Sirin writes that her article “investigates presidential progress in addressing racial injustices and disparities within the context of the war on drugs” and argues that the possibility for racial justice depends on a progressive president choosing its pursuit as a personal agenda. Sirin examines the drug policies of presidents from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama, and when discussing President Reagan, she gives him responsibility for the “punitive policies that disproportionately affected certain racial/ethnic groups” found in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. She underscores his advocacy for federal mandatory minimum sentences, which created “the notorious 100 to 1 provision” under which five grams of crack cocaine carried the same prison sentence, five years, as 500 grams of powder cocaine. After explaining that crack cocaine users were typically poor and black, she notes that the resulting racial disparity in sentencing stayed in place until President Obama’s Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Sirin clarifies that a progressive president will struggle without the legislature, judiciary, or public opinion, but she still holds that “most importantly, the president in office should have a progressive agenda to begin with in order to initiate and work towards key structural changes and policy reforms.” For this reason, according to her estimation, the president defines drug…
Co Rentmeester uses this photo to describe the war on drugs during the 1960’s and the US population trying to cut drugs out. Early alterations to law were enacted when “The U.S. Congress first introduced mandatory prison terms for drug use and sale with the 1956 Narcotics Control Act” (Muscoreil).…
Prohibition and the War on Drugs are not so different; both are useless and cause more harm than good to the economy. In time, as what was shown during Prohibition, this “war” will die out. Many “unions” were created to fight the consumption of Alcohol and is shown today for use of Marijuana. Prohibition and the war on drugs have also caused much unnecessary violence that could have easily been avoided if these items were just legalized.…
In all levels of government in the United States, the quest to stop the illegal drug trade and illegal drug usage carries a heavy burden on the American judicial system. However the time spent combating illegal drugs in not the only waste during this campaign. The United States spends billions of dollars trying to stop the flow of drugs into this country ( Nordstrom, 2011). The majority of the money spent to lock up criminals in the United States is spent on locking up nonviolent drug offenders. “In fact about five percent of drug users have used violence to obtain money to purchase drugs” ( Nordstrom, 2011). The United States may not be able to lower their deficit and release the financial burden on its judicial system without at this fact for a reason to have an illegal drug reform.…
Ultimately the new “war on drugs” had a negative impact on American life during the mid 1980s-early 2000s due to the economic costs, the strain put on our justice system, and the civil liberty violations that occurred. As with any other war or bureaucratic endeavor, money must be heavily drawn upon and invested. When discussing the overall cost of this “war” through this time, congressman Lee Hamilton stated that, “Federal and local governments spend over $3 billion each year to fight drugs.” (cite) In his quote it becomes apparent that the United States had become highly invested and arguably obsessed in a seemingly impossible “war.”…
Office of National Drug Control Policy. National Drug Control Budget: FY 2014 Funding Highlights. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, April 2013. Web. Feb. 19. 2014…
One must wonder if the "war on drugs" helps or hinders our American Criminal Justice System when you look at the overwhelming impact it has had on crowding issues within our prisons. At the present time there are over 1.5 million people in prison, 59.6 % for drug offenses alone.…
One fact that few in our country would refute is that our prison system is over-crowded and has been stretched in recent years to accommodate all the recent “criminals.” Along with all those which have committed true crimes against society such as murder and robbery, there are now citizens that have been found guilty of possession or distribution of drugs. “In 2003, there were a…
The war on drugs did not officially take off until the 1980s with president Ronald Reagan. He coined the term “war on drugs”, created the Drug Enforcement Agency, and enacted a court procedure that the country is still feeling the effects of to this day: mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentencing is a procedure in which a judge must sentence a citizen convicted to a minimum amount of years in prison for a crime regardless of circumstance. Because of this, the amount of prisoners in federal prison has skyrocketed from “only about 25,000” inmates in the 80s to “more than 215,000” as of 2014 (Miles). As a direct result of minimum sentencing, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, at least 50% of those incarcerated were convicted on non-violent drug charges. Of those 50%, 27% were convicted for possession of marijuana. This did not stop or discourage drug dealers. What this did was force prisons to begin placing “two or three bunks in a cell, and converting television rooms and open bays into sleeping quarters” (Miles). What this did was waste time and tax dollars to incarcerate non-violent marijuana dealers. What hat this did was send people like Weldon Angelos to jail on a 55 year sentence for just three marijuana sales. A twenty four year old Weldon was sentenced to jail in 2002 after being caught by an undercover cop. His three drug sales were tried as their own separate offences causing the 55 years in prison. Paul Cassell, the judge who made the decision admitted that “that wasn’t the right thing to do” (ABC). It costs roughly $31,000 to keep someone in jail for a year, so why are we spending so much of our money to keep those on marijuana charges locked up for a drug that’s only hard evidence against it is possible complications with short term memory? It is not worth the money to keep these people in prison. If legalization were to happen at the federal level we…
The issue of concern involved the overpopulation of prisons throughout the state. The overcrowding of the prison system in California violates the United States Constitution (Li, 2011). This was ruled by the United States Supreme Court. The added problem to the overpopulation is the fact that California is going through a financial hardship. This means that there is not enough money in the budget to build more prison that does not violate the constitution. It could also mean that the many prisons built throughout the state contributed to the financial issues faced throughout California (Li, 2011). The facts remain that California spends about 5 billion dollars per year jailing and taking care of the growing inmate population (Li, 2011). The inmates housed in jails and prisons throughout the state are not being rehabilitated. There is a tough integration faced by paroled inmates to reintegrate back into society. There is a mark on his or her record that validates the individual as a convicted felon. Many leave the prison system with nowhere to go and end up homeless to return to the streets. With inadequate housing and no job the prison system becomes a revolving door throughout the inmate’s life (Li, 2011). Drugs play a major role in recidivism and the initial sentencing to…
The United States has some of the highest incarceration rates in the world with currently 2.2 million people in US prison and jails – a 500% increase over the last forty years. According to The Sentencing Policy, changes in sentencing and law policy, not changes in crime rates, explain most of this increase. This has resulted in overcrowding in prisons and has become a financial burden on states because they have to adjust to the growing prison system, even though it has been found that high incarceration is not an effective way to achieve public safety.…
The policies that constitute “War on Drugs” are primarily based on racism due to biased policies, Jim Crow laws, and racial bias. Since America has been knowledgeable of the problems drugs bring upon the public the government has attempted to fight against drugs, however every fight is not fair. War is defined as a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation, however can war be based upon race? Or can war even exist if there is not a clear enemy. When you take the word war and glue it to the relations with drugs, racism becomes a factor. The so-called “war on drugs” is just a pretty way of saying war against the Africa Americans families. During the 1980s drugs infested the public and became a major issue. The public began to get concern with the consequences that began to increase higher than ever. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse states that cocaine was mostly commonly used in 1985. It was clear that there had to be something done in order to reduce the consequences. That was when the so-called “War on Drugs” began, yet the war came with baggage. The war on drugs delivered the police system to be racially bias.…
“Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me. And I ain't never did a crime I ain’t have to do.” -Tupac. The war on drugs targeted many communities particularly those of color. Throughout America, people of color have always been the target. In the 1980’s and 90’s the drug war increased drastically. The war on drugs was just another reason to fuck with the people of color. The United States constantly targets minorities, and the crisis of the drug war increased the prison population causing even more coas in the country.…
Goelman, Z. (2011, June 23) War on drugs produced swollen prison and little else. Retrieved…
Over the past four decades, drugs use remains a very serious problem in the US, even though the drug war has made these substances less accessible. There are a lot of supporting views for the motion that government should legalize drugs, the reasons being: to spend less on war drugs, to make drugs more accessible to people and scientists in need of drugs, to collect tax revenues, etc. Two well-known professors and authors, Michael Huemer and Gabor Maté, argue, in their articles, against America’s drug war with two different approaches. Even though some might agree on Huemer’s point of legalizing drugs on the basis of individual freedom, I noticed some claims that I believe are not moral to the Kantian and Utilitarian point of views. On the…