War on Drugs - Coursework Example

Policy Analysis: War on Drugs Name: University: Instructor: Course Title: Date: Policy Analysis: War on Drugs Introduction The use of illegal drugs causes harm to both individuals and to society in general. This harm is usually medically and psychologically related and takes many forms. Some of the social consequences of illegal drug use on individuals include; drug overdoses, accidents due to illegal drug intoxication, and violence associated with involvement in the illegal drug buying and selling. The consequences of illegal drug problem on the society may include minimal productivity of members of the society like employees and students who will be impaired by drugs they abuse. The society also suffers higher illegal drug-related costs involved when seeking criminal justice and also treatment within the health care systems. Various research studies have shown that people who abuse drugs are more likely to suffer from mental disorders, physical health problems, and family problems. Illegal drug problems around Washington, DC have been associated with severe psychosocial and health challenges, minimal socio-economic productivity and potential risky circumstances within the society (US Department of Health and Human Sciences, 2011). Owing to this fact, America has various legal frameworks that govern production, use and distribution of these substances. Historically, the regulation of drug usage is traceable from 1887 when importation of opium by Chinese was banned. From then, various legislations have been formulated to curb supply and demand of illegal drugs (Harrison, Michael, and Inciardi, 1995). One of the approaches to regulating demand and supply of illicit drugs is Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011 or H. R. 313. This bill was introduced in the congress by representative Smith Lamar in Jan 18, 2011 who is Judiciary Committee Chairman and co sponsored by Adam Schiff. This legislation amends section 846 of controlled Substance Act (CSA). This legislation makes it criminal for those who plan and or discuss activities on foreign land that if executed in US would undermine the CSA). This would apply even in a situation where the concept is legal in the country of planning. This act empowers prosecutors to open court proceedings against anyone who has ulterior motives that violates CSA. In terms of scope, this law then covers national and international boundaries as it addresses crimes committed outside American soil in the context of CSA. This act was passed in congress on Dec 13, 2011 (United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 2011). How the act is related to social work as a whole can be best understood through framework of role analysis so as to create a nexus between the legislation and social work. According to Canadian Association of Social Workers (2012), “Social work is a profession concerned with helping individuals, families, groups and communities to enhance their individual and collective well-being. It aims to help people develop their skills and their ability to use their own resources and those of the community to resolve problems”. The consequences of using illicit drugs products are usually very devastating and may result into serious psychosocial, physical and economic impacts. Health consequences may include; drug dependence, increased mortality and morbidity rates as a result of overuse of the illicit opioid products and other risky health factors (Galanter & Kebler, 2008). Thus, this act is aimed at reducing the effects of these illicit drugs to society thereby aiding social workers on achieving collective well being. Reducing the use of these illegal drugs is a determinant of better social and economic wellbeing of individuals and the society in general. History and Scope of the Issue Illicit drug use poses grave threat to individuals, society and economy at large due to associated economic costs of treatment and social ills like violence and criminal activities. This has forced various concerned stakeholders to find ways of prohibiting and curbing usage of these substances. For instance, Intervention should include; interdicting its supply and distribution, law and justice enforcement by the relevant authorities and the criminal justice system on the supply, distribution, possession and use of opioid. Intervention should also involve the treatment and rehabilitation of confirmed drug users either voluntarily or through legal coercion via the criminal justice system (Cicchetti & Cohen, 2008). According to the World health Organization (WHO) between the year 1998 and 2002 it was approximated that 185 million people around the world had used illegal drugs (World Health Organization, 2006). Meaning drug problem is a global phenomenon. Moreover, America despite of stringent laws has the highest drug abusers. In addition, they are four times likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime (CBS News, 2008). In earlier years, traffickers could conspire with impunity to ship drugs outside America in American soil with guarantee of not being arrested. According to United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (2011), the in-depth happenings that necessitated the act was when in 1998 two individuals colluded with Colombian drug traffickers and Saudi Arabian prince to ship 2,000 kilograms of cocaine worth $ 100 million by then from South America to Europe. It is noted that most of the meeting occurred in Miami, Florida and in other parts of the world. The prince exploited diplomatic immunity to transport the cargo from Venezuela to Paris, France and other parts of Europe. The defendants were convicted to 24 years imprisonment in 2005 by Federal District Court in Florida on the grounds of drug trafficking and conspiracy. The contention arose in 2007 when the defendants appealed and were acquitted by U.S Court of Appeal on the premise that they did not violate federal law when absent congressional intent to the contrary. The bench observed that “the object of the conspiracy is to possess and distribute controlled substances outside of the United States even though meetings and negotiations in furtherance of the crime occurred on U.S. soil.” In their interpretation, the jury delivered judgment on the basis of territorial framework yet drug trafficking is global in nature. This thinking then formed the thinking of the formulator of this law. The main goal of this law is not to make U.S a safe haven for drug traffickers of both American or non American origin to moot ideas of the same since they will be prosecuted. The same applies to Americans who moot ideas outside American boundaries. The main actors in formulating this act were congressmen in Judiciary Committee spearheaded by Smith Lamar who was the Chairman. This committee engaged in formulating this act because they are mandated to formulate bills relating to justice administration. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that there would be no significant cost in implementing the act as it would apply to small number of cases. Hence, CBO concludes that they are not sure if the cost would surpass the per annum threshold specified in UMRA of $71 million for intergovernmental mandates and $ 142 million for private sector (Congressional Budget Office, 2011, p.1 & 2). Perspectives and Analysis of Policy The perspective on the act is that in initial years one was not liable to criminal charges for abetting drug trafficking outside American soil while in America. This act now makes them liable. This legislation amends section 846 of controlled Substance Act and addresses four aspects. The first section addresses the issue of crime and law enforcement. The next section covers the aspect of criminal investigation, prosecution and interrogation. It is this that provides the power for arresting and prosecuting of people who abet crime in other countries even if they are legal there. The next section build on the later one and it addresses drug trafficking and controlled substances. The last section is on jurisdiction and venue in relation to territorial matters (United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 2011). Those who support war on drugs in line with global nature of the phenomenon instead of territorial restriction advances the argument that this act will go a long way in addressing those who abet drug trafficking with impunity, but feel they are immune of protection. The proponents/ supporters of the act draws example from the 1998 case example where two individuals colluded with Colombian drug traffickers and Saudi Arabian prince to ship 2,000 kilograms of cocaine worth $ 100 million by then from South America to Europe. This plan was hatched in American soil in Miami and Florida. The accused were found guilty and imprisoned for 24 years in 2005 by Federal District Court in Florida on the grounds of drug trafficking and conspiracy. However due to legal loop hole, U.S Court of Appeal overturned lower court ruling on the argument that they did not violate federal law. Thus the supporters of the Act see it as an ample opportunity to address this loop hole by outlawing “US citizens and entities from assisting, supporting or engaging in conspiracy with entities engaged in activities outside US that violates CSA” (United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 2011). On the other hand, the opponents of the legislation have posited different perspectives. Open Congress (2012) provides a list of some organizations that are opposed to the Act. The organizations include families against mandatory minimums, American Civil Liberties Union and Justice Policy Alliance among others. The opponents see it as a cultural, legal imperialism and restriction to basic human rights. Trudeau (2012) offers an interesting discourse from the opponents’ perspective. One instance he notes is that if an American talks about using illegal drugs like marijuana in countries that it is allowed they are likely to be prosecuted when they are back home. Further, he argues that the wording of the Act is broad and thus, it is likely to affect academicians and medical practitioners of American citizen who work in areas where these drugs are decriminalized. This means that American doctors working in countries like Portugal where marijuana have been decriminalized are likely to be jailed for being involved with medical projects in that country. Others have developed wait and see approach since they are not sure of the expected outcome. Impact of Policy and Analysis America being one of the countries facing heavy consequences of drug abuse has to put5 stern measures for curbing the menace (CBS News, 2008). Interventions for illegal drug use and dependence in US and around the globe need to be adopted to help in controlling and preventing the use of these substances. Intervention should include; interdicting its supply and distribution, law and justice enforcement by the relevant authorities and the criminal justice system on the supply, distribution, possession and use of opioid substances (Cicchetti & Cohen, 2008). This policy has this required impact of reducing legal gray areas associated with CRA since drug deals starts with thinking and it is a global problem that obeys no political boundary. One of the White House strategies in curbing drug use is to reduce access and this can only if the flow from source is restricted. Thus, this Act will help in a great deal in ensuring the 1998 scenario and subsequent appeal judgment do not happen. The act states that “persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States, and for other purposes” (Open Congress, 2012). While the Act offers a good platform for curbing illegal drugs, there are effects that will emerge out of this framework. One of the problems would be in the academic and medical research. These groups stand a chance of being prosecuted for working with such products. Judgment Since Americans are bound with American law irrespective of where they are, the only amendment that I would recommend as improvement is that under controlled environment like in academics and medical research, the law should not be applied holistically. Apart from the above, all people residing in America are also bound with American law and thus, have obligation of adhering to them. Hence, they should be no claim of legal imperialism. Other areas should not be changed because even if those acts are allowed in those countries they are likely to affect the name of America as haven of drug lords or source of drug lords. Moreover, once fully operational, America should collaborate with other states since for its full realization there is need for international collaboration. Thus, the act should provide provision for collaboration. In addition, it should be synchronized with other acts dealing with illegal drugs. References Canadian Association of Social Workers (2012). What is social work? Retrieved on 4th July, 2012 from: http://www.casw-acts.ca/en/what-social-work. CBS News (2008). US lead the world in illegal drug use. Retrieved on 4th July, 2012 from: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500368_162-4222322.html Cicchetti D & Cohen DJ (2008). Development Psychopathology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc Congressional Budget Office(2011). Cost estimate for Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 201. Retrieved on 4th July, 2012 from: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr313.pdf Galanter M & Kleber HD (2008). The American Psychiatric Publishing Text Book of Substance Abuse Treatment, Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc. Harrison, L. D., Michael, B. and Inciardi, J. A. (1995). Cannabis use in the United States: Implications for policy. In: Peter Cohen & Arjan Sas (Eds) (1996), Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en de Verenigde Staten. Amsterdam, Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek, Universiteit van Amsterdam. pp. 179-276. Open Congress (2011). H.R. 313- Drug trafficking safe harbor elimination Act of 2011. Retrieved on 4th July, 2012 from: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h313/show. Trudeau, K. (2012). House committee passes bill that criminalizes free speech. Retrieved on 4th July, 2012 from: http://www.ktradionetwork.com/tag/drug-trafficking-safe-harbor- elimination-act/. United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (2011). Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Full Committee Markup of H.R. 313, the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011. Retrieved on 4th July, 2012 from: http://judiciary.house.gov/news/Statement%20HR%20313.html US Department of Health and Human Sciences (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Studies (2011). Healthand Other Problems Associated with Drug Use. Retrieved on 4th July, 2012 from: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/treatan/treana16.htm. World Health Organization (2006). Disease Control Priorities Related to Mental, Neurological, Development and Substance Abuse Disorders, Geneva: World Health Organization Publication Read More

How the act is related to social work as a whole can be best understood through framework of role analysis so as to create a nexus between the legislation and social work. According to Canadian Association of Social Workers (2012), “Social work is a profession concerned with helping individuals, families, groups and communities to enhance their individual and collective well-being. It aims to help people develop their skills and their ability to use their own resources and those of the community to resolve problems”.

The consequences of using illicit drugs products are usually very devastating and may result into serious psychosocial, physical and economic impacts. Health consequences may include; drug dependence, increased mortality and morbidity rates as a result of overuse of the illicit opioid products and other risky health factors (Galanter & Kebler, 2008). Thus, this act is aimed at reducing the effects of these illicit drugs to society thereby aiding social workers on achieving collective well being.

Reducing the use of these illegal drugs is a determinant of better social and economic wellbeing of individuals and the society in general. History and Scope of the Issue Illicit drug use poses grave threat to individuals, society and economy at large due to associated economic costs of treatment and social ills like violence and criminal activities. This has forced various concerned stakeholders to find ways of prohibiting and curbing usage of these substances. For instance, Intervention should include; interdicting its supply and distribution, law and justice enforcement by the relevant authorities and the criminal justice system on the supply, distribution, possession and use of opioid.

Intervention should also involve the treatment and rehabilitation of confirmed drug users either voluntarily or through legal coercion via the criminal justice system (Cicchetti & Cohen, 2008). According to the World health Organization (WHO) between the year 1998 and 2002 it was approximated that 185 million people around the world had used illegal drugs (World Health Organization, 2006). Meaning drug problem is a global phenomenon. Moreover, America despite of stringent laws has the highest drug abusers.

In addition, they are four times likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime (CBS News, 2008). In earlier years, traffickers could conspire with impunity to ship drugs outside America in American soil with guarantee of not being arrested. According to United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary (2011), the in-depth happenings that necessitated the act was when in 1998 two individuals colluded with Colombian drug traffickers and Saudi Arabian prince to ship 2,000 kilograms of cocaine worth $ 100 million by then from South America to Europe.

It is noted that most of the meeting occurred in Miami, Florida and in other parts of the world. The prince exploited diplomatic immunity to transport the cargo from Venezuela to Paris, France and other parts of Europe. The defendants were convicted to 24 years imprisonment in 2005 by Federal District Court in Florida on the grounds of drug trafficking and conspiracy. The contention arose in 2007 when the defendants appealed and were acquitted by U.S Court of Appeal on the premise that they did not violate federal law when absent congressional intent to the contrary.

The bench observed that “the object of the conspiracy is to possess and distribute controlled substances outside of the United States even though meetings and negotiations in furtherance of the crime occurred on U.S. soil.” In their interpretation, the jury delivered judgment on the basis of territorial framework yet drug trafficking is global in nature. This thinking then formed the thinking of the formulator of this law. The main goal of this law is not to make U.S a safe haven for drug traffickers of both American or non American origin to moot ideas of the same since they will be prosecuted.

The same applies to Americans who moot ideas outside American boundaries.

Read More