Impact of Americas Drug War on Policy – Changes and Prison PopulationEssay Preview: Impact of Americas Drug War on Policy – Changes and Prison PopulationReport this essayImpact of Americas Drug War on PolicyChanges and Prison PopulationScott CannonUniversity of AlabamaAbstractThis paper explores Americas drug war and now it has had a direct impact on public policy and prison populations. Despite the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. fighting the drug war, illegal drug use is still common today. Congress enacted the “tough on crime” policies, such as the three strikes laws, in attempt to eliminate substance abuse. These harsh penalties created many problems in our Criminal Justice System., such as prison overcrowding, and society as a whole. The “war on drugs” has impacted minorities the most, leading to the overrepresentation of minorities in the prison population. Incarceration of drug offenders has failed to deter drug use, and in some cases it actually increases the offenders chances of resulting back to crime or drug abuse. There is a growing knowledge in America that treatment is better than incarceration at deterring crime. Many governments are moving away from tough on crime laws today. Americas drug war is far from over, but recent declines in prison population, and changes in public policy, hae brought about some optimism for Americans.
Impact of Americas Drug War on PolicyChanges and Prison PopulationThe purpose of this paper is to examine Americas drug war and how it has had a direct impact on public policy and prison populations. Despite many changes in public policy, and the billions of dollars the United States has spent fighting the drug war, drug use is still very common today (Bertram, Blachman, Sharpe, & Andreas, 1996). The “War on Drugs” was first declared in 1972 by President Nixon, and was reestablished a decade later by President Reagan in an attempt at implementing fair and proportionate drug sentencing guidelines. In 1986 congress passed laws establishing a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity, meaning 500 grams of powder cocaine is equivalent to 5 grams of crack cocaine, for the possession or trafficking of crack cocaine compared to the powder form (Sevigny, 2009). These laws largely affected the African American community because they were more likely to use cocaine in the form of crack than whites. This resulted in young black males being incarcerated at alarming rated, and has been widely criticized. The sentencing disparity was reduced to 18 to 1 in 2010 by the Fair Sentencing Act (Sevigny, 2009). Since 1972 the prison population has increased immensely, while having little effect on deterring drug use (Moore, & Elkavich, 2008). Its clear that the drug war is failing to deter drug abuse, and policy makers believe that implementing harsher sentences, such as three strikes laws, is the answer (Bertram et al., 1996). Due to these harsh laws, prison population is largely made up of nonviolent drug offenders. According to Moore and Elkavich (2008), 60% of the prison population is consisted of persons of color, which is extremely high compared to their percentage Americas overall population. Urban communities, which are largely consisted of minorities, are targeted by law enforcement officials much more than primarily white suburban areas, partly due to how our criminal justice system is set up. Incarceration for drug offences does little to deter criminals from returning to using or selling drugs, and in many cases makes it worse (Moore & Elkavich, 2008). Recently the use of rehabilitation has become evident to reduce recidivism, or drug use, better than incarceration. “The 1986 War on Drugs has resulted in some of the most extensive changes in criminal justice policy and the operations of the justice system in the United States since the due process revolution of the 1960s” (Jensen, Gerber, & Mosher, 2004, p. 100). In this paper we will explore the many extensive changes in criminal justice policies due to the war on drugs, and how its affected Americas prison population.
Historical AnalysisNarcotic drugs became available in the mid-19th century and were largely associated with pain relief (Vito & Maahs, 2011). Opium was easily attainable in America during this time and was used in many different types of medicines. In 1805 morphine was first introduced in America, but physicians were responsible for the distribution the drug (Vito & Maahs, 2011). Morphine could be taken by mouth or by injection into the bloodstream, and doctors during this time thought that injection was safer than oral consumption in terms of addiction, because of the smaller dosage given in an injection (Vito & Maahs, 2011). This assumption proved to be false due to the purified ingredients needed for direct injection into the body, and this led to careless over prescription (Vito & Maahs, 2011). Almost 50 years later, cocaine was introduced in the United States, and there werent any laws that restricted its sale or distribution (Vito & Maahs, 2011). In fact, until 1903, cocaine was used as a ingredient in a highly popular soft drink called coca-cola (Bertram et al., 1996). The common use of these drugs brought about addiction problems among some Americans. According to Bertram et al (1996), approximately 3% of the American population was addicted to drugs. Addicts during this time were not stigmatized, punished, or seen as criminals (Bertram et al., 1996). Bertram et al (1996), said that victims of addiction were perceived as having physiological problems, largely like the way we regard the use of insulin for an individual with diabetes. By the beginning of the 20th century, drug use was starting to become an area of concern in America.
After the Civil War, physicians became aware of addiction problems because soldiers who were injured during battle were given morphine, which produced a large number of addicts (Bertram et al., 1996). Reformers thought that the primary focus should be to prevent the availability of drugs to reduce drug habits; not prohibit the use of drugs. In 1906, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act, which required any type of medicine that included narcotic ingredients to put in on their labels (Bertram et al., 1996). The Harrison Narcotics Act was enacted in 1914, and it aimed to prevent drug distribution to American citizens who were not aware of the dangers of addiction, primarily by placing the medical community in control of the distribution (Bertram et al., 1996). According to Bertram et al (1996) drug addicts were not criminalized, and users turned to physicians to continue their drug habits by receiving a prescription. “Requiring doctors to prescribe drugs “in
A. The Benefits of Prescription Medicine – The Need for a New Law to Combat Substances (Bertram, 1996). This prescription law was introduced at the urging of physicians, a decision that many think prompted many to reform their practices of prescribing drugs to prevent drug addiction. A drug is made with the intent of (a) decreasing pain, (b) improving sleep, (c) improving digestion, (d) aiding digestion, and (e) relieving pain; The use of this drug is intended for the “overdose,” and must be controlled. We also believe that drugs should not be used as substitutes for the original drugs, which can be harmful to the body, and should be treated as such, but should not, when used with any other substance in an effort to reduce or prevent the availability of the actual drugs, or by others. However, the majority of physicians who accept this prescription law, and those who continue to prescribe the drugs, also do not support or agree with it, and recommend it for other problems or for some other use (Bertram, 1996). A prescription drug, when used correctly in the correct dosage and dose, can be completely effective in relieving pain. The new law makes it illegal for anyone to apply the drug for prescriptions, and the doctor must prescribe what is prescribed or ordered in his or her office with the intent to prescribe an entire substance, although the prescription of this substance must be within 30 days. This requirement has led some individuals to prescribe a prescription that was legally not allowed by the law (Bernier et al., 1994). However, because most pharmacies had not required prescriptions and many of the prescriptions were for medications only, the law was not in effect for years. In the past, many physicians gave only minor amounts of the medication, because of the fact that this prescribed drug has not been approved by their health care system. One of the greatest improvements in the law in the 1930s came in the form of the New Organized Society program (Bertram, 1996). This group of doctors began to prescribe the substances prescribed in the program. Although the program made some changes in the 1960s, the goal in this new law was not the exact same as it was in the old. Prescribed drugs are being marketed in a more modern and humane manner; they have replaced the old form of prescribing drugs that they used to treat pain in patients with major side effects. By introducing new methods of prescribing drugs to treat pain and increasing the number of prescribed substances available, we aim to keep current these same medicines safely and safely. With the legalization of the prescription of some of the primary drugs, and the removal of penalties for not doing so, we believe drugs need to be carefully and fairly administered. Prescriptions, in other words, are more regulated and regulated than the old system of prescriptions. It is therefore important; Prescriptions should be given based on a diagnosis, not a prescription. Many people have reported seeing a doctor or attending to a friend or relative of an addict in his or her home within 30 days. Although this is not often reported, it is considered appropriate to say that such a friend or relative may get his or her own medicines when a prescription is issued. On the other hand, many of the patients who attend treatment with the prescription are aware of other problems in their lives, and they should have a complete answer to what they do. This is also considered safe procedure, and not only will it result in a more complete result, but it can help reduce other problems in their lives that were not done to date (Bertram, 1996). If they have another problem, or if they are in a worse situation, then they should report it. We recommend that individuals make two calls to the doctor who treated them. The first can be immediately reported by the relative who needs the medicines, by the person who received them, and,