This program participated in a research study that proved how beneficial NEP’s were in reducing risks of HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. With a great comparison between IDUs who participated in this study who exchanged needles within the program and those who didn’t persuaded the “U.S. National Commission and AIDS to endorse NEP’s in 1991” (De Jarlais). Many seem to believe that allowing needle exchange programs to operate in their community they will see an increase in the number of needle injecting drug users. However research proves that it’s just the opposite “NEP’s do not increase crime or drug use and provide gateway to drug treatment and HIV prevention services”(Hagan 2000) the number of drug users does not increase, experts argue that harm reduction policies decrease the negative consequences of drug use as well as act as a bridge to treatment and general medical
These policies work together, keeping people of like ethnic backgrounds and SES residentially segregated in areas that suffer from a lack of resources and enforcement of environmental policies like in Camden, NJ or Flint, MI. Living in these areas reinforces the cycle of SES, limiting their socioeconomic mobility by providing poor public education, leading to a limited job market. Their lack of finances prevents them from seeking better homes, keeping them in the area. This area, due to its lack of resources, doesn’t have as many healthy food options and safe locations such as parks to exercise, reinforcing unhealthy behaviors. Furthermore, their lack of finances prevents them from buying healthy foods even if they were available as well as discourages them from seeking medical help when it is needed because it is so expensive.
Drug abusers’ children are neglected, abused, and even abandoned. In the 1870’s, anti-opium laws were first directed and Chinese immigrants. During the early 1900’s, in the South, the first anti-cocaine laws were directed at black men. In the 1910’s and 1920’s, in the Midwest and Southwest the first anti-marijuana laws were directed at Mexicans – both immigrants and Americans. In modern time, major disproportioned drug enforcement
The continuous use of narcotics results in addiction, and financial struggles due to the costly upkeep. “Financial problems are one of the major side effects of drug and substance abuse” (Buaggett, 2015). Addicts cannot adequately take an active role in the economic activities, as the use of drugs inhibits the abilities of the users to earn a daily living. Due to the instability of finances, this would result in selling personal belongings to continue funding the substance of choice, and depending on the addicts living situation, this could lead to losing their house or being removed from their current housing. While being under the influence, an addicts voice of reason is jeopardized, resulting in criminal activities which raise the chances of being apprehended by the law enforcers, as well as, heavy fines are imposed.
Legal repercussions may drive some abusers away from seeking help as their fear of going to jail may override their desire to seek rehabilitation. • There is a social stigma associated with drug abuse that may keep regular customers away, hurting our business in the process. This may be the case until we establish a solid reputation within the community and show that we accept all patients in need. Internal SWOT Analysis Lastly we analyzed what we had going for us and what we had going against us internally.
Millions of Americans are helped with the benefit of government assistance in order to take care of themselves and their families. Welfare has been around for over eight decades, providing financial assistance to those in need. Whether a person is going through a rough patch in life or they have taken advantage of the benefits for many years; welfare has always been available to them with the curtesy of taxpayers. Recent controversy has been brought up on if welfare applicants should have to submit and pass a drug screening in order to gain the privileges of government assistance. According to Washington Crime News Service, “states with some form of drug testing for welfare recipients include Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Oregon”(1).
(Wormer, Persson, 2010). This program would save the communities a lot of money and help out the families of the person who is in trouble. Not all people who commit drug related crimes would qualify but people who would be facing long prison time. This would be for first time offenders who have not committed violent crimes. They would get treatments such as cognitive behavior therapy, drug treatments and be under the very intense supervision of the drug court.
Some people who were convicted for selling drugs were supporting their drugs habits. She suggested they would be better suited in a treatment facility. I concur, as a substance abuse counselor, I encountered many drug dealing addicts. It’s important for them to gain sobriety and develop positive coping skills. They cannot accomplished this by sitting in jail because many jails are ill-equipped for treatment.
The government and administrators of prisons and treatment centers are trying to lower the cost of incarceration and treatment centers. Treatment centers are the more expensive option but it last longer and has more permanent effects in low level drug criminals. The family and individual want the easiest option that helps them or their children to treat their addiction. They want to use treatment centers to treat the addiction to prevent them crime again. The effectiveness of prisons and treatment centers vary.
This leads to the question of whether the justice system is doing an adequate job of dealing with drug addiction. Instead of incarcerating people for drug abuse, an alternative is treating victims by rehab and treatment. This paper will exam why treatment is the superior option for
In the beginning, welfare was intended to help those suffering from an economic collapse during the Great Depression, but has since turned into a long term commitment for some (Besonen). In similar terms to Rep. Liebmann, Robert Rector, a Senior Search Fellow in Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation said, “Taxpayers should provide support to those in need; recipients, in return, should engage in responsible and constructive behavior as a condition of receiving aid.” It should be reasonable to expect the recipients to take pride in their earning instead of not understanding the standards set before them (Besonen). Drug tests have been set forth to uphold the responsible behavior of those receiving financial assistance (Besonen). While drug tests will probably be argued for many years to come, they are fair (Besonen).
In 2000, a judge from Michigan ruled that drug testing welfare recipients had violated the recipients privacy rights (“Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Testing Welfare Recipients for Drugs,” p. 1). The drug testing method also goes against the Fourth Amendment right to be free of search and seizures by the government without probable cause. People feel that the poor should not have to choose between providing for their family and give up their rights (“Federal Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Testing Welfare Recipients for Drugs,” p. 4). As a result, some states choose not to require drug test, because they feel it is