Annotated Bibliography On Gun Control

Drugs have been a problem in the country for a long time. Issues with drugs even existed in ancient times. However, through the War on Drugs, the media created a panic about the issue, making citizens believe drug abuse was an exponentially growing new epidemic in the United States. Although the War on Drugs was declared in 1982 and was intended to reduce the rates of drug abuse in the US, America’s drug problem increased dramatically over the next years (Bagley, 1988).

Connors, E.E. and Gostin, L.O., “Health Care Reform-A Historic Moment in US Social Policy.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 303, 2521-2522.

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

The 42nd President of the United States, William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton, had many great ideas. He was President between 1993 and 2001. Shortly after winning the election in 1992, he came up with the Health Security Act. It was meant to cover a wide variety of healthcare issues including giving benefits to all American citizens. It was so in depth that it would have affected every aspect of healthcare. Why did it fail? Throughout this paper you will learn of the features, demanders, suppliers, and the public policy environment within the Health Security Act and why that led to its demise.

There is a controversial issue in America, and that issue is on gun control. One side wants to tighten down on the gun control laws. While the other side wants to leave gun control be or loosen it up. These two sides are the democrats and the republicans. In this essay, I will be comparing the many differences between the republican view on gun control and the democrat view on gun control.

The War on drugs policy is something that is well known to all conservative congress members that support its creation. It’s a declaration first made in 1971 by President Richard Nixon to buckle down and to be rid of drugs within our streets. This policy has expanded and grown into the present year with minimum sentencing for carrying drugs to reform policies to prevent drug use (A brief History). This was done in order to accomplish one goal, to make the streets of the United States better and to keep its people safe. Every policy and reform that congress has passed was created from the perspective of concerned

The response to drug use in America and in some countries around the world seems to have an interesting history. As the author Daniel Patrick Moynihan describes the unintended consequences society faces when government does not deal effectively with issues of drugs in society. He provided several references that shows the historical and present connections to government interrelations and how many of these decisions have some form of negative impact and at times causes social breakdown. His historical reference to drug uses, medicinal properties as well as technology role in our present age does paint a vivid picture of how government decisions can affect us. Since

Congress, as one of the key players, was seriously considering plans to provide universal health coverage on one hand, and physicians, big businesses, and Republican lawmakers, on the other hand, as various interest groups opposing the Congress, were more interested in blocking the proposals of the Congress (Bok, 1998). The situation was a dilemmatic one and some reformation was needed.

One of the quintessential promises of Obama’s campaign in 2008 was to reform health care. In the 2008 democratic platform, democrats rallied around a “commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive health care” (2008 Democratic Party Platform). While it was uncertain exactly how reform would look like, Democrats and Obama strove for some specific qualifications for reform. He promised reform in reproductive health care, promised to lower drug and health care costs and raise quality of care, promised an end to insurance discrimination, and promised the oft quoted mantra of “if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor; if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your

The Post-War period was not the first time healthcare was on the American legislative agenda. Earlier on in 1916 after the New Deal policies, the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL) had lobbied for a comprehensive form of health insurance, which was largely based off of the German model at the time which largely focused on employer contribution to insurance costs in addition to public contribution. The leaders of AALL felt that health insurance was vital for a productive labor force. With this belief, they aimed to not only just increase and enhance worker’s health, but also aimed to increase prevention measures. This meaning that with comprehensive health care available for individuals, the likelihood of treatment and prevention

For almost a century, American presidents regardless of political affiliation, Democrats or Republicans, have been envisioning a health insurance that would provide coverage to every citizen. This is not an easy task. Presidents from history can attest to this—from Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Nixon and Clinton. The complex nature of health care and the involvement of money in this multi-billion dollar industry may have been the reason for failed attempts to reform it (Reid, 2009, p 163).

Drugs have become a very controversial subject in America, especially in the past couple of years. Ever since Nixon declared a war on drugs it seems that the use of drugs and the convictions placed on drug users has dramatically risen to great heights. While I admit drug usage can provide serious consequences to an individual’s health, I do feel that some drug enforcement policies have become misguided and muddled over the years. Therefore, some aspects of the United States drug enforcement policies should remain as they are, some should be strengthened or enforced more strongly, and even some should be reevaluated and changed entirely.

A new health care plan has recently unveiled in the House of Representatives, as it shifts more responsibility for finding affordable coverage to individuals, and away from the government. The proposed plan is unlikely to become law, as it immediately received criticism from all sides of the political spectrum, and it could change or fail as it makes its way through Congress. Neither the government’s current plan nor the plan offered by the Republicans seem capable of addressing the larger problem, the rising cost of health care that is translating into higher insurance rates. This draft offers the first look at how the Republicans want to change the government’s role in delivering health care. “This is just a first step in what is likely

Over the last five decades the United States Congress has enacted a set of counterproductive drug policies collectively regarded as the war on drugs. These policies generally have two things in common: a heavy dependence on law enforcement, the criminal justice system and the military in dealing with certain drugs; and a dependence to abstinence only methods to treatment and prevention, to the rejection of proven, evidence-based interventions. This expensive, disciplinary, zero-tolerance approach has overwhelmingly failed.

The Federal Government, while trying to protect us from our human nature, developed harsh anti-drug policies with the hope of eradicating drugs. At the time, these policies seemed simple enough: we will impose penalties on those who use substances illegally, we will intercept drugs coming from other countries while ending all drug cultivation in the States, and we will even try to prevent foreign governments from growing these substances. The idea of the Drug Prohibition surely made sense: lower demand of drugs by law enforcement, and reduce supply through domestic and international means. Unfortunately, the Drug Prohibition led to heavy costs, both financially and otherwise, while being ineffective, if not, at times,