Essay on Durkheim and Marx Theories Applied to Drug Laws

For many years, drugs have been the center of crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. Due to this widespread epidemic, President Richard Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971 with a campaign that promoted the prohibition of illicit substances and implemented policies to discourage the overall production, distribution, and consumption. The War on Drugs and the U.S. drug policy has experienced the most significant and complex challenges between criminal law and the values of today’s society. With implemented drug polices becoming much harsher over the years in order to reduce the overall misuse and abuse of drugs and a expanded federal budget, it has sparked a nation wide debate whether or not they have created more harm than good. When looking at the negative consequences of these policies not only has billions of dollars gone to waste, but the United States has also seen public health issues, mass incarceration, and violent drug related crime within the black market in which feeds our global demands and economy. With this failed approach for drug prohibition, there continues to be an increase in the overall production of illicit substances, high rate of violence, and an unfavorable impact to our nation.

What affect did the “War on Drugs” have on America during the mid 1980s-early 2000s? Annotated Bibliography Primary Sources Applewhite, Scott. “War on Drugs Washington D.C.” July 18, 1989. Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States.

Defining law can be difficult to do since its definition varies among various people. Many people see law as standards for human behavior that reflect the deepest values and morals of the society. Others see law as a game which acts as a set of guidelines for settling disagreements in a nonviolent way. From a sociologist’s perspective law is viewed as a behavioral system with the two aspects of roles/hierarchy and rules/discretion. Not only is law thought of as a behavioral system from a sociologist’s perspective but also as an institution which is a set of directions for doing things. When laws have been disobeyed by a member of society a form of punishment will be determined and it is not always effective. Everyone has their own views on law and punishment which is why I want to look at what theorists Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view as the role and function of law and punishment. Before I can show the weaknesses, similarities and differences between each of their views I will give an overview of their thoughts on the role and function of law and punishment.

As societies expanded due to the economic demands posed by the Industrial Revolution, Durkheim said that the moral ties which bounded society together were weakened. Therefore, as society became more complex, a mechanism was engineered to effectively regulate these relationships and the result was the legal system[5]. The codification of moral behaviour, through laws, created guide-lines for large-scale societies. The foundation of these boundaries is in effect a function of crime and deviance, because without crime and deviance, on what basis would these laws be drafted upon?

As the variables above are added up it, quickly becomes apparent that the “war on drugs,” during the mid 1980s-early 2000s had a negative impact on American life. With all the money spent and lives ruined, the United States came no closer to solving drug issues it had faced in the years prior. Citizens took the biggest brunt of this “war” with the fact that not only did they have to forcibly financially support the “war on drugs,” but in some cases, they had their civil liberties encroached upon or even completely violated. It could be argued that retrospectively looking at the “war on drugs” makes criticizing our country and the officials in charge easy, but when you actually look at the statistics and events surrounding this time period criticism

The following pages will explore the issue of illegal drug use as it relates to tougher sentencing guidelines in an effort to determine whether stronger sentences are keeping dangerous criminals off the streets and reducing the use of illegal drugs in the US.

Within the last 50 years, drug legalization has been a very hotly debated topic in the United States society. It almost seems that every "street drug" was once legal, but banned soon after its introduction in society. Illegal substances that one sees today were once synthesized and created by chemist such as LSD, ecstasy, methamphetamine, cocaine, and etc., and at some point used for medical reasons, however during many circumstances were deemed illegal by the government due to detrimental effects after prolonged usage. William Bennett's "Drugs: Should Their Sale and Use Be Legalized" targets the general American public into understanding the societal importance of upholding the nations

Since the late 19th century, the federal and states governments of the United States have enacted laws and policies to deter the use and distribution of illegal drugs. These laws and policies have not only deemed what drugs are legal and illegal, but have also established penalties for the possession and distribution of these substances and established federal agencies to control drug use and administer drug law enforcement. This essay will not only examine the landmark drug laws and policies established by the federal and state governments, but also the enforcement of drug laws.

There is a debate in the American government system on how to handle the use of drug and alcohol. In the 1960s drugs were uprising along with youth rebellion and in 1971 Nixon declared a “War on Drugs” (Citation a brief). This name is not to be confused with the band War on Drugs, but the term is still popularly used to describe the policies that Government officials are making regarding drugs and alcohol. This debate got reheated when Colorado legalized weed for medical and recreational use, followed by several other states. There has slowly been a shift in mindset from, “alcoholics are drug addicts are all criminals and we (the law) should throw them in jail” to “addiction is a disease.” Even the way that addicts/alcoholics are treated has changed to treatment centers with specialist versus throwing them in the hospital to detox and hoping for a change. Policies that are shifting the penalty from incarceration to treatment reflect these changes and help the individual suffering from the disease to get back on their feet. The war on drugs rings on, but changes are being made.

Since the early 1960’s there have been an alarming increase in drug use in the United States in 1962, four million Americans had tried an illegal drug. By 1999, that number had risen to a staggering 88.7 million, according to the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

At the height of the “War on Drugs” political leaders and the media stressed the link between crime and illicit drug use, as well as an attempt to influence people to refrain from drug use for public health reasons.(citation)

In this paper, we will look at two philosophers discussing the existence, foundations and conditions of a legal system. The first philosopher we will look at is John Austin, who develops what is known as the command theory (Culver, 83). This theory argues that the law is a command that is given by a “sovereign,” with the threat of a penalty or consequence imposed if these laws are disobeyed (Culver, 83). He views the validity of a law by the source of the law and not the laws benefit to the citizens within a society. On the contrary, a philosopher we will look at who disagrees with John Austin on the foundations of a legal system is H.L.A Hart. Hart believes that acceptance plays a huge role when it comes to legal systems. He views a valid legal system as a union between primary and secondary rules (Culver 139).Hart believes the acceptance of officials is critical, and must include them adopting the internal point of view and citizens merely need to accept the law by obeying it.(Culver,

The results (positive or negative) of decriminalizing drugs and instituting a permissive legal system with respect to drugs, are disputed and somewhat unclear. The next section of this paper attempts to sort out the conflicting data that has

The so-called “War on Drugs,” as declared by the Nixon administration in the signing of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, marked the beginning of the current era of mandatory minimum sentencing, racism, privatized prisons, and a powerful constituency that profits as a result of the prohibition of drugs. Psychoactive substances have been apart of the human experience as long as humans have walked the earth. There is little hope that drug production will ever be curtailed, so long as there is a demand; a demand that has remained steady even though it has been forty years since the beginning of said war. As Judge James P. Gray from the Superior Court of Orange County has so plainly put it: “Where did this policy

Laws that prohibit the possession and use of street drugs are important as their aim is to protect the user, those around them, and society in general from undue harm. There has been a great push during the last 10 years to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs such as cocaine and heroin on the basis that the recreational user, and even the hard-core addict, may not be causing significant harm to anyone, beyond their own personal health. In this sense, drug use is viewed as a personal choice and drug laws trample on personal freedoms without sufficient reason. Additionally, minorities are found to be arrested and convicted of drug crimes at disproportionate rates when compared to the demographics of those who use illegal drugs, which some see these type of laws as a tool of legal oppression, instead of a valid punitive function. Still, there remains sufficient reasons to maintain laws against the possession and use of controlled substances, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin; though there is a compelling argument for the lessening of the amount punishment of the majority of users that are caught with small amounts of street drugs. This paper seeks to put forward valid reasons for the continued prohibition of drugs, while also making a case for the softening of incarceration policies.