights movement was framed as criminal activity, fueling public concerns about lawlessness. Conservative politicians in the 1960s-1980s leveraged these concerns to justify harsher criminal justice policies. Major legislation in the 1980s and 1990s increased incarceration by imposing mandatory minimums, restricting parole, and emphasizing law enforcement over rehabilitation. This led to exponential growth in the U.S. prison population and a shift towards a punitive crime control model focused on deterrence through harsh punishment.
Drug Policy Reform: 2013 in progress 2013-01-29Jeffrey Dhywood
A brief presentation of the major trends and events in the Drug Policy Debate in 2013. Latin America is taking the lead with Colombia setting up an Advisory Commission on Drug Policy, Uruguay launching a national debate on marijuana legalization, and Guatemala taking the lead of the global drug policy debate.
Meanwhile, the US Federal Government seems to take an hands-off approach to marijuana legalization while more states are lining up to legalize medical or recreation use.
Prohibition of drugs does not stop consumption but instead drives markets underground, creating unintended consequences. Prohibition increases violence as underground markets are monopolized without legal dispute resolution, and consumers face unpredictable drug quality and overdose risk without oversight. Both alcohol and drug prohibitions in the US saw increases in homicide that correlated with enforcement. Alternative regulated models like those for tobacco could reduce consumption through education while avoiding violence from black markets.
The U.S. government has pursued prohibition and criminalization of certain mind-altering substances for over a century, viewing it as a public policy goal. Both major political parties oppose drug use. The "War on Drugs" began in the 1880s and has cost over $160 billion annually, including for law enforcement and incarceration of drug offenders. Public service campaigns aim to discourage drug use, especially among youth, but have faced criticism over implementation and effectiveness. Debates continue over decriminalization approaches versus current prohibition policies.
The War on Drugs has been a failure, costing over $1 trillion since 1971 with little success in reducing drug use. Treating drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one would be more effective and cost-efficient. More emphasis should be placed on prevention through education and treatment programs, especially for youth, rather than criminalization and incarceration which often lead to reoffending. If resources and policies focused more on these alternatives, it could help end the costly and counterproductive War on Drugs.
Portugal decriminalized drug possession for personal use in 2001. Since then, drug usage rates have declined among teens and problematic drug users. New HIV infections from sharing needles have dropped, and more people are seeking treatment. Critics argue other factors contributed to the positive trends, but most data shows the policy has been a success in improving public health and reducing criminal justice costs. While not a perfect model for other countries, Portugal's experience suggests decriminalization could be a viable alternative to the war on drugs.
This document analyzes Florida's campaign against "pill mills" that illegally prescribed oxycodone. While the campaign successfully dismantled pill mills through increased regulation and law enforcement, it took a punitive approach through mandatory minimum sentencing laws. This led to over-incarceration of low-level, nonviolent drug offenders for minor drug crimes involving small amounts of pills. The document argues this punitive approach failed to incorporate drug treatment and rehabilitation. It also discusses the limitations of restricting voting rights and employment opportunities for ex-offenders, which undermines rehabilitation and public safety by increasing recidivism rates. The analysis suggests Florida's campaign would have been more effective by reforming harsh sentencing laws and incorporating research-supported rehabilitation methods.
This document provides a summary of gang violence in the African American community and recommendations to prevent it. It defines the problem of gang violence and prevalence rates. African American gangs have high rates of violence despite lower membership. Factors that contribute to gang violence include poverty, lack of opportunities, and social disorganization. The document recommends that the mayor implement community outreach programs to reduce poverty and increase social and economic well-being, citing two specific programs as examples: Neighborhood Centers Inc. and Connecticut Association for Human Services. Both work to improve communities and move families out of poverty.
The document analyzes and rebuts the top 10 arguments made by the DEA against drug legalization. It finds the DEA's claims to be misleading and contradicted by facts. For example, it argues prohibition has failed to curb drug use and fueled criminal networks, while legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than illegal drugs like marijuana. The document concludes the DEA lacks credibility in arguing about drug laws given its mandate is enforcement, not policymaking.
The ongoing war on drugs in the Philippines has resulted in over 5,800 deaths in its first six months under President Duterte. While the campaign has widespread public support, international organizations have condemned the unlawful killings. However, the government's failure to ensure due process and respect for human rights undermines the legitimacy and long-term effectiveness of the drug war. To truly address the drug problem, the government must find a sustainable solution that does not violate civil liberties and promotes transparency in its efforts.
- Marijuana was made illegal in the 1930s largely due to racism, as it was associated with Mexican immigrants and black jazz musicians. Politicians at the time made explicitly racist statements about marijuana.
- Over time, different groups such as communists and hippies became associated with marijuana use and were targeted. However, racism was a major original factor in criminalizing it.
- Marijuana prohibition has failed to curb drug use and has created unintended harms. Legalizing marijuana could reduce the harms of prohibition while distinguishing it from more dangerous drugs. Treating marijuana differently than other illegal drugs may also increase trust in government.
A review in reverse chronological order of the global trends and major events in drug policy reform in 2013, updated on a regular basis.
2012 was a pivotal year for drug policy reform, and as we move into 2013, the momentum is accelerating. 2013 should deliver on the promises of 2012. This is a valuable resource for all those interested in drug policy. Make sure to share with your friends and on social networks.
More details on http://www.world-war-d.com/
The document summarizes two common myths about legalizing drugs and provides facts to counter these myths. It argues that illicit drugs are more dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and that legalization would not necessarily reduce crime and may actually increase some crimes related to drug use. While legalization could reduce distribution crimes by making them legal, it may also fuel drug habits and result in more drug-related crimes through effects like paranoia and violence caused by increased drug use and availability. The document concludes free drugs or legalizing dangerous substances would not turn criminal addicts into productive members of society.
Patrick Dieter gave a presentation arguing for the legalization of drugs. He summarized research showing views have shifted from overwhelmingly against to mostly in favor of legalization. Potential benefits included reducing the black market, related crime and diseases, and allowing regulation of purity and dosage. Social benefits could include less stigma and fewer people in the criminal justice system. Required elements for success would be legalizing all drugs, strictly regulating manufacturers, and providing free treatment programs. The future was envisioned as one where people could work regular jobs and purchase drugs safely from regulated stores after their work day.
Hall Elizabeth Unit Two Written AssignmentElizabeth Hall
The document discusses victim typologies in relation to hate crimes. It analyzes data from the Uniform Crime Report that shows hate crime rates have actually been decreasing since 1996, despite perceptions influenced by media coverage. The reality is the hate crime rate per 100,000 people was 3.92 in 1996 and had dropped to 2.89 by 2008. However, media portrayals of events and polls can influence public opinion and perceptions of race relations independent of actual crime data trends.
The need for an alternative to drug criminalizationmatapuercos
The document discusses alternatives to the criminalization of drug use, such as decriminalization and legalization. It notes that the criminalization approach has failed to reduce drug use and addiction rates while costing governments significant funds for law enforcement and incarceration. Decriminalization in Portugal led to declines in drug-related diseases and increases in those seeking treatment, though legalization has not been tested. The document concludes that the status quo is unacceptable but there is no consensus on the best alternative, advocating for courageous leadership to address this complex issue.
Tim Minotas Federal Drug Mandatory Minimum Sentences Final PaperTimothy Minotas
This document discusses federal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. It begins by explaining that in the 1980s, Congress passed laws requiring minimum prison terms for drug crimes to deter drug trafficking. However, these laws have led to overcrowded prisons filled with nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, costing taxpayers billions annually. The document then evaluates alternatives to reform these laws, including repealing mandatory minimums, expanding the safety valve exception, and applying sentencing reforms retroactively. It analyzes evidence on the impacts of these policy changes in various states, finding reductions in incarceration rates and costs without increases in crime.
Paul O'Mahony gave a thought provoking talk outlining the arguments made in his book The Irish War on Drugs. A criminologist and a Senior Lecturer in Psychology in Trinity College Dublin he has written extensively on the issues of drugs, crime, treatment, prison and rehabilitation.
Johnny Connolly is a criminologist in the Alcohol and Drugs Research Unit of the Health Research Board. He has researched and written on community policing, drugs and crime and alternatives to imprisonment. He is a Board member of the Irish Penal Reform Trust.
Johnny gave a talk outlining current research and policy on the broad areas of crime and drugs. He explained where the statistics in use come from, what they explain and what they may conceal. He also went through recent trends in drug consumption (rise in the Celtic tiger years, subsequent fall and the ‘headshop’ phenomena) and the official response to this. The presentation was followed by questions and answers.
This presentation was part of Dublin City Libraries Crime and the City series.
https://soundcloud.com/dublincitypubliclibrary/sets/crime-and-the-city
The document discusses the history and current status of marijuana laws in the United States. It outlines how marijuana became a Schedule I drug under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, but many states have since legalized medical or recreational marijuana despite it remaining illegal at the federal level. There is an ongoing debate around reforming federal laws, with proponents arguing prohibition has failed to reduce use and disproportionately impacts minorities, while others fear increased substance abuse. Suggestions for reform include descheduling marijuana, allowing research, and regulating it similarly to alcohol.
Drug Policy Reform: 2013 in progress 2013-01-29Jeffrey Dhywood
A brief presentation of the major trends and events in the Drug Policy Debate in 2013. Latin America is taking the lead with Colombia setting up an Advisory Commission on Drug Policy, Uruguay launching a national debate on marijuana legalization, and Guatemala taking the lead of the global drug policy debate.
Meanwhile, the US Federal Government seems to take an hands-off approach to marijuana legalization while more states are lining up to legalize medical or recreation use.
Prohibition of drugs does not stop consumption but instead drives markets underground, creating unintended consequences. Prohibition increases violence as underground markets are monopolized without legal dispute resolution, and consumers face unpredictable drug quality and overdose risk without oversight. Both alcohol and drug prohibitions in the US saw increases in homicide that correlated with enforcement. Alternative regulated models like those for tobacco could reduce consumption through education while avoiding violence from black markets.
The U.S. government has pursued prohibition and criminalization of certain mind-altering substances for over a century, viewing it as a public policy goal. Both major political parties oppose drug use. The "War on Drugs" began in the 1880s and has cost over $160 billion annually, including for law enforcement and incarceration of drug offenders. Public service campaigns aim to discourage drug use, especially among youth, but have faced criticism over implementation and effectiveness. Debates continue over decriminalization approaches versus current prohibition policies.
The War on Drugs has been a failure, costing over $1 trillion since 1971 with little success in reducing drug use. Treating drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one would be more effective and cost-efficient. More emphasis should be placed on prevention through education and treatment programs, especially for youth, rather than criminalization and incarceration which often lead to reoffending. If resources and policies focused more on these alternatives, it could help end the costly and counterproductive War on Drugs.
Portugal decriminalized drug possession for personal use in 2001. Since then, drug usage rates have declined among teens and problematic drug users. New HIV infections from sharing needles have dropped, and more people are seeking treatment. Critics argue other factors contributed to the positive trends, but most data shows the policy has been a success in improving public health and reducing criminal justice costs. While not a perfect model for other countries, Portugal's experience suggests decriminalization could be a viable alternative to the war on drugs.
This document analyzes Florida's campaign against "pill mills" that illegally prescribed oxycodone. While the campaign successfully dismantled pill mills through increased regulation and law enforcement, it took a punitive approach through mandatory minimum sentencing laws. This led to over-incarceration of low-level, nonviolent drug offenders for minor drug crimes involving small amounts of pills. The document argues this punitive approach failed to incorporate drug treatment and rehabilitation. It also discusses the limitations of restricting voting rights and employment opportunities for ex-offenders, which undermines rehabilitation and public safety by increasing recidivism rates. The analysis suggests Florida's campaign would have been more effective by reforming harsh sentencing laws and incorporating research-supported rehabilitation methods.
This document provides a summary of gang violence in the African American community and recommendations to prevent it. It defines the problem of gang violence and prevalence rates. African American gangs have high rates of violence despite lower membership. Factors that contribute to gang violence include poverty, lack of opportunities, and social disorganization. The document recommends that the mayor implement community outreach programs to reduce poverty and increase social and economic well-being, citing two specific programs as examples: Neighborhood Centers Inc. and Connecticut Association for Human Services. Both work to improve communities and move families out of poverty.
The document analyzes and rebuts the top 10 arguments made by the DEA against drug legalization. It finds the DEA's claims to be misleading and contradicted by facts. For example, it argues prohibition has failed to curb drug use and fueled criminal networks, while legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are more harmful than illegal drugs like marijuana. The document concludes the DEA lacks credibility in arguing about drug laws given its mandate is enforcement, not policymaking.
The ongoing war on drugs in the Philippines has resulted in over 5,800 deaths in its first six months under President Duterte. While the campaign has widespread public support, international organizations have condemned the unlawful killings. However, the government's failure to ensure due process and respect for human rights undermines the legitimacy and long-term effectiveness of the drug war. To truly address the drug problem, the government must find a sustainable solution that does not violate civil liberties and promotes transparency in its efforts.
- Marijuana was made illegal in the 1930s largely due to racism, as it was associated with Mexican immigrants and black jazz musicians. Politicians at the time made explicitly racist statements about marijuana.
- Over time, different groups such as communists and hippies became associated with marijuana use and were targeted. However, racism was a major original factor in criminalizing it.
- Marijuana prohibition has failed to curb drug use and has created unintended harms. Legalizing marijuana could reduce the harms of prohibition while distinguishing it from more dangerous drugs. Treating marijuana differently than other illegal drugs may also increase trust in government.
A review in reverse chronological order of the global trends and major events in drug policy reform in 2013, updated on a regular basis.
2012 was a pivotal year for drug policy reform, and as we move into 2013, the momentum is accelerating. 2013 should deliver on the promises of 2012. This is a valuable resource for all those interested in drug policy. Make sure to share with your friends and on social networks.
More details on http://www.world-war-d.com/
The document summarizes two common myths about legalizing drugs and provides facts to counter these myths. It argues that illicit drugs are more dangerous than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and that legalization would not necessarily reduce crime and may actually increase some crimes related to drug use. While legalization could reduce distribution crimes by making them legal, it may also fuel drug habits and result in more drug-related crimes through effects like paranoia and violence caused by increased drug use and availability. The document concludes free drugs or legalizing dangerous substances would not turn criminal addicts into productive members of society.
Patrick Dieter gave a presentation arguing for the legalization of drugs. He summarized research showing views have shifted from overwhelmingly against to mostly in favor of legalization. Potential benefits included reducing the black market, related crime and diseases, and allowing regulation of purity and dosage. Social benefits could include less stigma and fewer people in the criminal justice system. Required elements for success would be legalizing all drugs, strictly regulating manufacturers, and providing free treatment programs. The future was envisioned as one where people could work regular jobs and purchase drugs safely from regulated stores after their work day.
Hall Elizabeth Unit Two Written AssignmentElizabeth Hall
The document discusses victim typologies in relation to hate crimes. It analyzes data from the Uniform Crime Report that shows hate crime rates have actually been decreasing since 1996, despite perceptions influenced by media coverage. The reality is the hate crime rate per 100,000 people was 3.92 in 1996 and had dropped to 2.89 by 2008. However, media portrayals of events and polls can influence public opinion and perceptions of race relations independent of actual crime data trends.
The need for an alternative to drug criminalizationmatapuercos
The document discusses alternatives to the criminalization of drug use, such as decriminalization and legalization. It notes that the criminalization approach has failed to reduce drug use and addiction rates while costing governments significant funds for law enforcement and incarceration. Decriminalization in Portugal led to declines in drug-related diseases and increases in those seeking treatment, though legalization has not been tested. The document concludes that the status quo is unacceptable but there is no consensus on the best alternative, advocating for courageous leadership to address this complex issue.
Tim Minotas Federal Drug Mandatory Minimum Sentences Final PaperTimothy Minotas
This document discusses federal mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses. It begins by explaining that in the 1980s, Congress passed laws requiring minimum prison terms for drug crimes to deter drug trafficking. However, these laws have led to overcrowded prisons filled with nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, costing taxpayers billions annually. The document then evaluates alternatives to reform these laws, including repealing mandatory minimums, expanding the safety valve exception, and applying sentencing reforms retroactively. It analyzes evidence on the impacts of these policy changes in various states, finding reductions in incarceration rates and costs without increases in crime.
Paul O'Mahony gave a thought provoking talk outlining the arguments made in his book The Irish War on Drugs. A criminologist and a Senior Lecturer in Psychology in Trinity College Dublin he has written extensively on the issues of drugs, crime, treatment, prison and rehabilitation.
Johnny Connolly is a criminologist in the Alcohol and Drugs Research Unit of the Health Research Board. He has researched and written on community policing, drugs and crime and alternatives to imprisonment. He is a Board member of the Irish Penal Reform Trust.
Johnny gave a talk outlining current research and policy on the broad areas of crime and drugs. He explained where the statistics in use come from, what they explain and what they may conceal. He also went through recent trends in drug consumption (rise in the Celtic tiger years, subsequent fall and the ‘headshop’ phenomena) and the official response to this. The presentation was followed by questions and answers.
This presentation was part of Dublin City Libraries Crime and the City series.
https://soundcloud.com/dublincitypubliclibrary/sets/crime-and-the-city
The document discusses the history and current status of marijuana laws in the United States. It outlines how marijuana became a Schedule I drug under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, but many states have since legalized medical or recreational marijuana despite it remaining illegal at the federal level. There is an ongoing debate around reforming federal laws, with proponents arguing prohibition has failed to reduce use and disproportionately impacts minorities, while others fear increased substance abuse. Suggestions for reform include descheduling marijuana, allowing research, and regulating it similarly to alcohol.
1. Running head: TAKE A STAND 1
Take a Stand
Sarah Marais
BSHS 455
September 22, 2014
Professor Menasche
2. TAKE A STAND 2
Take a Stand
The most obvious function of drug control, and the primary reason lawmakers cite, is to
reduce the amount of a specific drug that is used (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012, p. 203). However,
societal regulation appears to be motivated by which drugs are stable sources of wealth and
power and whether drugs may threaten established business and profit. As a result, federal
policies are far more concerned with preventing recreational drug use than helping addicts.
According to the “The War on Drugs: Winners and Losers,” Ronald Reagan introduced the self-
perpetuating, never-ending war on drugs and in the process, generated funding for the third-
largest growth industry in the United States (U.S.). In addition, funding for drug treatment
dropped almost 40 percent, during his first term. As drug policy does not work to reduce crime,
but to increase commerce surrounding drug enforcement, this rendered the potential for
corruption to magnificent proportions. The criminal supply network quickly exploded, informers
are paid, children are enlisted, private corrections focus on profit, and drug enforcement police
can seize any assets deemed valuable when they arrest buyers and drug dealers. Middle and
upper class white people end up in drug treatment while lower class minorities end up in jail,
perpetuating the unspoken racial war discriminating against certain minorities. Many innocent
people serve lengthy prison sentences for drug convictions based on false testimony or merely
suspicion. As drug enforcement increases, more women go to jail for drug crimes, largely due by
association. Many children with incarcerated parents have nowhere to go and end up in foster
care and are more likely to end up in prison themselves. The majority of hard core drug addicts
do not receive treatment in the U.S. and the number of drug-related deaths has doubled since
1979. “Only the general public takes casualties, while police and prosecutors benefit from the
war through increased budgets and a 1984 the federal crime bill changed incentives for police
3. TAKE A STAND 3
involved in drug enforcement, allowing them to share in the assets seized” (Films On Demand,
1999). The final, and most ignored, aspect to this is the question of sovereignty over one’s own
consciousness. Since the 1960s, more evidence is forthcoming in presenting the advantageous
properties of certain naturally occurring plants and fungi, while some countries and states have
already legalized Marijuana, Peyote, and Ayahuasca for medical and religious purposes. This
paper serves to address all of these issues and present the positive anthropological, medicinal and
therapeutic benefits and the potential outcome of legalizing them.
In his speech, Ronald Reagan stated “the American people are willing to make it clear
that illegal drug and alcohol use will no longer be tolerated” and it was time to take the necessary
“steps to rid America of this deeply disruptive and corrosive evil… to defeat this enemy, we've
got to do it as one people, together, united in purpose and committed to victory” (Films On
Demand, 1999). However, many of the American people do not agree with this stance and it is
those very people who have been targeted by the authorities; the rate of imprisonment is greater
than almost any other country in the world. The people conducting the war never suffer the
consequences. They are not taking the casualties, but are only benefiting in the sense that they
accrue greater budgets. Funding for traditional jobs, such as farming, decreased, while it rose for
state and federal law enforcement and prison jobs; leading to redistribution of profit margins and
expansion corrections operations. The war on drugs is a thirty billion dollar industry. California
alone has built more than twenty new prisons in ten years and only one public university; their
prison guards are paid more than starting professors, and the prison guards union is the second
biggest political contributor. The question is how this happened. In 1984, the Federal Crime Bill
changed the incentives for police in the war on drugs. The asset forfeiture section stated that
police who cooperate with federal agencies in drug investigations share the assets that are
4. TAKE A STAND 4
ceased—including money, jewelry, cars, airplanes, boats—anything that has value and, since
then, the level of seizure activity in the United States has amplified (Films On Demand, 1999).
The State saves money and does not question their activities because they are totally self-funded
and the offender does not have to even be proven guilty. For example, after getting permission to
search the car, law enforcement will find a large amount of money, but no drugs. They can
simply state that it is going to be seized because they believe it may have been related to a drug
deal. They do not even have to prove that it is drug money. The proof of burden lies with the
suspect because it is a civil, not a criminal, proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, you are
innocent until proven guilty. In a civil proceeding, it is reversed. Incentives are also created for
citizens to inform on each other and regulated by setting up a reward structure. Under the guise
of going after big fish, which is very difficult to do, the vast majority of seizures are small
because the little fish can be caught relatively easily. About 5,000 are arrested annually on minor
drug offenses. Non-violent offenders account for 60 percent of current prison populations in the
U.S. and, in many cases, minor drug offenders serve longer sentences than violent criminals
(Films On Demand, 1999). Dan Baum states, “There's something wrong when the possession of
a pound of marijuana gets you more hard time than murdering your spouse” (Willard, 2001).
The Fortune Society, a thirty-one year old organization, states that the United States is
involved in a two-tier experiment of wholesale incarceration that has a multi-generational
impact. If you are white and privileged, you are likely to end up in drug treatment, whereas the
poor and, especially a person of color, are likely to end up jailed. Nathan McCall states that “this
country's so called war on drugs is a political hoax; it's a multibillion-dollar ploy set up to win
political offices, often at the expense of America's most convenient scapegoats-blacks” (Willard,
2001). Husak (2000) states that the rate of imprisonment is grossly disproportionate, despite
5. TAKE A STAND 5
minorities being just as likely to use illicit drugs as whites (Husak, 2000). The Sentencing
Project discovered that one out of four young black men in their high teens and low 20s, were
either in criminal justice custody, in prison, or under criminal justice supervision at any point in
time (Films On Demand, 1999). The racial and cultural impact of this is profound. They were
still fathers providing for their families and members of the community and when you eliminate
them from an already struggling community, you further weaken that community. Many
innocent people serve lengthy prison sentences for drug convictions based on suspicion or false
testimony. Ten years imprisonment for giving a phone number to undercover police in
connection to a drug-related sale; twenty years imprisonment simply because the drug dealing
boyfriend said the drugs were stashed in their house; ten years imprisonment for mailing a
package for friend; entire families being convicted… each of these and many more examples fall
under the declaration for intent to distribute. They are usually victim to a drug dealer who is
looking for a reduction in his sentence, under the guise of cooperating, by testifying against other
people. The authorities only want and care about a conviction because that justifies their budgets
and it perpetuates an increasingly corruptible system. Five hundred children nationwide end up
in foster homes and that number is multiplying. These children grow up institutionalized and
when foster care kids turn sixteen or eighteen, they age out; that is, their possessions are given to
them in a black garbage bag and they are turned out on the street. They had never learned the
coping skills to be able to go out on their own and very few teenagers have the ability to support
themselves and many get arrested and return to the institution of the criminal justice system.
U.S. President George H. Bush enforced zero tolerance law enforcement based on the
assumptions that abuse starts with a willful act, most users can choose to stop and must be held
accountable if they do not. Possession or suspicion related to illicit drugs could result in the
6. TAKE A STAND 6
seizure and confiscation of an individual’s automobile, home, or other property, which is a
serious threat to civil liberties (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012, p. 211). The rate of Americans jailed
or imprisoned has more than tripled since 1980 and a rise in the foreseeable future is a certainty;
due largely to the increasing severity of drug related punishments (Husak, 2000). The main effect
of the war on drugs on health is to downgrade the drug user, which puts them outside the system
where they could receive health care. The majority of heavy drug addicts do not receive
treatment in the U.S. and the number of drug-related deaths has doubled since 1979, from seven
to fourteen thousand deaths. Because the drug addict is an exile in this society, the war on drugs
is actually a war on drug users and thus, incarceration is preferable to treatment and the criminal
justice system will not protect or help them. “In 1996, the total number of people who need
treatment, 9 million… of the class that's level two, that are most addicted, five million need
treatment… less than two million got treatment” (Films On Demand, 1999). Many simply do not
seek treatment because they are afraid to be turned in. It is clear that the public would be better
served with a different allocation of resources and the best argument often made by advocates of
legalization is that the thirty billion dollar annual deficit for law enforcement could be better
used for the treatment and prevention of drug abuse (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012, p.217).
There is another aspect to this, control over the sovereignty of one’s own consciousness
that remains largely ignored, due to the declaration of a drug war. Renowned journalistic
investigator, Graham Hancock states it is not a war on drugs at all, but a, war on consciousness
(Hancock, 2013). Not all substances are detrimental or harm the user. There are naturally
occurring plants and fungi that may affect a deep healing assistance. Dennis and Terence
McKenna wrote at length about the properties of Ayahuasca and its prospective therapeutic uses,
arguing that we have become “spiritually bereft… Our spiritual institutions have devolved into
7. TAKE A STAND 7
hollow shells, perverted to the agendas of rapacious governments and fanatic fundamentalisms;
benumb[ing] ourselves with consumerism and mindless entertainment, ultimately meaningless
pursuits of a civilization that has lost its compass” (McKenna, 2005). In fact, current drug laws
and policies are based on a mechanistic view of the universe, socio-political extensions of profit
and materialism. Indian scriptures mention soma, an entheogenic plant, being used from the
second millennium B.C.E.; Mescaline was widely by Native Americans, dating back at least a
millennia; while the kykeon potion in Greece, produced visionary consciousness until the 400
C.E. “In all three cases the substances were integrated into a full-bodied religious practice”
(Husak, 2000). MDMA (ecstasy) was used in the United States as an entactogen, (ie, enhancing
empathy, intimacy, tranquility, communication, emotional bonding, and introspection) to assist
psychotherapy in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Schwartz, R. and Miller, N. (1997). Lysergic
acid diethylamide (LSD) was deliberated as a promising psychiatric medication in the 1950s and
early 1960s, until its recreational use made the headline news and created moral panic, thus
quickly delegitimizing it. Even alcohol was once deemed a medicinal or sometimes ceremonial
(Tupper, 2006). However, once the war on drugs exploded the recreational use of substances, the
sacred component was lost, and irreligious use spiraled out of control, generating alternative
motivations for drug use, such as escapism, feelings of inadequacy, dysfunctional coping skills,
etc. The principal and original motivations of ingesting Ayahuasca are emotional healing,
personal spiritual development, increased self-awareness, insights, and access to deeper levels of
the self that enhanced personal development and the higher self, providing personal direction in
life (Winkelman, M. (2005). The tea has been used by indigenous peoples in countries such as
Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil for medicinal, spiritual and cultural purposes since pre-Columbian
8. TAKE A STAND 8
times. The therapeutic benefits of Ayahuasca have been identified and many hope that it may
someday be afforded its rightful place in medical practice, perhaps also, MDMA, and LSD.
Pauline Sabin argued, “Not only is it impossible to legislate morality, trying always
makes the vice attractive" (Charles Arthur Willard, 2001). It has done far more than that. The
war on drugs has served no more purpose than perpetuating profane use of once natural and
sacred substances and the manufacturing of drugs, so toxic they can induce psychosis,
schizophrenia, or even death. Repercussions and consequences from law enforcement actually
creates more harm and detriment to the user and their families, than the substances themselves.
Neither can all substances can be perceived as profane or harmful. A serious revision of
attitudes, values, beliefs, and those policies based on them is necessary if our culture truly wants
any change to happen. The problem is far deeper and stems way beyond law or even a cultural
issue at this point in the larger picture: “Humans are good at nothing if not hubris, arrogance, and
self-delusion… busily undermining and wrecking the very homeostatic global mechanisms that
have kept our earth stable and hospitable to life for the last four and a half billion years”
(McKenna, 2005).
9. TAKE A STAND 9
References
Cussen, M. and Block, W. (2000). American Journal of Economics and Sociology: Legalize
Drugs Now!: An Analysis of the Benefits of Legalized Drugs. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/stable/10.2307/3487894?origin=api
Films On Demand. Films Media Group. (1999). “The War on Drugs: Winners and Losers.”
Retrieved from: UoP Web:
http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=7967&xtid=11181
Hancock, G. (2013). TEDTalks: The War on Consciousness. Retrieved from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w
Husak, D. (2000). Liberal Neutrality, Autonomy, and Drug Prohibitions. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/210983113?pq-
origsite=summon).
McKenna, D. (2005). Ayahuasca and Human Destiny. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/207972636?pq-
origsite=summon).
McNeece, C. A., & DiNitto, D. M. (2012). Chemical Dependency: A Systems Approach (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Schwartz, R. and Miller, N. (1997). MDMA (ecstasy) and the rave: A review. Retrieved from:
http://av4kc7fg4g.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.8
8-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-
8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journ
al&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MDMA+%28Ecstasy%29+and+the+Rave%3A+A+Revie
w&rft.jtitle=Pediatrics&rft.au=Schwartz%2C+Richard+H&rft.au=Miller%2C+Norman+
10. TAKE A STAND 10
S&rft.date=1997-10-01&rft.pub=Am+Acad+Pediatrics&rft.issn=0031-
4005&rft.eissn=1098-
4275&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=705&rft_id=info:doi/10.1542%2Fpeds.10
0.4.705&rft_id=info:pmid/9310529&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=pedia
trics100_4_705¶mdict=en-US
Tupper, K. (2006). The Globalization of Ayahuasca: Harm Reduction or Benefit Maximization?
Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/science/article/pii/S095539590
6002283).
Willard, C. (2001). How to Legalize Drugs. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/226942647?pq-
origsite=summon
Winkelman, M. (2005). Drug Tourism or Spiritual Healing? Ayahuasca Seekers in
Amazonia[dagger]. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/207972700?pq-
origsite=summon).