Analysis Of Nancy Reagan 's ' Just Say No '

“Just Say No!” A statement that takes us deep into yet another decade in the history of the United States which was excited by controversies, social issues, and drug abuse. The topic of this statement is fueled by the growing abuse of cocaine in the mid 1980s. I shall discuss the effects of the crack cocaine epidemic of the mid 1980s from a cultural and social stand point because on that decade this country moved to the rhythms and the pace of this uncanny drug. Cocaine took its told on American society by in the 1980s; it ravaged with every social group, race, class, etc. It reigned over the United States without any prejudices. Crack cocaine was the way into urban society, because of its affordability in contrast to the powdered

Ronald Reagan is known as “The great communicator” and it shows in his speech, he is able connect to the audience and this works very well for him, his speech “Address to the national challenger” it is a drastically emotional and important speech for the American people at the time it became one of Reagan’s great speeches and it was crucial to the American’s as they were all in such pain due to the accident which was the Challenger disaster. Instead of doing his report on the state union, he talks about the disaster and honors the members who had passed on board and he wishes that the United States will not stop its space exploration due to this. When listening to the speech is it distinguishable that is the speech is not something to joke about and the tone had an emotional and solemn feel with great respect to all involved being felt.

Ronald Reagan was not only a master of foreign policy, but was also skillful with his domestic policy as well, such as his handling of illegal drug use within the United States. Reagan began his administration’s “war on drugs” in October 1982 (Glass). On that date he declared that illegal drugs and their production and transportation were hurting America (Glass). From then on, he made it clear that his administration would act against illegal drugs, and would do what it could to stop their influence. Congress, Reagan’s Vice President George H.W. Bush, and even his wife all put forth great contributions to the fight against illegal drugs. Ronald Reagan began to take action of his own in September 1986 when he helped to put forth and effectively pass Executive Order 12564 (Drug-Free Federal Workplace). The order was intended to create a drug-free work environment for every worker in America, and made it the law to not use drugs while at a workplace (Drug-Free Federal Workplace). Also, he signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 into law (Anti-Drug Abuse Act). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act created different types of minor and major penalties for drug offenses, and also created the

Richard Nixon was one of our most infamous presidents. He is now notoriously known for numerous scandals, one being the Watergate scandal, and consequentially his resignation. But during his time as president, he would influence one aspect of domestic affairs that would inevitably criminalize most minorities and is counterintuitive to its cause. Drugs. Nixon had persuaded the nation that drugs were our greatest enemy. He formally declared war on drugs in a press conference speech. The reason behind this declaration and the speech itself are important when evaluating Nixon’s performance as a public speaker because they show the strategies he used to sway his people into the anti-drugs mindset that is still held by many today.

When my audience hears “War on Drugs” they may assume it is a worthy endeavor because drug abuse is such a pervasive problem that affects many families. I must dispel the assumption that the “War on Drugs” dealt with the drug abuse problem or reduced drug sales. I can do this by demonstrating that there is plenty of evidence showing that the “War on Drugs” did not do what it set out to do and is therefore not an effective approach to the problem of drug trade and abuse. Additionally the imprisoning of citizens, even if it is done unjustly, does not reduce crime at comparable rates. Research from Harvard found that during the “War on Drugs” in state prisons there was a 66% increase in prison population but crime was only reduced by 2-5% and it cost the taxpayers 53 billion dollars (Coates, 2015). The fact the violent crime went up all through Nixon’s administration while he rallied for “Law & Order” and policing became more severe furthers this argument (Alexander, 2012). Four out five drug arrests are low-level possession charges as well, demonstrating that police policies aren’t dismantling the drug system just punishing addicts (Alexander, 2012). What’s more, drug abuse in America have remained stagnate and even increased in some instances even when billions of dollars have been pumped into the program (National

In January 2004, senatorial candidate Barack Obama firmly opposed the twenty two-year war on drugs, saying that the United States’ approach in the drug war has been ineffective (Debussman).  Although the term, “war on drugs,” was originally coined by President Richard Nixon in 1971, it wasn’t until Ronald Reagan announced that “drugs were menacing society” that it became a major policy goal to stop widespread use. Following Reagan’s promises to fight for drug-free schools and workplaces, the United States boosted its efforts in its most recent declaration

Nixon’s drug war, however, was a mere skirmish in comparison to the colossal efforts launched by the Ronald Reagan administration in the 1980s. Formally announced by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, the War on Drugs was marked by deep public concern, bordering on hysteria,, towards the nation’s drug problem. Under the leadership of President Reagan, the nation focused unprecedented energy and resources towards eliminating illicit drug use and trafficking.” (pp.

In October 1982, President Ronald Reagan addressed the nation and promised a “planned, concerted campaign against all drugs, hard soft or otherwise.” The President had two ways he to

She argues that when President Reagan officially announced the War on Drugs, less than 2 percent of the American public viewed drugs as the most important issue of the nation. Crack began to spread within the black community two years after

“Addiction and Substance Abuse.” Issues & Controversies. Infobase Learning, 19 Nov. 2012. Web. 20 July 2016. infobaselearning.com. The argument is about the “War on Drugs” and if it is working. One side of the argument thinks that by not funding the “War on Drugs” drugs would become uncontrolled. They believe that by stopping the war on drugs it would cost a lot more money in lost productivity and crime rate. They state that rehabilitation can occur while the person in in jail, and it should not substitute their punishment. While the other side believes that though we have thrown billions of dollars into this war on drugs it has shown no improvement whatsoever. They believe that by legalizing drugs the government can better regulate

“What do you do when someone offers you drugs?” And I said, “Well, you just say no.” There it was born. Children of many people have been asked to try drugs, People often are curious and want to try something new. Nancy Reagan wanted to help show the youth a way to say no.

The War on Drugs not only has many acts that have been in place due to it, but there has been a domino effect with other topics. The War on Drugs has become a complicated, yet important aspect of the U.S. as well as other countries. It was to be believed that the War on Drugs has influenced incarceration. This effect was the ability to imprison those who are using drugs, and the amount of crime will begin to decrease (Lloyd, 2015). Margaret Lloyd (2015), also discussed how a community that has less crime could be a better living area for children, in hopes they will not act in deviant behaviors.

There are many differing viewpoints in the United States when dealing with drug policy. Within the political arena, drug policy is a platform that many politicians base their entire campaigns upon, thus showing its importance to our society in general. Some of these modes within which drug policy is studied are in terms of harm reduction, and supply reduction. When studying the harmful effects of drugs, we must first to attempt to determine if drug abuse harms on an individual level of if it is a major cause of many societal problems that we face today. In drawing a preliminary conclusion to this question we are then able to outline the avenues of approach in dealing

Just Say No.” This phrase was uttered in 1982 by Nancy Reagan, the first lady of the United States, in response to a schoolgirl’s question of what she should do if offered drugs (Weinraub A5). These words became the slogan for a nationwide substance abuse prevention program that followed the then recently enacted drug policies intended to discourage the manufacture, sale, and use of illicit drugs in the United States. These zero tolerance policies carried harsh penalties and strict enforcement for all drug related offenses. Almost four decades later, these policies are still in effect, as is their focus on criminalization as a means to reduce the availability and usage of drugs. Their ineffectiveness is evidenced by the facts that drug use rates have remained steady over the past four decades and incarceration rates have exponentially rose during that same period. I believe that a new course of action should be taken, and a bold new drug policy should be enacted. Decriminalization would result in a substantial decrease of the prison population, relieve the unnecessary burden that has been placed on our criminal justice system, shift the paradigm from drug enforcement to drug treatment, reduce the health risk of HIV, AIDS, and heroin related deaths; and provide unprecedented benefits from the regulation of the manufacturing and sales of substances that are currently illegal.

However, the “Just Say No” campaign championed by former U.S. First Lady Nancy Reagan in the 1980s did not appear to significantly reduce drug abuse and addiction (Padgett, 2010).