The government has decided that addiction to these types of harmless drugs is okay, and then provides us with safe ways to access and ingest them. Could it be that the moment you turn to an illegal drug, you forfeit any chance of safety that the government could offer to you? Illegal drug use surrounds us every day, in fact, substance abuse is not a problem that will go away by banishing users to the streets; such attitudes only exacerbate this ever so common, serious issue. Critics argue that safe injection sites condone a criminal act, whereas, others argue that it’s better to focus on enabling addicts to practice the behavior more safely. While we must appreciate the moral perspectives some attempt to embody, good public policy must be measured by its effectiveness and ability to actually achieve the goals it is designed to respond to.
It is estimated that Oregon’s tax payers, approximately pay one hundred and fifty dollars a day for their up keep (Death penalty info). This includes: housing, clothing, food, health cost, counseling, and education. The estimated time an individual spends on death row is approximately twenty year, which adds up to just over a million dollars per inmate. Now, multiply that by the twenty-seven that are sitting on death row. This is costing the tax payers twenty- nine million dollars over a twenty year period (Death Penalty Information Center).
I completely agree that we should help people who are addicted to substances, but giving them money to buy drugs isn’t helping them. If a welfare recipient is caught using drugs they should be given a chance to change their lives before being taken off of welfare. They should be given something to help them break their addiction. They should be watched very carefully and retested after two weeks of their conviction. If they are negative for drugs then they should still receive welfare, while still being watched and on probation for another year.
Bennett acknowledges the opinion of the proponents of legalization. He agrees that it could decrease crime, take away profit from the black market, make poor neighborhoods less crime filled, and enable a public war against drugs like we have on alcohol and tobacco. However, he says we must ask ourselves what the potential costs can be of doing something so drastic is. Bennett says, “We do know, however, that wherever drugs have been cheaper and more easily obtained, drug use and addiction has skyrocketed.” He then gives examples of relatable situations to the one that would be brought upon us from drug legalization. He mentions how the British legalized heroine for a short period of time and addiction increased forty fold, and consumption of alcohol increased by three hundred and fifty percent when prohibition ended.
More detailed studies are important to help answer the effectiveness of DTC to rehabilitate better than incarceration. This research will improve upon the other studies by attempting to solve their limitations. The idea of a third unknown variable resulting in a successful rehabilitation will be answered by continually surveying the 100 participants to the reason for their success. The limitation of not being made aware of an out of state arrest could be monitored by yearly checkups of the participants. The implication of proving that DTCs can better rehabilitate offenders than correctional facilities would revolutionize the judicial response to drug related crimes.
The order was quickly followed by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, which required employers with federal grants to keep their businesses drug-free. The act led to widespread drug testing in the private industry and, in a decade, the rate of drug testing applicants among large employers increased almost four fold, from 21 percent in 1987 to 81 percent in 1996 (Wessler, 2012). Large to small size companies use drug testing as a condition of employment. After initial testing, employees are added to a random testing program that allows for unannounced
In fact, even with its severe user penalties, the United States still far exceeds the Netherlands for marijuana and cocaine usage where they do not take legal action for possession of pot for personal use (Smith). This means the people who are going to do drugs will do so regardless of the repercussions making the criminalization of such behavior ineffective in reducing the number of users. We can make all the drug busts and user arrests we want until the end of time and it won’t stop people from trying drugs. As long as there is a demand, there will always be a supply (Javdani 376) And let’s not forget about the newest and biggest trend thus far being made and distributed right here in the United States: prescription
Every year our state has to spend a large sum of money on supervising marijuana because it is illegal. But once Proposition 19 is passed, those marijuana offenders and drug traffickers will be innocent. “The measure could result in savings to the state and local governments by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails, as well as the number placed under county probation or state parole supervision”(Brown 14). This could save California millions of dollars annually.
Legalizing Marijuana Progressive Paper Kareem Shaout Sociology/Criminal Justice 453 Introduction Throughout the course of American history there have been many issues that needed a little fine tuning before they began to run smoothly. One issue in need of an overhaul is the United States war against drugs. The efforts to stop or even control the manufacturing and sale of illegal drugs have gone unrewarded for over three decades. For every large scale drug seizure and arrest there are another ten dealers expanding their operations. The amount of drug traffic and use is at an all time high and the efforts to curtail it have served more as a stimulant for it rather than a deterrent.
Giving convicted drug offenders the ability to be a better part of society when they are released. One option is to offer college, education, or trade programs for convicted drug offenders so that when they are released they have a better chance of rehabilitation and are less likely to return to prison or like institutions. Prisoners--who are less likely to have completed high school or obtained a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) than the general population--typically enter prison with an educational disadvantage. In fact, there is a direct correlation between a lack of education and the probability of incarceration" (Colgan). An alternative option is for government programs to offer tax relief to companies and business owners that would consider hiring convicted drug offenders.