CJUS 601 Policy_Issue_and_Solution_Final.docx.pdf

Running head: Policy Issue and Solution Final

Policy Issue and Solution-Final

Liberty University

Elizabeth J. Davis

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

Abstract

The United States has faced many negative consequences since the beginning of the War

on Drugs, with very little positive impact. Since the creation of the War of Drugs movement in

1971, the United States still faces the significant consequences to this day. The major issue is the

harsh punitive approach taken in these drug policies. The significance of this issue is the

consequences of strict punitive, drug offense, sentences have on the United States. Negative

impacts are seen in the mass incarceration rate, addicts not receiving treatment in turn causing

higher recidivism rates, burden on tax payers, broken families and communities. These impacts

were noticed decades ago and little change has been made to reform the punitive drug policy.

The United States should look to other countries who have successfully reformed their drug

policies and have shown successful, positive impacts because of the reform. Solutions to this

issue do exist, however it’s not as easy as just finding one simple solution. A solution lies in the

mix of many complex solutions. However, the United States must start advancing towards a

reform before the current situation of these punitive repercussions can begin improving.

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

Problem

Identify the Issue

The United States is facing a major criminal justice policy dilemma, drug crime policy.

Punitive laws are disregarding treatment and other alternatives such as rehabilitation. The main

issue behind the issue, is the approach to the drug policy and how the policies are formed by

political advances. The tough on crime policies have gained acceptance of the United States’

political culture and way of life (Ogbonna, 2012). Strict law enforcement and drug policies are

not the sole answers to the United States’ drug addiction problems. It creates a snowball effect on

jail and prison overcrowding, addiction and mental illnesses going untreated, and continued rise

in drug violence.

Discuss the Problem

There’s no denying the connection with crime and drug use. “More than half of crimes

that lead to arrest are committed under the influence of alcohol or other drugs” (Kleiman &

Heussler, 2011, p. 286). There’s a noticeable need to respond to the connection of crime and drug

use, however the current approach to drug policy needs evaluating to improve a better outcome.

The approach of the current drug policy is a significant issue. Many factors are part of the

approach but two are worth mentioning for this article’s purpose; political and public perception.

Throughout history, what is described as “moral panic” have been the leading factor in

adopting “cruel and intemperate policies that are later regretted” (Tonry, 1999, p. 1781). This can

relate to the issues of prohibition and the height of the War on Drugs in the 1980’s-1990’s. The

media has a significant factor on adopting/reforming policies. National media is viewed or passes

on to other Americans and has a huge impact on creating “moral panics”. However, what is put

in the media may not always be accurate and/or distorted and the root of the problem is

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

misunderstood. “American politicians have for nearly two decades been playing the crime card

and exacerbating public fears and then proposing or enacting repressive legislation in order to

allay them” (Tonry, 1999, p. 1786). Drug addiction is a disease that requires treatment, it cannot

be solved through politically based solutions (Neill, 2014). There has been a public and political

viewpoint of drug addicts being the most dangerous of criminals and the problem of dealing with

drug addiction has been addressed poorly (Ogbonna, 2012).

Serious consideration needs to be taken in reforming drug crime policy. It evident the

problem with the policy is the way it’s being approached. It’s being approached in a more

punitive manner rather than alternative innovation solutions that can make a more positive

impact. Policies should approach the issue at hand and should center the focus on solving the

harmful issue of drug abuse rather than automatic incarceration for non-violent offenses. Ninety-

four percent of the individuals entering federal prisons are nonviolent offenders convicted of

drug offenses (Patten, 2016). This punitive approach has led to mass incarceration, tax payer

burden, racial disparities, addiction going untreated, and broken families and communities. The

use and abuse of drugs does not discriminate, it impacts all social classes, genders, races, and

region (Levine & Reinarman, 1991). It is all encompassing in the United States, leading towards

more significance of the issue because of the mass population drugs have an impact on. This is

not an isolated issue.

Significance

The United States’ War on Drugs has fueled addiction to punishment (Youngers, 2014).

Many practitioners in the criminal justice system are frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the

punishment and control method used for drug offenders and the lack of treatment available. The

War on Drugs has essentially created it be a crime to be an addict. “Current drug policy has

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

failed to control illegal substance abuse in the United States at the cost of untreated addiction,

depleted budgets, exploding incarceration rates, and overburdened child welfare agencies”

(Tupper, 2005, p. 325). There are many significant factors that weigh into the drug policy,

however for purposes of this research only a few will be mentioned; mass incarceration,

untreated addiction, and how other countries have taken action towards a reform and the

significance of that.

Mass Incarceration

The United States is ranked as number one in incarceration. It’s not just the prison system

that’s experiencing this influx. The entire corrections industry has skyrocketed, not just the

prison population. There has been a significant increase in the jail population, parole, and

probation since the 1980’s (Patten, 2016). Just in American jails, there are almost 12 million

admissions each year, this is almost 20 times higher than prison admission (Lurigio, 2016). Even

with the progression of new jail construction, especially in large jurisdictions, jail overcrowding

remains a significant issue (Lurigio, 2016). “There was a 300 percent increase in incarcerated

individuals from 1980 to 2000” (Patten, 2016, p. 85). Just in California alone, their incarcerated

population surpasses the entire population of incarcerated individuals in France, even the smaller

state of Michigan, surpasses that of France (Patten, 2016). The large population of drug offenders

is alarming. There are approximately one-half million people who are incarcerated for drug

offenses with a majority of them being for possession or intent to sell small quantities of drugs

(Ogbonna, 2012). Approximately 50 percent of inmates in the federal prison system are drug

offenders and 20 percent make up the state prisons (Becker & Murphy, 2011). The mass

incarceration epidemic is not just a crime problem, it’s a major public health problem (Wakefield

& Rich, 2015).

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

The mass incarceration rate in the United States is significantly due and linked to the War

on Drugs, influenced by Ronald Reagan and the tough on crime policy still continues to this day

(Patten, 2016). The Reagan Administration believed the only role government should have in

combatting drug addiction was through law enforcement. Subsequently, Congress pushed for

harsher punitive sentencing for drug offenses. Prior to Reagan, Nixon’s Administration took a

stance against drugs but they involved treatment and efficient funding for it. Positive impacts

were seen as a result of treatment such as; lower rate of arrests involving addicts, significant

decrease in the national crime rate, and a decrease in heroin-related deaths. In campaigns,

politicians would push for increased punitive sentences for drug convictions because offering a

resolution with more focus on treatments appeared “soft on crime” (Tupper, 2005). With this

tough on crime approach, consequences have not made a positive impact and is especially noted

in the mass incarceration rate.

There are two other particular policies that are associated with the mass incarceration rate

too; California’s Three Strikes law and the Rockefeller drug laws (Patten, 2016). Crime rates

have remained consistent or decreased within the past 30 years but incarceration rates have

skyrocketed (Patten, 2016). One reason for the soaring incarceration rate is not due to the lack of

public safety but instead of the tough-on-crime rhetoric creating an irrational fear of crime in

Americans which has been fueled by the media since the 1980’s (Patten, 2016). When compared

to other times in history, Americans’ attitudes towards drug users are more intolerant and less

worried about the treatment of these so called deviants. However, those in political power and

those living in the public eye are reluctant to share their stance on being debatable about

contemporary policies and intolerance, because of the fear of being stigmatized by the public

majority (Tonry, 1999). They do not want to appear as being soft on crime and drugs. “U.S.

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

crime policy for nearly two decades has been driven much more by ideology, exaggerated fears,

and political opportunism than by rational analysis of options and reasoned discussion…”

(Tonry, 1999, p. 1789).

So not only has the approach of drug policy put exaggerated fears in the public’s eye

which changes the humanizing factor impact on addicts but it has led to a booming,

overwhelming incarceration population in the United States. “More stringent drug and crime

control policies and enforcement strategies led to the precipitous rise in the jail population”

(Lurigio, 2016, p. 3). Funding did not stay current for treatment programs throughout the drug

war, which led to the mass incarceration rate and high recidivism (Tupper, 2005). This

snowballed into addicts left untreated, broken families and increase in the child welfare system,

racial disparities, and tax payer burden.

Tax payer burden. The majority of the criminal justice budget goes towards corrections

(Patten, 2016). The mass incarceration rate is costing to tax payers. “The vast majority of new

conviction are drug related, and billions of dollars have been spent on the War against Drugs”

(Ogbonna, 2012, p. 111). The tax payers have also suffered from the War on Drugs. Tax payer’s

monies goes towards police, court staff who are used specifically for drug users and traffickers,

prison guards, and other necessary resources to maintain the mass incarceration of drug

offenders. It’s estimated these costs alone total over $40 billion a year (Becker & Murphy, 2013).

“In 1992, drug control policy accounted for about 12 billion of the nation’s budget, but only a

fraction of that funding went to substance abuse treatment” (Tupper, 2005, p. 331). Majority of

tax payers’ monies goes to incarceration funds and not substance abuse treatment, which only

fuels the vicious circle of addiction, recidivism, and continues rising incarceration rates.

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

Poverty and racial disparities. There are many negative impacts on the U.S. policy and

War on Drugs. The cost of lives, money, and Americans’ well-being, particularly the ones in

poverty and lack of education (Becker & Murphy, 2013). Poverty causes a significant amount of

stress. This stress generally leads to usage of drugs in inner cities and due to the lack of available

treatment programs, many are left tapped between addiction and incarceration (Tupper, 2005).

“The connection between poverty and substance abuse is symbiotic; the impact of one

exacerbates the damage and debilitation of the other (Tupper, 2005, p. 337). School drop outs are

higher in inner cities due to the temptation of profit found in the drug trade (Becker & Murphy,

2013). This also includes after incarceration, the employment opportunities are severely limited,

giving offenders no choice but to fall into the drug trade to fight poverty.

Whites make up for a significant majority for drug users and sellers, however African

Americans and Latinos make up for three-fourths of drug offenders in state prisons (Lassister,

2015). The stark contrast between whites and African Americans in the prison system presents a

significant issue. “Disparate racial impact is an age-old feature of the American criminal justice

system” (Cover, 2014, p. 1143). Crack cocaine is predominating in inner cities where poverty is

overwhelming. There are disproportionate penalties between powder cocaine and crack cocaine,

unfairly targeting poverty to serve higher sentences. “Scholars primarily have analyzed the U.S.

drug war as a racial system of social control of urban minority population” (Lassister, 2015, p.

127). It is found African Americans serve almost as much time (58.7 months) in federal prison

for a drug offense as whites served for a violent offense (617 months), mainly due to the racially

contrasting sentencing laws like the “100-to-1 crack-powder cocaine disparity” (Cover, 2014, p.

1143). Some theorize this racial disparity in drug law sentencing to be against the Eighth

Amendment.

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

Female offenders and child welfare. Women are increasing in the incarcerated

population (Lurigio, 2016). Due to the changes in drug criminal sanctions, there has been an

overwhelming increase of women in jails/prisons, making up for the fastest growing population

of offenders (Tupper, 2005). The get tough movement also led prosecution to increase on the

rates of addicts who were pregnant. “Seized and distorted by the media, these reports led to a

political response and wave of prosecutions that placed many mothers behind bars without

treatment for their addiction” (Tupper, 2005, p. 334). Women especially turn to drug use as the

result of a traumatic consequence of sexual abuse or domestic violence. Treatment is necessary

to treat the psychological needs which are the underlying reasons for drug abuse. With the rising

female offender population, the child welfare system is noticing an influx as a result. “Children

with incarcerated family members are six to seven times more likely to go to prison and have a

shorter life expectancy” (Wakefield & Rich, 2015).

Untreated Addiction

It is debatable that using strict criminal sentencing would really deter drug addicts from

using drugs by threatening jail or prison time (Ogbonna, 2012). America has an alarming rate of

drug use. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of cocaine (Snapp, 2016). Although,

the use of cocaine has reduced and been replaced with illegal prescription drugs (Youngers,

2014). In the United States, prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug epidemic

(Schreiner, 2012). Just in 2009 alone, about 7 million Americans over the age of 12 consumed

prescription drugs for non-medical purposes (Schreiner, 2012). This is concerning. The heart of

the issue is addiction and then crime, however the drug policy does not allow it in that order.

“The drastic increases in prescription drug abuse rates reflect a major public health crisis in this

country” (Schreiner, 2012, p. 535). Public health concerns have been put on the backburner when

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

dealing with drug addiction due to the War on Drugs policy (Neill, 2014). “The public has a

legitimate need to be protected from drug related crime, but in a manner that neither exacerbates

criminality nor precludes treatment and rehabilitation for offenders” (McBride, Terry-McElrath,

Harwood, Inciardi, & Leukefeld, 2009, p. 76).

Beginning in the 1980’s, which also happened to be the heart of War on Drugs, treatment

facilities became less and less and waiting lists became more and more (Tupper, 2005). Even in

the early 2000’, it was difficult to get treatment funding and availability. In 2003 President

George W. Bush used his State of the Union address to request $200 million to fund Access to

Recovery, his faith-based substance abuse treatment program. This would have reached out close

to 100,000 addicts. However, Congress only granted half that amount (Tupper, 2005).

“Decreased funding for treatment and increased punitive measures for drug addicts resulted in an

indirect attack on families (Tupper, 2005, p. 337). Not having enough funding for treatment

programs can have a suffering impact on budget in other areas too; unemployment, increase in

criminal justice systems including incarceration and the cost of damages to family, child welfare

system, and social stability (Tupper, 2005). “The heavy investment of resources in arrest and

incarceration came at the expense of medical treatment for drug use” (Neill, 2014, p. 376).

There is a persistent gap between scientific evidence supported treatment and treatment

available in correctional facilities, this is unwise and unethical (Wakeman & Rich, 2015).

Addiction should not be a discrepancy in medical treatment. In fact, lack of appropriate

healthcare in correctional facilities can be found unconstitutional such as in the Supreme Court

case, Estell v. Gamble. There is only one correctional facility in the U.S. known for methadone

maintenance, Riker’s Island jail, located in New York City. With the methadone maintenance,

impacts have been positive; high post-release treatment retention and reduced recidivism

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

(Wakeman & Rich, 2015). It’s a significant issue there is only one correctional facility that

provides this.

Another significant issue is criminal justice practitioners are making unwise choices that

should be left for medical practitioners. Often times, judges and correctional staff make the

decision for offenders to stop their medication such as a person who may be on clinically stable

opioid agonist maintenance (Wakeman & Rich, 2015). The lack of treatment available during

incarceration is concerning as well. When released, addicts find it difficult to adjust without

treatment and usually relapse. Just a couple of weeks after release, the risk for death by overdose

is 129 times higher than the general population (Wakeman & Rich, 2015).

What Others Are Doing

There are five main categories in the various approaches during history of the drug

policy, as well as debates for future policies. There are countries all over the world who took the

risk of drug policy reform to better their country. Some were not successful, some were. These

five categories consist of; prohibition, harm reduction, medicalization, legalization and

regulation, and decriminalization (McBride, et al., 2009). In the United States, there are

astonishing similarities between current drug policy and the prohibition era (Ogbonna, 2012). In

fact, some of the issues experienced during the prohibition era are akin to the drug policy issues.

During the prohibition period, the courts and prison were overloaded with alcohol

violators which lead to the government’s need to increase in spending just to keep up with

prohibition enforcement (Ogbonna, 2012). This is very similar to the mass incarceration the U.S.

is facing due to the stringent drug law enforcement. During the prohibition era, there was only a

minimal decrease in alcohol consumption and the policy did not have the anticipated impact of

decreasing alcohol consumption (Ogbonna, 2012). Current U.S. drug policy is just history

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

repeating itself. The punitive approach to drug crimes has a lesser impact on decreasing the use

and supply of illegal drugs (Youngers, 2014). A more aggressive policy on drugs can backfire

due to a more aggressive approach taken by large profit drug dealers, violence and corruption

occurs more frequently and more aggressive (Becker & Murphy, 2013). Mexico offers an

example of the consequences of an aggressive anti-drug campaign and how it can backfire. Over

50,000 lives have been lost as a result of it, since the start of it in 2006. Majority of these lives

were police, military, innocent civilians and local government officials (Becker & Murphy,

2013). In contrast, there are other countries who are currently reforming their drug policies and

focusing less on the prohibition and strict punitive sentencing approach and more on “harm

reduction and adoption of less criminalized forms of drug prohibition” (Ogbonna, 2012, p. 114).

When compared to the United States, majority of Western European countries have a

lower rate of drug use and abuse. This is largely due to the lower rate of inequality, poverty, and

homelessness; because they have put significant focus and been successful in combatting poverty

offering complete social and health services and a welfare system that meets their citizens’ basic

needs (Levine & Reinarman, 1991). Other countries are also taking action against the negative

consequences of strict punitive drug policies and are beginning to implement innovative policy

changes it. For example, Uruguay made changes stating they are giving precedence to

international human rights duties rather than drug control measures (Snapp, 2016). In European

countries, successful incarceration prevention has been shown in their drug policy reforms that

focus on addiction treatment while still enforcing laws on drug trafficking (Wakeman & Rich,

2015). There also has been debate in these countries on the need for legal regulation in order to

take away resources to concentrate on higher impact crime (Snapp, 2016).

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

There are two countries in particular who have taken action against strict punitive

sentencing reform to innovatively change the hardships in drug addiction. Countries, like the

Netherlands, has more of a regulatory approach of dealing with drug issues as opposed to the

United States’ punitive approach. The Netherlands has a lower violent crime rate, less per capita,

than the United States (Ogbonna, 2012). The Netherlands offer a constructive example of the

impact of drug policy reform. Their policies are more humane because it combats the root of

drug use and concern is addressed with more improved and effective social policies (Levine &

Reinarman, 1991). The second country worth mentioning is Portugal.

Portugal has decriminalized all drug use but still makes drug trafficking illegal. Since

Portugal’s decriminalization, opiate-related deaths has decreased, clinics have increased with

addicts seeking help and drug use has only increased modestly, if at all (Becker & Murphy,

2013). The country also provides a tremendous amount of education on drug prevention.

Portugal’s National Drug Strategy puts focus on treating addiction rather than treating it as a

crime. This involves bringing users before a panel board comprised of medical physicians and

legal experts to determine if the individual is suffering with addiction, then treatment is accepted,

and their case is dropped. The impact of this new drug strategy has been significant. Drug related

arrest for addicts have dropped to zero, an overwhelming amount of users have entered treatment

and drug use rates have decline in 7th-12th graders (Wakeman & Rich, 2015).

Solution

As explained earlier, there are alternative approaches to the current U.S. drug policy.

Other countries have experiments with various approaches and have successful outcomes upon

reformation. The United States should consider other avenues of dealing with the current drug

problem. The tough on crime rhetoric and War on Drugs “have cost billions of dollars, while

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

failing to curtail illicit supplies and, at the same time, expanding current USA prison

populations” (Ogbonna, 2012, p. 112). There are three options; do nothing, incremental approach

or full implementation. “There are reasons to be optimistic about the future of U.S. drug policy.

Recent public opinion surveys and policy reforms demonstrate growing recognition of the need

to provide treatment for drug addiction” (Neill, 2014, p. 394). Policy makers must abandon the

current drug policy if they want the goal of the legal system to rehabilitate addicts, strengthen

communities, and restore families (Tupper, 2005). With policy change, many are impacted but

for purposes of this paper, three major groups will be mentioned; the U.S. criminal justice

system, addicts, and society and families. Each will display the approach impacts of either; do

nothing, incremental approach, or full implementation.

The Impact to the U.S. Criminal Justice System

Complete prohibition can cause an adverse effect. Considering majority of those

imprisoned are poor young black males, prohibition can “exacerbate the hardships faced by

them, their families and communities, thus helping to ensure continued or perhaps expanded

demand” (Levine & Reinarman, 1991, p. 489). Violence is a direct consequence of the attempt of

drug prohibition, mainly occurring between law enforcement and drug suspects (Ogbonna,

2012). This is currently happening and it will only worsen if nothing is done to reform. Extreme

punitive approach will continue the danger for law enforcement and civilians. “In the United

States, there appears to be a small but increasing consensus that the current drug policy is not

working” (Ogbonna, 2012, p. 114).

Whether incremental approach or full implementation is chosen; budget relief will be

noticeable, if more treatment funding became available. Less budget would be needed for

corrections due to lower incarceration and lower recidivism due to treatment. Medicaid offers

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

treatment, however only at the states’ discretion, leaving a significant number of addicts

untreated. Compelling all states to involve substance abuse through Medicaid will “stabilize

funding for treatment in times of fluctuating state budgets and expand treatment options beyond

those covered by limiting block grants and discretionary funds” (Tupper, 2005, p. 359).

Drug courts are a great alternative, however they do not exist in all jurisdictions. Slowly

bringing drug courts to all jurisdictions will be an example of incremental approach. In one

Miami drug court, just within its first four years, they had 4,500 offenders in the program and

two-thirds graduated. Within those who graduated only 3% faced a re-arrest rate as opposed to

30% within the regular criminal justice system (Tupper, 2005). However, single parents still

faced issues and the children were the unfortunate victims. This explains the need of increasing

the number of family drug courts, where they can deal with a variety of cases such as; parental

rights, abuse, neglect and custody disputes (Tupper, 2005). Doing nothing will keep the rising

mass incarceration epidemic alive and the continued rising corrections budgets. Bringing on an

incremental approach and full implementation will have noticeable positive results.

Impact to Addicts

Drug policy reform would make an impact to addicts and if nothing is done to reform the

drug policy, addicts will continue to suffer and feel trapped. “Addiction is a treatable disease and

a robust body of evidence supports treatment’s efficacy in improving clinical outcomes and

reducing crime, recidivism, and societal costs” (Wakeman & Rich, 2015, p. 220). Either

choosing an incremental approach or full implementation will be helping the disease of

addiction. Many addicts do not seek help due to fear of being turned in, the illegality of these

drugs makes it difficult for addicts to seek helps and break their addiction. Full implementation,

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

decriminalization of drug use would make it easier for addicts to seek help because the fear of

being reported would diminish.

Incremental approaches would be beneficial without sacrificing the complete

decriminalization. Drug abusers are often in denial to seek voluntary treat, therefore compulsory

treatment that are supported by legal sanctions would be beneficial (Magura, 2007). A move

towards a “therapeutic jurisprudence” which enables the justice system’s duty to keep the public

and children safe but gives the need for addicts to receive treatment (Tupper, 2005). Drug

offenders who are unable to graduate treatment, incarceration would be the next option.

Humanizing drug addicts is another incremental approach in the movement towards reform.

Bring them before policy makers and have them share their story and have ones who were

impacted by incarceration and ones who were impacted by treatment. Presenting this human

element can make a positive impact on congressional staff (Tupper, 2005). Offenders obviously

goes through detoxification while incarcerated but this is not enough to treat addiction.

Incremental approach towards medical management would be beneficial. “Medical management

of withdrawal is an important and humane first step for those dependent on drugs” (Wakeman &

Rich, 2015).

Impact to Families

Current drug policy answers parental drug use with criminal sanctions which pulls them

away from the home in which the child suffers the punishment. Increasing number of children

are entering the child welfare system. Frustrated by this, individual judges attempt to aid the

situation by “creating alternative treatment courts and diversion programs” (Tupper, 2005, p.

326). However, this is difficult to achieve when family treatment is limited or unavailable and

even more with the current course of national drug policy. Doing nothing will only continue this

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

heartache. Instead policies need to put incremental or full focus on relieving the overwhelmed

child welfare and criminal justice system by including increased substance abuse treatment.

Having a goal of strengthening family relationships should have more focus rather than

punitive sentencing. Family drug courts would aid this. Increasing the number of family drug

courts will help the crisis of the current drug policy. “Long-term care in a residential treatment

facility that accommodates parents and their children consistently reveals high success levels-

averaging 60%, nearly twice the rate of single adult treatment program” (Tupper, 2005, p. 344).

It’s not just the addict would suffers their addiction, often times the children and family suffer

more. It’s time to put focus on treating the addiction rather than punishing the addiction.

Christian Worldview

Other countries have provided a great example of taking action in the right direction

towards implementing drug policy reform. Their policies are more humane because it combats to

the root of the problem and are associated with more improved and effective social policies

(Levine & Reinarman, 1991). Rather than throwing non-violent drug offenders in prisons with a

mandatory minimum sentence due to the war on drugs policy, other innovative solutions should

be taken. These are individuals who are sick and need help, except the help is not readily

available. “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds” (Psalm 147:3, ESV). The War

on Drugs is significantly impacting the lower society which is mostly composed of minorities.

They serve longer sentences, which singles out this group in comparison to higher societal

classes. This creates injustice. “Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at

the gate, for the Lord will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them” (Proverbs 22:22-

23, ESV).

References:

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

Becker, G. S. & Murphy, K. M. (2013). The drug war and the damage done. Hoover Digest:

Research & Opinion on Public Policy, 2, 146-152. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=9&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=873

60648&db=a9h

Cover, A. (2014). Cruel and invisible punishment. Brooklyn Law Review, 79(3), 1141-1196.

Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=13&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=961

99324&db=a9h

Kleinman, M. A. & Heussler, L. (2011). Crime-minimizing drug policy. Journal of Criminal

Justice, 39(3), 286-288. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.04.002

Lassister, M. (2015). Impossible criminals: The suburban imperatives of America’s war on

drugs. Journal of American History, 102(1), 126-140. doi: 10.1093/jahist/jav243

Levine, H. G. & Reinarman, C. (1991). From prohibition to regulation: Lessons from alcohol

policy for drug policy. Milbank Quarterly, 69(3), 461-495. Retrieve from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=16&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=921

1161160&db=a9h

Lurigio, A. J. (2016). Jails in the United States: The “old new” frontier in American corrections.

The Prison journal, 96(1), 3-9. doi: 10.1177/0032885515605462

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

Maguara, S. (2007). Drug prohibition and the treatment system: Perfect together. Substance

Use & Misuse, 42(2-3), 495-501. doi: 10.1080/10826080601144580

McBride, D. C., Terry-McElrath, Y., Harwood, H., Inciardi, J. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2009).

Reflections on drug policy. Journal of Drug Issues, 39(1), 71-88. Retrieve from:

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=18&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=426

35508&db=a9h

Neill, K. A. (2014). Tough on drugs: Law and order dominance and the neglect of public health

in U.S. drug policy. World Medical & Health Policy, 6(4), 375-394.

doi: 10.1002/wmh3.123

Ogbonna, C. (2012). Rethinking USA drug policy. Journal of Global Intelligence & Policy,

5(9), 107-125. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=20&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=942

67154&db=a9h

Patten, D. (2006). The mass incarceration of nations and the global war on drugs: Comparing the

United States’ domestic and foreign drug policies. Social Justice, 43(1), 85-105.

Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=23&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=118

071079&db=a9h

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

Schreiner, M. D. (2012). A deadly combination: The legal response to America’s prescription

drug epidemic. Journal of Legal Medicine, 33(4), 529-539. doi:

10.1080/01947648.2012.739060

Snapp, Z. (2016). Drug policy innovations in Latin America. Latin America Policy Journal,

20-29. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=26&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=115

896199&db=a9h

Tonry, M. (1999). Rethinking unthinkable punishment policies in America. UCLA Law Review,

46(6), 1751-1791. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=31&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=259

7667&db=a9h

Tupper, E. M. (2005). Children lost in the drug war: A call for drug policy reform to address the

comprehensive needs of family. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law & Policy, 12(2),

325-354. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=34&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=180

55495&db=a9h

Wakeman, S. E. & Rich, J. D. (2015). Addiction treatment within U.S. correctional facilities:

POLICY ISSUE AND SOLUTION FINAL

Bridging the gap between current practice and evidence-based care. Journal of Addictive

Diseases, 34(2/3). 220-225. doi: 10.1080/10550887.2015.1059217

Youngers, C. A. (2014). A turning point for drug policy. NACLA Report on the Americas, 47(2),

21-27. Retrieved from

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/command/detail?

vid=36&sid=259cbd1a-92ab-4afd-9bae-246e265e941a

%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=967

21427&db=a9h

Students also viewed