I am thankfully not an expert on cocaine or its use, but a cursory Google search tells me that crack cocaine is just powder cocaine mixed with baking soda. However, what's interesting is how these new laws targeted crack cocaine but not powder cocaine. Well, crack cocaine was an inner-city drug, while powder cocaine was something for the Wall Street lifestyle. Basically, white people chose to use powder cocaine, and powder cocaine doesn't result in nearly the same kind of damaging prison sentences as crack does.
As for the law’s primary target, the multi-billion dollar on-line sports gambling industry (Bogdanich). But as the daily fantasy business grew, with an estimated $3.1 billion being bet last year, it did so with very few rules at all. The New York Times began publishing stories on what we’d found out about the realities of unregulated sports betting and how the daily fantasy industry avoided government oversight. In-Text Citation Practice 1. Jeffrey Salvati stated that “In 2006, the United States Congress carved out a piece of legislation that says fantasy sports is not gambling.
In the 1970s, cocaine resurfaced in South America from its long history as a traditional medicine, and began to generate a large income for those who processed and sold the good. Cocaine was rendered harmless by the public, thought of as a “high class drug”, and by the 1980s, nearly six million Americans were hooked on the soft white powder; it was then found to be an extremely addictive and unsafe narcotic. Because drug use and trade into America started to become a pressing issue, the United States hoped that by stopping cocaine production in Colombia, the drug abuse problem in the US would proportionally decline. Attempting to carry out this plan of action, US military teams relentlessly raided the estates and “drug processing facilities”
It is also noted that America moves very quickly as a society, and people tend to forget the seriousness of past events. Recently, as well, young people have learned to associate American culture with scandal, so Watergate no longer shocks
If have ewer gun restrictions causes more violent crime, why would many states with the lowest homicide rates also have relatively few gun control laws. The data also shows there is no connection to higher gun ownership and greater amounts of crime. There are only 6 states in which 50% of household own firearms. If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of guns, these states should have significantly higher crime rates, but the opposite is true. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show four of those six states ranked in the top half of all states for having the lowest homicide rates.
For instance, it was shown in numerous examples of federal cases that the United States treated domestic terrorist differently than Islamic-related terrorists. The Reuters, a newspaper, found “100 federal cases found that domestic terrorism suspects collectively have faced less severe charges than those accused of acting on behalf of Islamic State” (Harte, et al). In the United States terrorists that attack for an Islamic State face charges more harsh than domestic terrorists who commit similar if not the same crimes. Thus, showing that the United States does not see the threat of domestic terrorists, to the point where the United States does not charge them with the crimes the terrorists deserve.
You didn’t ask questions because you thought you knew this person and you could use some extra cash. Although this is your first time ever being in trouble with the law, you are facing some serious jail time. Unfortunately, this is the case for many first-time non-violent offenders as a result of mandatory minimum laws. What are mandatory minimum sentences and what brought about the start of them? When offenses are considered non-violent crimes do they warrant mandatory minimum sentencing laws?
The government was much more focused on Russia and dealing with the communists. By not keeping an eye on the epidemic they were unprepared for the spark in the drug and failed to acknowledge the epidemic until late into the cocaine epidemic. Cocaine was also one of the most accessible illegal narcotics in the country. Cocaine was being brought into the United States at such a rapid rate
Soft paternalism supports the criminalisation of drug usage because the action and effects of drug usage fulfils the two necessary elements which justify state interference according to soft paternalism. The criminalisation of drug usage represents a mechanism through which the state justifiably limits the liberty of individuals on the basis that a person’s “decision making capacity is compromised by cognitive and emotional deficiencies” (Wertheimer 2002, 50) as a result of a drug usage. This essay will discuss how drug usage extensively compromises the mental faculties and inherent rationality of human beings to the extent that the action of taking drugs may no longer be considered voluntary or validly consented to. Furthermore the idea that
The percentage of less than 18s who have used cannabis at least once has increased from 21 percent in 1994 to 33 percent in 2010. However, after a peak of 42.7 percent in 2004 cannabis use has been falling every year since. Drug consumption is not a crime in Spain. After the devastation caused by heroin use and HIV during the 1980s, Spanish authorities decided to focus on “curing” drug addicts – considered sick people – while punishing drug traffickers.
Bieber failed the test and ended up going to jail, but got bailed out after an hour (Duke,1). Although Bieber is famous, that did not mean he was able to get out of the consequences that other people have to
Based on the readings in Chapter 4, during the 1990’s there were 8 explanations for the drop in crime. Those explanations were, innovative policing strategies, increased reliance on prisons, changes in crack and other drug markets, aging of the population, tougher gun-control laws, strong economy, increased number of police and all other explanations (which includes gun buyback and increase use of capital punishment). I was very surprised by the findings in the reach found by Levitt and Dubner. The explanations given initially I believed were very good reasons for drop in crime. The shock was that most of those were not even reason for crime drops and the ones that were actual valid reasons were not what I expected.
How are the messages the same? How are they different? How is the use of visual imagery the same or different? “In June of 1971 President Nixon officially declares a war on drugs, identifying drug abuse as public enemy number one. This declaration lead to the creation of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in July 1973.”
The publication by Christina M. Gaudio is critical of the War on Drugs and focuses on its effects on juveniles. She takes time to outline the issues that are present with our current system, and specifically how the system is particularly unjust to juveniles. Gaudio details how the juvenile justice system operates state and federally, then she gives a brief history of the Drug War, the Drug Wars effect on Juveniles, its overall effectiveness, and possible solutions to what she sees as the problem. The Drug War is extremely costly to the taxpayer and is in many respects failing.
Pop culture represents the overall trends, lifestyles and issues specific to the era. Fashion, television, movies and music are all unique to their time period and demonstrate the social, political and economic situations at the time. In the 1980’s, television shows like Punky Brewster and Family Ties, and movies like Pretty In Pink, feature materialism, class division, breaking stereotypes and the war on drugs in the 1980’s society. Punky Brewster captures the social challenges of the 1980’s.