Good Storms Coming : Relevance And Implications Of The Philippine War Against Illegal Drugs Essay

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.

Today the number are in the war on drug is a huge failure with devastated unintended consequences, it lead to mass incarceration in the us, to corruption, to political destabilization, and violence in latin america, asia, and africa. To systemic human right abuse across the world.”-Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell

Today the number are in the war on drug is a huge failure with devastated unintended consequences, it lead to mass incarceration in the us, to corruption, to political destabilization, and violence in latin america, asia, and africa. To systemic human right abuse across the world.”-Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell

The term “War on Drugs” was first used by the Nixon administration in the 1970’s, but the country has been enforcing policies against drug use, possession, and distribution since 1914, with the passing of the Harrison Act. They do this mainly through deterrence. The government makes laws and regulations against this kind of behavior and

The war on Drugs played a heavy role in minority American society. It affected policing and most importantly the American minority people. The war on drugs started by President Nixon and up until President Bush was a disaster that affected America with high incarceration and high recidivism rates for low level and non-violent drug offenses that mainly targeted minorities in America. The war on drugs was a massive American failure that mainly affected minorities. President Obama and his drug reform alongside the American public’s strong opinion to switch towards marijuana reform which we see in places like Colorado and Washington has caused the war on drugs to lose steam. The American public’s decision for drug reform is no surprise after nearly 40 years of the unsuccessful war on drugs.

Maia Szalavitz supports her statements against Duterte using by various approaches. Szalavitz uses etho in this article as she is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor and had drug addict parents. She states, “I disagree. I am both a child of a Holocaust survivor and a person who has struggled with addiction.” She tried to persuade the readers by displaying how she has experience with people of drug addiction and Holocaust. Due to the comparisons of Duterte’s genocide and Hitler’s Holocaust, she is able to relate to the both. Maia Szalavitz appears to show credibility and a relation to the issue of “drug war”.

No matter who has occupied the executive branch, the United States has pursued the same overall policies throughout the drug war. Anti-drug policies can be separated into two general camps, 'supply-reduction ' and 'demand-reduction’ (McCabe 5). Supply-reduction strategies seek to reduce the availability of drugs by limiting access to drug sources and increasing the risks of drug possession and distribution. Demand-reduction strategies, on the other hand, seek to reduce demand for illegal drugs through drug use prevention and treatment. The rhetoric of war helped shape the strategies that were used to combat the perceived drug threat.

The United States has a long history of intervention in the affairs of one it’s southern neighbor, Latin America. The war on drugs has been no exception. An investigation of US relations with Latin America in the period from 1820 to 1960, reveals the war on drugs to be a convenient extension of an almost 200 year-old policy. This investigation focuses on the commercial and political objectives of the US in fighting a war on drugs in Latin America. These objectives explain why the failing drug policy persisted despite its overwhelming failure to decrease drug production or trafficking. These objectives also explain why the US has recently exchanged a war on drugs for the war on

The War on Drugs, like the war on Terrorism, is a war that America may not be able to afford to win. For over forty years the United States has been fighting the War on Drugs and there is no end in sight. It has turned into a war that is about politics and economics rather than about drugs and criminals. The victims of this war are numerous; but perhaps they are not as numerous as those who benefit from the war itself.

The War on Drugs has been a common phrase in the United States for many decades. What exactly does this mean and how does it shape U.S. foreign policy? The War on Drugs can be defined as the systematic and aggressive policy that is determined to undermine and stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. This policy is backed by several U.S. institutions including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Army, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Customs. Also, included in this list are the numerous local law enforcement agencies across the country.

The international drug trade from Latin American states is having an impact on a global scale. The trafficking of drugs along with corruptness and murder is an international conflict that is being fought daily. There are many aspects of the drug war from Mexico and other Latin American states which have effects on United States policy as well as policies from other countries that participate in the global suppression of illegal drugs.

Drug trafficking has become an increasingly growing problem in the world today. Illegal drug trade is a worldwide black market consisting of production, distribution, packaging, and sale of illegal substances. Although today’s "War on Drugs" is a modern phenomenon, drug problems have been a common problem throughout history. The market for illegal drugs is massive, when we consider the estimated global drug trade value is worth $321 billion (Vulliamy). The most drug trafficking happens on the border between Mexico and the United States. Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon said, “Our neighbor is the largest consumer of drugs in the world. And everybody wants to sell him drugs through our door and our window”

According to Michelle Alexander, why and how has the “war on drugs” developed over the last 40 years? What are the main political and economic factors that led to the war on drugs, and what are the main political and economic factors that shaped it as it developed over the last four decades? Draw on material from the Foner textbook chapters 25 through 28 to supplement Alexander’s discussion of the political and economic context.

The “War on Drugs” is the name given to the battle of prohibition that the United States has been fighting for over forty years. And it has been America’s longest war. The “war” was officially declared by President Richard Nixon in the 1970’s due to the abuse of illegitimate drugs. Nixon claimed it as “public enemy number one” and enacted laws to fight the importation of narcotics. The United States’ War on Drugs began in response to cocaine trafficking in the late 1980’s. As the war continues to go on, winning it hardly seems feasible. As stated by NewsHour, the National Office of Drug Control Policy spends approximately nineteen billion dollars a year trying to stop the drug trade. The expenses shoot up, indirectly, through crime,

Are the methods being used by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte the best way to handle the ongoing drug war in the Philippines? His supporters say that his methods have been effective in eradicating illegal drugs from the streets. They claim that unlike Duterte’s predecessors, who have done very little to battle the many problems that have been plaguing the country for many years, he already has done much to fight many issues that involve crime, corruption, and most of all, illegal drugs. However, many people believe that the drug war could have been handled in other, less radical, ways. They claim that threatening, hunting down, and killing these drug pushers and users, guilty or otherwise, is not the best to tackle an issue as serious as the widespread production, selling, and use of illegal drugs.