Essay about War on Drugs Causes the Viloation of Individual Rights

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.

Civil forfeiture is a component by which law implementation offices can seize and keep the property or cash when the property/owner is associated with a wrongdoing. As opposed to criminal Forfeiture, where a property is taken simply after

Dangerous illegal drugs have plagued American citizens and their youth for as long as the country has been in existence. These harmful drugs are not only responsible for countless amounts of deaths, but the corruption of the American society in general. All too many times have these drugs been blamed for insanity, racism, rebellion, and straight up violence. Today the government is spending approximately $19.179 billion in one year to combat these evils (Gifford). Unfortunately, even with all of this effort going in to stop illegal drug use, the “War on Drugs” is yet to produce almost any positive results. Because of this, politicians are urging the government to spend even more money to combat the seemingly

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

Furthermore, Drug control is relevant to disease control. By this, I mean, since the usage of illegal drugs could bring an addict one step closer to an incurable disease, it has been brought to my attention that drug control and disease control have similarities of preventing one another. As you can see, Global War on Drugs may be far from winning to become executed. It’s hard to say that the population of the Earth would agree to such action, but the fact that it saves lives may help them reconsider. After all, drug addicts have brains; therefore, if they want to live life to the fullest, first step they should take would be to refute the continued criminalization of hard drugs.

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

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

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

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

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

Today’s world is changing at a rapid pace. Things never thought to be possible are becoming very real. One of the popular subjects of wanting change is the legalization of drugs. There has already been a small amount of change in the drug legalization process with marijuana now being legal in a few of the states. Vanessa Baird in her work “Legalize Drugs- all of them!” argues for the legalization and decriminalization of drugs. John P. Walters counters Baird’s argument for legalization in his piece “Don’t Legalize Drugs.” Both authors take an extended look into the harsh reality of the drug war and the small progress it has made since it began.

Criminal forfeitures are typically against an individual after the individual is convicted of a crime and the property being forfeited/seized is connected to the crime. Furthermore, a criminal forfeiture can occur after a plea bargaining or sentencing, as long as the said property is considered contraband, connected to a crime, and was obtained criminally (Levinthal, 2012). The criminal case and forfeited property are subject to all constitutional guidelines under criminal law and must be tried in a court of law together, and the forfeiture is subject to a grand jury to determine if the forfeiture is warranted (Bethel, 2012). "Civil forfeitures, on the other hand, are in rem actions based upon the unlawful use of property, irrespective of its owner's culpability", (Levinthal, 2012, p. 128). Under a civil forfeiture, a conviction or charge is not necessary against a person as the property is considered to be guilty and allows law enforcement to seize such property as long as a criminal nexus or paradigm is associated with the property (Department of Justice, 2017).

        The assets that are forfeited for criminal and civil offenses are used "to put more cops on the street," according to former United States President George H. W. Bush.] The assets are dispersed among the law enforcement community for things such as paying the attorneys involved in the forfeiture case, police vehicles, meth-lab clean up, and other equipment and

Civil Forfeiture is a law that allows a police officer to seize control of a person’s belongings based on an assumption that the person broke the law. The officer does not need to prove that the person broke the law, simply stating that they believe the person was a lawbreaker is enough. This law is understandably contentious. Many people who claim their innocence have lost their life savings due to the civil forfeiture law.

You might be tempted to label Thomas Szasz, author of Our Right to Drugs, The Case for a Free Market, a counter-culture hippie. However, this analysis couldn’t be further from the truth. Szasz, a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, is a major supporter of civil liberties. He sees the so-called "War on Drugs" as one of the worst atrocities that the American Government has perpetrated on its people. Szasz contends that the prohibition of certain drugs, including common prescription drugs, is nothing more than the government telling the people that "father knows best". It is this paternalistic attitude that Szasz finds so oppressive.