Policy Options Brief on The War on Drugs

4 thoughts on “Policy Options Brief on The War on Drugs”

1. Hi Leslie, Jonathan and Bryttnee:
   I thought your brief was informative, organized, well-written and there were citations that evidence good research. The problem was clearly stated, and there was sufficient support for your claims of racial disparities against African Americans in the criminal justice system in regard to drugs.
   As a supporter of marijuana legalization, I am very much in favor of the decriminalization of drugs, and I appreciate the distinction you made between decriminalization and legalization, that would still make dealing/trafficking illegal but not a criminal offense for possession and personal use. I also like the repealing of mandatory minimum sentences, as I think this too would make a real difference in decreasing the prison population, which is both embarrassing and appalling at once, and positively affect African American males and consequently families, who are disproportionately arrested and incarcerated for minor drug offenses.
   The one thing I would have liked to see more of is the addressing of any negative effects of your policy options. This is not the first time that these policies have been proposed in regard to drug policy, so for them not to have gained traction, I’m sure there are many detractors and nay-sayers against them. I think to make a well-balanced argument, you need to address these, and show that either your policies would work despite these possible effects or the effects are without merit.
   I look forward to your oral presentation and thank you for taking the time to focus on an issue that is so hurting communities of color.

   Norrisa

2. Dear Leslie Polanco, Jonathan Infante, and Bryttnee Paris ,

   Thank you very much for bringing up such an important issue. This is a very serious problem that our society encounters with nowadays. War on Drugs has created more problems for our society rather than it has helped.The provided options were thoroughly observed and information was very clear. There was a lot of research done by you which helped the reader to be more informed.

   If I had to suggest an option that would have been the process of identifying core problems.(There were some references to tis throughout your document). To me poverty, discrimination and prejudice are few of the major issues that will lead to incarceration in relation to drugs. I am not suggesting that if you are poor you are more likely to be evolved with drugs, however, people in poverty are more likely to be targeted by law enforcers. Throughout of several years they have been many instances where law enforcers were stricter with people who represented the minority or the poor of our community. Not to say that rich people don’t abuse drugs, it’s just they are punished less. Also people have to take care of their families even if that means that they have to be involved in criminal activities. They have to risk their freedom in exchange to the survival of their families. Sometimes people abuse drugs because they want to escape the harsh reality where they have no opportunities to provide means for living.

   Most likely War on Drugs would have been successful if the intention of resolving problems in relation to drugs wasn’t turned into a discrimination process against minorities. I would agree with the Option #2 that drug addiction must be treated as public health issue rather than criminal one. I would suggest to add some information in relation to drug trade which is also part of War on Drugs. To my understanding trade would go down if the abusers were treated and it would most likely decrease the demand for drugs. I like how the author provided some statistics to prove his/her point of view. If I had to vote, I would pick this option.

   Sincerely,
   Tamara

3. The statistics presented in this brief were compelling, thought provoking, and undeniable. Black Americans serving 20% longer sentences that White Americans, Black Americans being arrested at 10 times the rate, 80% of crack cocaine defendants being black, and the cash seizures in Philadelphia. These create the disparity made by this problem. I think the only way the problem could have been made more compelling is by adding a sociological perspective on the issue itself. This would have added to the devastation this era has had on families that still have not been addressed today. I think something that could make this brief stronger also could be a point to make more examples locally in New York as well. The class takes place in NYC so thinking in terms of that would target the discussion in ways that would enhance the brief.

   All 3 of your options are very real and valid in understanding this issue and problem. I was fond of option 2 that would reframe the problem and create a new discourse for ending the war on drugs. Option 1 would be the solution that would make a direct impact and I feel that option 2 would also hit toward larger systemic issues.

4. Response Panel Decision to “The War on Drugs” Policy Options Presentation

   Panelists: Roy Frias, Nabjot Kaur, Norrisa Noel, Rosy Perez and Tamara Poghosyan

   The case for policy change on the United States’ “War on Drugs” was attempted in the policy options presentation, on which we were panelists. Overall, the general consensus of the panelists was that the presentation was really thought-provoking and is a real problem with disastrous consequences. We appreciated the comfort level of the presenters with the topic, the use of the PowerPoint slides as visual aids rather than information sources and also the distribution of these slides to the panel, which proved very useful in discussing the policy options later on.

   We thought that the problem was clearly identified as well as the effects of the current drug policies. The financial costs, erosion of civil liberties and disproportionate effects on African Americans are all products of the policies in place and the presenters were successful in making the case for the seriousness of the problem. The clips from the documentary “Thirteen” really illustrated a strong call to action and the statistics also was effective in evidencing the unintended effects.

   However, one clip from the film that could have been included to further make their case, was that the United States was 5% of the world’s population but accounted for 25% of the world’s total drug population. Another piece of information that could have further enhanced the presentation was to include explicit examples of where the alternate approaches to this problem have been employed. We are sure that somewhere in the world, another country, state or city decided to approach this problem in a different manner and saw different results. Success stories of other approaches would help strengthen their case.

   For all of the three possible solutions given, there was not much information provided as to the disadvantages of each. For example, in option one, what are the drawbacks of decriminalizing drugs? Is there any impact to other criminal activities? While decriminalized, will it be harder to keep it away from our children and young people? In order to fully evaluate the policy, it would be helpful to have a more unbiased view where both sides of the policy are explored and ultimately, your position outweighs the other in terms of benefits.

   Another way to strengthen the overall case of the ineffectiveness of the current policies, would be to single out a more accessible drug like marijuana. While crack and cocaine use has decreased, marijuana use has increased. But because this drug is more accessible, the incarceration rates are higher for it, and consequently the higher proportion of blacks imprisoned. This would further open up the discussion of prisoners who have been serving unnecessary lengths of time, especially since many states have slowly began legalizing marijuana.

   We the panelists have reached a consensus that Option 2 would be the best treatment of this problem; treating drug addiction as a public health issue. If it were treated as a health issue, then it would have to go hand in hand with the first option of decriminalization and the third option of repealing of the mandatory minimum sentences laws for drug possession and use would be less of a factor since less people would be facing criminal charges. However, even in this instance of Option 2, the costs for drug rehabilitation instead of prison time could have also enhanced this option. How much does it cost to treat this problem as a public health issue rather than a criminal one? If in doing a cost-benefit analysis, the costs of treatment and rehabilitation could be shown to be less than incarceration, this would make a stronger case for Option 2.

   Another problem we identified with treating drug addiction as a health issue is that if drug abuse is not a criminal offense and the addict has a chance to deny receiving treatment, then many may do so, and the policy prove ineffective by not reaching enough people. In lieu of jail time, there should be mandated court orders for medical or rehabilitation treatment for each person found to be abusing drugs.

   We want to thank the panel for addressing such an important issue and hope that our suggestions will inform a more thorough policy options brief.

Comments are closed.