Anti Drug War

Anti Drug War

In this chapter it asks do I feel that the anti- drug laws are adequate. My reply to that is no it is not. The legislation needs to implement harsher laws that will prevent the drug problems that the United States is currently having. At this point in time it’s the Mexican Drug Cartel’s that are the main problem. The Mexican Drug Cartel’s have been around for many of years as early as the 1980’s till present day. (Article: Mexican Drug War Wikipedia.com). My opinion on the marijuana sales becoming legal in some states I do not agree with that decision at all because it’s like and invitation for more drug problems and or possibly more violent crimes to occur. Drugs are related to crime in multiple ways. Most directly, it is a crime to use, possess, manufacture, or distribute drugs classified as having a potential for abuse. Cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and amphetamines are examples of drugs classified to have abuse potential. Drugs are also related to crime through the effects they have on the user’s behavior and by generating violence and other illegal activity in connection with drug trafficking. Drug use, drug-related crime, drug laws, and drug-enforcement efforts significantly affect processes of criminal justice. This has been and will most likely be a controversial topic for years. A large proportion of the financial and personnel resources of the criminal justice system is used to respond to the drug problem in the United States. For example, police departments utilize undercover operations to increase the number of arrests of drug offenders, prosecutions for drug offenses overwhelm court dockets, and the number of defendants incarcerated for drug offenses continues to grow.

There is an equally rich history of the anti-drug laws in the United States. The first significant piece of federal anti-drug legislation was the Harrison Act of 1914. The text describes the
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. If drugs were legalized, the criminal stigma would be removed from their purchase, possession, and use. The government would collect taxes on drug sales and, conversely, would not be spending millions of dollars to stem the flow of illegal drugs. This increase in tax dollars could be put to use in drug education and treatment programs for those individuals who are unable to moderate their intake and subsequently become addicts. Then the government would be intervening with its citizens ' lives in a benevolent manner (and only when asked) rather than in a forceful, punitive way. Many opponents to legalization point out that drug use leads to spousal and child abuse, random criminal acts precipitated by the effects of drugs on a user 's inhibitions, and crimes committed to support drug habits. This argument is fundamentally defective because it addresses the abuse of drugs, which is not the issue here. When an individual 's use of drugs leads him to harm others, it becomes a behavioral problem, that is, the issue is no longer drugs, but the behavior of the individual. If that behavior breaks a law, the individual should be punished for that specific conduct--not for drug use. In its pure form, drug use affects only the user, and the government is therefore acting paternally when it regulates this behavior. Case in point the Bartley case here in Hawaii. To argue for the legalization of drugs, it is necessary to examine that principle (that people should be free to do what they want unless they threaten the vital interests, i.e., security or autonomy, of others and define its terms. Proponents of legalization argue that drug use is a self-regarding act and has no effect on anyone other than the user. But drug use affects every aspect of society: it affects the security of nonusers, and it affects the autonomy of the user. If drugs were made legal and easily obtainable in this country, the government would be relinquishing its role as protector of those citizens who are unable to control their excesses. It is true that the decriminalization of drugs would remove much of the stigma associated with them, but this would not be a positive change. It is that stigma that keeps many law-abiding citizens from using illegal drugs, and thus keeps the number of addicts at a minimum. Also, if drugs were legalized, the government would not be legally able to force addicts into treatment programs, and the number of addicts would grow to the extreme.

References

www.wikipedia.com (Mexican Drug War) http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1910/harrisonact.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/marijuna tax act of 1937 http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhu16.htm. (article: The Drug hang up, America’s fifty year folly by Rufus King) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 1970
Article: Anti – Drug Abuse Act 1988(www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia/reading_room/usam/crm00068.htm

References: www.wikipedia.com (Mexican Drug War) http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1910/harrisonact.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/marijuna tax act of 1937 http://www.druglibrary.org/special/king/dhu/dhu16.htm. (article: The Drug hang up, America’s fifty year folly by Rufus King) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 1970 Article: Anti – Drug Abuse Act 1988(www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia/reading_room/usam/crm00068.htm