This is a summary taken from “Saying Yes” by Jacob Sullum; Chapter 8; “Body and Soul”. An ever-present theme in Sullum’s book is what he calls “voodoo pharmacology”—the idea, promoted in large part by the government, that certain drugs have the power to hijack people and enslave them in an inescapable prison of craving and compulsion. Sullum seeks to show that this idea is a myth, that only a tiny percentage of illegal-drug users become addicts, whereas the vast majority of people who use illegal drugs live normal, productive, loving lives. The book is filled with valuable insights derived from deconstructing government statistics about drugs and drug use. Sullum shows how even the most vilified drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, are
As director of the National Drug Control Policy, William J. Bennett shares his stance on the drug war in “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals”. He addresses the arguments that American’s have proposed in regard to the legalization of drugs. Bennett goes on to say that the justification behind legalizing drugs lacks the seriousness that a topic like this should have. In addition, the results would likely be disastrous. Rather than “taking the profit out of the drug business”, Bennett’ alternative is to make the usage of drugs a less appealing option.
When looking at a scholarly journal or other form of report pertaining to controlled substances, the theme is usually pretty clear; “drugs are bad, people that do drugs are bad, and it’s only getting worse.” Moore challenges this theme by breaking the mold in his article, “The Other Opioid Crisis” by implementing several rhetorical devices to add a more human aspect to the not so black-and-white issue. (Summary goes here) The article starts out with the story of a woman named Lauren Deluca.
The House I Live In, is a documentary that visually represents how the War on Drugs affected drug dealers, parents of those who took drugs, enforcers of the drug laws, prisoners convicted of drug violence or drug dealing, poor neighborhoods, and historical recordings about the war. All of these were captured through clips of interviews by those imprisoned due to drugs, experts from academic institutes, and police personnel. Moreover, it is a discursive narrative, since the film exhibits conversation of past and current results of the War on Drugs. Additionally, it has been a ‘hot button’ topic actively discussed by victims and authoritative enforcers of the war, outlining how ineffective it has
During the Conservative era of the 1980’s President Ronald Reagan had multiple issues to deal with during his two terms, both foreign and domestic. The obvious cloud hanging over every president at that time was the threat of The Soviet Union and communism. Reagan’s presidency saw him take numerous measures to solidify America as the stronger of the two and democracy as the best form of government. On the home front, there were numerous issues to deal with as well. The main concerns he had to deal with were public health and safety issues such as the HIV and AIDS, the protests of the homosexual community, and the cocaine epidemic.
To understand the War on Drugs one needs to understand the cultural landscape that made the war on drugs advantageous. Ronald
Gabriel Sayegh starts his Ted talk by claiming that 20 years ago he was a meth user and abuser. He used methamphetamine as a high schooler, struggled to stayed in school, got into many fights, and barely graduated high school. He ended up abusing meth because he was feeling emotional pain and eventually his tolerance went up from using higher doses. Eventually, he realized that his life has no value to it and that he was no longer getting high off meth since his tolerance was so high. He decided to stop doing meth and go to community college far away, which helped him get away from the drug induced environment he was in.
Therefore conflict theory defines substance abuse as primarily being a problem that is a result of structural inequality and class conflict. Corporations such as the LCBO and various pharmacies financially benefit the most from drug use and also obtain the power to keep it available. In response to political, social, and power inequality, political and business groups are able to influence society’s depiction of drugs and their users. Many substances were considered legal but public opinion and the law altered when drugs were associated with ethnic minorities and crime. Conflict theorists argue that marginalized groups, the lower class, and other alienated groups are more likely to suffer negative ramifications as a result of addiction.
For example, agencies have been established with the sole intent to manage drug use and distribution and technology has been exclusively developed to detect the presence of drugs. Yet, evidence has indicated that such exhaustive efforts have been relatively unsuccessful. First, it has been assumed that drugs have perpetuated violence in society and based on this rationale, it was believed that by the suppressing the pervasiveness of drugs that incidents of violence would simultaneously diminish. However, reality has failed to align with the expectations that had initially been anticipated. Research findings have suggested that the decriminalization of drugs would result in a less adversarial drug market in which conflicts have tended to arise among dealers as well as between dealers and buyers (Common Sense for Drug Policy, 2007, p. 21).
Quinones states, “As the opiate epidemic mangled the middle class, these kids doped up and dropped out. Earlier generations of opiate addicts became self-employed construction workers or painters, because that was all they could manage with heroin, and often jail, in their lives” (274), which is a major problem America faces when trying to solve the opiate epidemic. If we educate the states about the addiction rates and potential danger of opiates, public opinion could shift, creating alternate solutions to solving the heroin epidemic in America. In order to lower the amount of opiate addicts the stigma that used to be associated with opiate use needs to return. The fear that used to surround opiate use was one of the only reasons opiates were not used as medication.
There are political tools concerned with issues of race and immigration and their methods of dealing with historical pressures and patterns, and they are altered to respond to specific social and political contexts, each of these is engaging aspects and processes. Alexander's reading sheds light on the reasons behind the variance in how drug use problem sufferers are portrayed. Emphasizing how race affects how policies are created and how behavior is criminalized. According to Alexander's reading, the racial group affected by addiction to drugs started
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.
The principle focus of chapter three,“Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms?”is the emphasis on conventional wisdom, or more specifically, that conventional wisdom is often false. Simply defined, conventional wisdom is “convenient, comfortable, and comforting—though not necessarily true.” The authors explain that we usually associate truth with convenience, or that we are readily able to accept that which we can understand. However, the authors reason that simply because we understand something does not mean it is true. The authors debunk the conventional wisdom through various examples, such as those of crack dealing millionaires, homelessness, and women’s rights activists.
Every day we sit by, allowing drugs to get worse, another child loses their future, another person loses their life and another parent seizes, heartbroken with sorrow. We try continuously to find a cure, but in reality, there is no cure, only pretentious ways that can help the problem. Drugs start at the youth, where
selling and using drugs. Client is afraid to make connections with others because of ideologies learned within his family construct (absentee father) and reinforced by the streets “trust no one.” 3) Communication/ Body language One of the major things one notices when communicating with Mr. L is that he has great difficulty making eye contact (looks me in the eye than quickly breaks contact). Even when client began working on this behavior (by looking at the person he spoke to) his attempts seemed very awkward and extremely short in duration.
