Remember learning in history about the Hundreds Years War (1337-1453) that actually went on for more than a hundred years. It seemed so absurd to think that a war could go on for so long. Then there was the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) which was a minor improvement. As we learn about these incidents we smugly feel we have progressed but in reality these phenomenon are still occurring but in a different form. We now have "The War on Drugs" and it has certainly been going on for more than thirty years and no one is really sure who is winning.
In 2009 Dan Gillmore wrote that the war on drugs is "a futile, expensive and supremely hypocritical campaign that has caused vastly more damage, in America and around the globe, than the problems it aims to fix." In June 1955 "The Times Newspaper" in England ran an article "The Case for Heroin." In the article it was pointed out that because addicts could get prescriptions for the drug from their local doctor the number of addicts in Britain was not very high. In America, where the drug had been illegal since 1925, heroine had created major social problems. However, in 1964 when the number of addicts in Britain had grown the system of getting the drugs legally was altered. Only certain doctors working in special clinics could give prescriptions for heroin. The law became stricter in 1968 and by 1971 heroin became illegal. And with illegality came greater problems.
From the moment drug addicts were treated as criminals rather than as addicts with a medical/psychological problem, a whole new segment of criminals came into being. As long as there were clinics in England and addicts had access to doctors then the problem was medical and not only was it possible to do something for the addicts but it meant there was no place for the pushers. Declaring drugs illegal in a sweeping wholesale manner left a hole that was filled with a black market. This in turn created a new industry that led to formidable drug cartels that are rich enough to have a say in the running of some countries in South America. And thus the illegal "corporate" bosses have ended up with more power than they could ever have dreamed of. People tend to think that crime and punishment go together, in fact laws and crime go together and creating laws against drugs created more problems than they solved. The two papers: "The Times" in 1955 and "The Economist" in 2011, have publicly presented a good case
for legalizing drugs. What a pity it was only the journalists who could foresee the disaster of criminalizing addicts and continuing to marginalize them rather than aid them, and not government representatives.
In 2011, Mark A.R. Kleiman, Jonathan P. Caulkins and Angela Hawken wrote a book entitled: "Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know" which considers various issues relating to the "War on Drugs." They also challenge the assumption that it is OK for any form of tobacco or alcoholic beverages to be sold legally even when they are known to do as much, if not more, damage. Give a bit of weed to those fervent football fans instead of beer and football hooliganism may be a thing of the past. The authors also discuss the crime issues that go hand in hand with any illegal substance. The book makes a serious academic argument about these two issues being connected, as does the National Center for the Victims for Crime. In 2007, the Center gives the frightening statistics that over 50 percent of the people in America who are arrested have illegal substances of some sort in their system. The Centre also claims that crime, in particular robbery, is one of the results of drug addicts being treated as criminals. Addiction is also a contributing factor to all forms of violence in the homes.
Since governments the world over are clearly losing the War on Drugs, the sensible thing to do would be to reconsider the strategy and consider legalizing drugs or at least certain drugs? The money that could be saved in law enforcement, the courts and the prisons would be significant. But that of course is the reason it will never happen. Never mind people's mindset, in that we have all been brainwashed to think drugs are bad and, drug addicts are criminals, the bottom line is money. While a mindset can in time be altered, the financial loss that would be incurred if this war ever ended, is what ensures that it not only continues, but that it increases. When a drug lord is vanquished the politicians and the police look good and hence justify the money they have spent or can ask for more money. Then there are the numerous lawyers looking for jobs. Drugs provide a ready-made and full market in which they can either defend drug dealers or prosecute them. From the top to the bottom, modern economy has become entwined in this war, and unfortunately as long as those in power have a vested interest in seeing it perpetuate itself, the War on Drugs will end up competing with the hundred years war.
Copyright: Academic Reading
In 2009 Dan Gillmore wrote that the war on drugs is "a futile, expensive and supremely hypocritical campaign that has caused vastly more damage, in America and around the globe, than the problems it aims to fix." In June 1955 "The Times Newspaper" in England ran an article "The Case for Heroin." In the article it was pointed out that because addicts could get prescriptions for the drug from their local doctor the number of addicts in Britain was not very high. In America, where the drug had been illegal since 1925, heroine had created major social problems. However, in 1964 when the number of addicts in Britain had grown the system of getting the drugs legally was altered. Only certain doctors working in special clinics could give prescriptions for heroin. The law became stricter in 1968 and by 1971 heroin became illegal. And with illegality came greater problems.
From the moment drug addicts were treated as criminals rather than as addicts with a medical/psychological problem, a whole new segment of criminals came into being. As long as there were clinics in England and addicts had access to doctors then the problem was medical and not only was it possible to do something for the addicts but it meant there was no place for the pushers. Declaring drugs illegal in a sweeping wholesale manner left a hole that was filled with a black market. This in turn created a new industry that led to formidable drug cartels that are rich enough to have a say in the running of some countries in South America. And thus the illegal "corporate" bosses have ended up with more power than they could ever have dreamed of. People tend to think that crime and punishment go together, in fact laws and crime go together and creating laws against drugs created more problems than they solved. The two papers: "The Times" in 1955 and "The Economist" in 2011, have publicly presented a good case
for legalizing drugs. What a pity it was only the journalists who could foresee the disaster of criminalizing addicts and continuing to marginalize them rather than aid them, and not government representatives.
In 2011, Mark A.R. Kleiman, Jonathan P. Caulkins and Angela Hawken wrote a book entitled: "Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know" which considers various issues relating to the "War on Drugs." They also challenge the assumption that it is OK for any form of tobacco or alcoholic beverages to be sold legally even when they are known to do as much, if not more, damage. Give a bit of weed to those fervent football fans instead of beer and football hooliganism may be a thing of the past. The authors also discuss the crime issues that go hand in hand with any illegal substance. The book makes a serious academic argument about these two issues being connected, as does the National Center for the Victims for Crime. In 2007, the Center gives the frightening statistics that over 50 percent of the people in America who are arrested have illegal substances of some sort in their system. The Centre also claims that crime, in particular robbery, is one of the results of drug addicts being treated as criminals. Addiction is also a contributing factor to all forms of violence in the homes.
Since governments the world over are clearly losing the War on Drugs, the sensible thing to do would be to reconsider the strategy and consider legalizing drugs or at least certain drugs? The money that could be saved in law enforcement, the courts and the prisons would be significant. But that of course is the reason it will never happen. Never mind people's mindset, in that we have all been brainwashed to think drugs are bad and, drug addicts are criminals, the bottom line is money. While a mindset can in time be altered, the financial loss that would be incurred if this war ever ended, is what ensures that it not only continues, but that it increases. When a drug lord is vanquished the politicians and the police look good and hence justify the money they have spent or can ask for more money. Then there are the numerous lawyers looking for jobs. Drugs provide a ready-made and full market in which they can either defend drug dealers or prosecute them. From the top to the bottom, modern economy has become entwined in this war, and unfortunately as long as those in power have a vested interest in seeing it perpetuate itself, the War on Drugs will end up competing with the hundred years war.
Copyright: Academic Reading
About the Author:
Looking to find the best way of learning to read in English academic reading comprehension #1, then visit www.academic-reading.com to find the best advice on how to succeed reading strategies and skills #2 to make reading English easy.
