"Cocaine Cowboys"
Cocaine Cowboys is a documentary recording the aspects of the importation of cocaine during the 1970's and 1980's in Miami, Florida. The cocaine trade superseded the importation of marijuana. The documentary points out that this influx of cocaine imports caused the price of the drug to decrease within the country since the supply was higher, therefore allowing a greater population of users to be able to afford it, known as "blue collar". This correlates directly to what was discussed in class how originally cocaine was used by the rich and elite and was not seen as a social problem until cocaine swept through the urban U.S. in the 1980's.
In this documentary, importers reveal several methods of importing these narcotics. The cocaine was revealed to be imported by boats and in air travel delivery. They also discuss how these illegal transports were carried out by covering up with legalized businesses. Learning this while watching the documentary reminded me of the T.V. show "Sons of Anarchy" and how the club covered up their illegal gun trade business and short lived business with the cartel with legitimate businesses like the porn industry and an escort business. The documentary also points out that these importers had so much money coming in from this illegal trade that they would tie their money up in real estate infrastructure to control their influxes in finances.
The distribution of these narcotics within the U.S. was also explained in the documentary as the importers describe how once in the country, a lot goes into dealing and managing the cocaine. In class we've discussed the book Cocaine Kids and all that goes into networking and selling the drug once it enters into the country and leaves the importers. In addition, the importers in the documentary revealed how apartments/condos are purchased near ports to monitor radio frequencies of imports and the feds who are patrolling this. In class, we also discussed how in Cocaine Kids the market becomes different towards the end of the book with dealers/importers buying up real estate, which relates directly to the documentary.
Clearly, this influx of cocaine trade caused Miami as a city to experience economic growth. This is due to the increases in legalized businesses that were bought in order to cover up the illegal drug trade, as well as the buildings and real estate being purchased with all the money from the drug trade as well. That is why many affluent businesses closing when the police cracked down on the drug problem and law enforcement picked up. In addition, Miami became a city with increased gang violence as these "Cocaine Cowboys" aspired to run this illegal trade.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Activity 8
"War on Drugs"
On June 17, 1971 President Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs". Drug abuse was considered by his administration to be "public enemy number one in the US". This statement alone emphasized the magnitude of the drug issue during this time period. Most recently the number one public enemy has been things such as terrorism so to learn that drug abuse was so severe and problematic that the US President considered it public enemy number one at the time really puts it into perspective.
In order to wage this war on drugs, Nixon established the Drug Enforcing Administration also known as the DEA. In addition to the creation of the DEA, Nixon also announced the creation of the SAODAP, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. The Nixon administration's war on drugs pursuit continued with operations such as "Operation Golden Flow" where US military were required to pass a drug test before returning home. This was because heroin abuse oversees was running rampant.
The DEA has been the main result or birthright of President Nixon's war on drugs and his presidency was the only era in the war on drug's history where the majority of funding went to treatment rather than criminalization of drug abusers.
With all that being said I believe thus far this country has not won any war on drugs. In my opinion drug use is a continual issue and no matter the fads with each passing era, drug use with variation in the popular drug types within the time, has not ceased. Therefore, I think this country has "lost" the war so far. I use the term "lost" loosely since that implies it is a permanent result, which isn't the case since I cannot predict the future of drug use in this country. But, so far I believe drug abuse is still a critical issue in this country.
There have been many costs from this war on drugs. Financially speaking, the government has invested an extremely large summation of funds on drug enforcement. Not only does the DEA receive tons of funds to prevent drug abuse in this country, so many other groups and task forces have been allotted tons of government funding to wage this war on drugs such as the ATF and border patrol. Not to mention the task force agents and SWAT teams. In addition to this groups, the increase in technology at borders, to prevent drug control is immense and costly.
In addition to the financial cost of waging a war specifically on drug use in this country, there is also violence to consider. When dealing with the prevention of gangs and cartels pushing drugs, tons of violence is a result with border patrols and drug enforcement agents.
Lastly, the war on drugs has cost many people their lives. I do not mean physical death but instead I mean people having to serve ridiculous time sentences in prison to serve minimum times for drug related crimes; minimum times that were enforced in an effort to fight the war on drugs. For example, during the Reagan administration powder versus crack cocaine had a 100 to 1 ratio and there were people serving longer time sentences for a small amount of crack than there were other criminals who had committed vehement crimes such as rape, as discussed in class.
In conclusion, I believe drug abuse has been a continual and steadfast public enemy of this country, and the US has yet to fully establish a resolution to this problem and solve it justly yet everyday the US seems to be moving towards a better solution to win this war on drugs.
On June 17, 1971 President Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs". Drug abuse was considered by his administration to be "public enemy number one in the US". This statement alone emphasized the magnitude of the drug issue during this time period. Most recently the number one public enemy has been things such as terrorism so to learn that drug abuse was so severe and problematic that the US President considered it public enemy number one at the time really puts it into perspective.
In order to wage this war on drugs, Nixon established the Drug Enforcing Administration also known as the DEA. In addition to the creation of the DEA, Nixon also announced the creation of the SAODAP, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. The Nixon administration's war on drugs pursuit continued with operations such as "Operation Golden Flow" where US military were required to pass a drug test before returning home. This was because heroin abuse oversees was running rampant.
The DEA has been the main result or birthright of President Nixon's war on drugs and his presidency was the only era in the war on drug's history where the majority of funding went to treatment rather than criminalization of drug abusers.
With all that being said I believe thus far this country has not won any war on drugs. In my opinion drug use is a continual issue and no matter the fads with each passing era, drug use with variation in the popular drug types within the time, has not ceased. Therefore, I think this country has "lost" the war so far. I use the term "lost" loosely since that implies it is a permanent result, which isn't the case since I cannot predict the future of drug use in this country. But, so far I believe drug abuse is still a critical issue in this country.
There have been many costs from this war on drugs. Financially speaking, the government has invested an extremely large summation of funds on drug enforcement. Not only does the DEA receive tons of funds to prevent drug abuse in this country, so many other groups and task forces have been allotted tons of government funding to wage this war on drugs such as the ATF and border patrol. Not to mention the task force agents and SWAT teams. In addition to this groups, the increase in technology at borders, to prevent drug control is immense and costly.
In addition to the financial cost of waging a war specifically on drug use in this country, there is also violence to consider. When dealing with the prevention of gangs and cartels pushing drugs, tons of violence is a result with border patrols and drug enforcement agents.
Lastly, the war on drugs has cost many people their lives. I do not mean physical death but instead I mean people having to serve ridiculous time sentences in prison to serve minimum times for drug related crimes; minimum times that were enforced in an effort to fight the war on drugs. For example, during the Reagan administration powder versus crack cocaine had a 100 to 1 ratio and there were people serving longer time sentences for a small amount of crack than there were other criminals who had committed vehement crimes such as rape, as discussed in class.
In conclusion, I believe drug abuse has been a continual and steadfast public enemy of this country, and the US has yet to fully establish a resolution to this problem and solve it justly yet everyday the US seems to be moving towards a better solution to win this war on drugs.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Activity 7
UF Panel on the Legalization of Marijuana
The panel offered insight into the legalization of marijuana. Both sides offered imperative points that could be used to either support or refute the legalization of the popular drug. Yet, in my opinion after watching the panel and evaluating each side's viewpoint and arguments, I personally felt the anti-legalization of weed argument especially points made by Bertha Madras was the most substantial argument with valid points and accreditation.
Bertha Madras, professor at Harvard Medical School and former White House Office of Drug Control employee, made excellent points regarding the anti-legalization of marijuana. There is insufficient medical evidence that proves legitimate medical usage/benefits of marijuana by the FDA (the agency which this country has relied upon for the safety and regulation of drugs).
According to Madras' argument in the panel, there is no sufficient medical usage of marijuana and it poses a threat of addiction. In addition, the point was made that marijuana does in fact serve as an intoxicant that impairs cognitive skills. Another important health reason discussed was there is no known safe dosage of marijuana. In terms of policy, the anti-legalization side addressed the lack of medical use, safety, and possible addiction in their argument, supporting the scheduling of marijuana as a schedule 1 drug.
The legalization side of the debate made excellent claims as well. Medical use of marijuana was sated to not have harmful effects but instead help with pain and increase appetite among sickly patients. In addition, the impairment of cognitive skills argument was disputed by Carl Hart of Columbia University. Another interesting and valid point made by Hart regarding policies was that most of the research done on marijuana has been a product of the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Hart uses this claim to portray this research as being bias in the favor of anti-marijuana.
Another point made supporting the decriminalization of marijuana was that although not making it legal, decriminalizing marijuana would be no different than allowing harmful drugs such as tobacco and alcohol to be on the market. It is a grey area between legalizing marijuana and demonizing and criminalizing the drug.
The panel offered insight into the legalization of marijuana. Both sides offered imperative points that could be used to either support or refute the legalization of the popular drug. Yet, in my opinion after watching the panel and evaluating each side's viewpoint and arguments, I personally felt the anti-legalization of weed argument especially points made by Bertha Madras was the most substantial argument with valid points and accreditation.
Bertha Madras, professor at Harvard Medical School and former White House Office of Drug Control employee, made excellent points regarding the anti-legalization of marijuana. There is insufficient medical evidence that proves legitimate medical usage/benefits of marijuana by the FDA (the agency which this country has relied upon for the safety and regulation of drugs).
According to Madras' argument in the panel, there is no sufficient medical usage of marijuana and it poses a threat of addiction. In addition, the point was made that marijuana does in fact serve as an intoxicant that impairs cognitive skills. Another important health reason discussed was there is no known safe dosage of marijuana. In terms of policy, the anti-legalization side addressed the lack of medical use, safety, and possible addiction in their argument, supporting the scheduling of marijuana as a schedule 1 drug.
The legalization side of the debate made excellent claims as well. Medical use of marijuana was sated to not have harmful effects but instead help with pain and increase appetite among sickly patients. In addition, the impairment of cognitive skills argument was disputed by Carl Hart of Columbia University. Another interesting and valid point made by Hart regarding policies was that most of the research done on marijuana has been a product of the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Hart uses this claim to portray this research as being bias in the favor of anti-marijuana.
Another point made supporting the decriminalization of marijuana was that although not making it legal, decriminalizing marijuana would be no different than allowing harmful drugs such as tobacco and alcohol to be on the market. It is a grey area between legalizing marijuana and demonizing and criminalizing the drug.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)