How to Write a Reaction Paper about Drugs
A reaction paper about drugs will take into account reasons why drugs have become a rampant and long standing issue, spanning decades. Essay will also point to causes as to why the government has a hard time winning the war against drugs. Largely, as drugs are not just about arresting and prosecuting users. It is a wide net that must consider the supply and demand issues. This paper will address efforts made by relevant authorities as far as the war against narcotics goes, and will advance alternative solutions to the issue at hand. It will also focus on the current administration’s announcement that the United States, led by President Donald Trump will build a wall along its border with Mexico mainly to prevent Mexican drug dealers from smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S.
How to write a body of reaction paper about drugs
A paper about drugs will require an elaborate body. Six paragraphs would suffice, with each paragraph delivering a specific argument or message in line with the author’s view regarding the existing drug menace. The first paragraph needs to evaluate the extent to which drugs are a problem in the United States. The States that are most affected have to be identified as well as the States at the highest risk from invasion by the drug menace. The least affected or the ‘cleanest’ States can also be listed. The reasons for the prevalence of the problem in some States need to be pointed out. Clearly, States that border Mexico, including New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona will always be the focal points when talking about drugs that are imported into the U.S. The specific drugs that account for the highest percentage of narcotics include methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, opiates, cocaine, hashish, inhalants, and hallucinogens among many others.
The next paragraph will detail current and previous effort made by government agencies in as far as the containment of the drug problem is concerned. The fact that Mexico has always been considered the major supplier of illegal drugs to U.S. consumers does not always help make U.S.’s case against consumption. Other countries such as Columbia have from time to time stepped up to replace Mexico as equally competent suppliers of marijuana, including cocaine, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine, largely because the United States has the greatest number of illegal drug users within the North American region. This was experimented and tested by former President Richard Nixon, who realized that excess demand will always be met by supply, regardless of the level of risk involved. Unfortunately, he adopted an approach that many other Presidents and leaders unsuccessfully adopted: interdiction and eradication. Interdiction of Mexican marijuana was successful to some extent, but it resulted in the strong emergence of other drug options, notably cocaine.
The other option implemented has been that of decriminalizing marijuana. Marijuana is among the most consumed narcotics, but the fact that a number of States have decriminalized marijuana has resulted in other drug options gaining greater demand as consumers prefer to taste what other users are consuming but is illegal and not readily available. Consequently, methamphetamine has emerged as one of the greatest challenges to the law enforcement due to, among other reasons, the ease with which it can be manufactured in laboratories and in people’s homes as well as its relatively cheap price. All these have failed, even with the fact that the D.E.A has been receiving heavy budgetary allocations from the government, to fight and control the drug problem.
The current administration of the President Donald Trump has not learnt much from the failure of previous regimes. The assertion that the government will set up a wall to prevent Mexican drug dealers from bringing drugs into the U.S. is highly unconsidered and is deemed to fail. First, the drugs come to the U.S. through land, sea, and air. As a result, putting up a wall will only discourage dealers bringing in drugs by land, but the sea and air are other options that are currently being exploited by drug dealers. This reflects an attempt to address the drug problem exclusively from a supply side with no regard for the demand side. As enumerated earlier, the demand always drives the supply and any attempt to curtail the supply without effectively addressing the demand side will result in early defeat of the President Trump’s objective on containing illegal drug use. This is the third paragraph, where the author is expected to examine how an emphasis on a few demand side solutions ranging from decriminalization to rehabilitation, including increased budgetary allocation towards the same have failed to address the problem.
In the United States, the current President’s approach seems to be exclusively or at least to a great extent, one of law enforcements. His administration is keen on arresting and deporting the small-time drug dealers and drug users. Such individuals are not to be the main targets of the war on drugs. They are just a part of the chain. The supply side is led by violent drug gangs that claim to control certain sections of areas in States, and the large-scale drug suppliers, whether such suppliers are from Mexico, Columbia, Europe, or from within the U.S. need to be the focus on the supply side. Law enforcement officers need to go overboard in seeing that such groups are targeted and decimated. This can be combined with interdiction-oriented efforts such as engaging and working with authorities in areas where supply comes from. A good relationship between the U.S. government and countries where supply comes from, including Mexico, Brazil, and Columbia, will foster efforts to deal with the supply side of the problem. President Trump will have an easy time if he observes such basic but key elements of winning the drug war.
The demand, however, drives the supply. More resources must therefore be spent on rehabilitation, education, and federally funded treatment options. By rehabilitating users, they become productive members of the society and contribute to economic prosperity. They also become powerful examples to other addicts and are able to parent their children more effectively. The same applies to federally funded treatment options which ensure that narcotics users become useful members of the society. Educating the society does more to help potential users abstain from using hence it contributes to a reduction in demand for drugs. Every time one user is helped to avoid using drugs, the supply side is hit and the supply reduces. This paragraph also needs to point out the positives that come with decriminalization of some drugs, specifically marijuana in some States.
How to conclude a reaction paper about drugs
In conclusion, President Trump’s approach leans heavily towards interdiction and this is a dangerous trend. The fact that some economists and politicians support his approach to fighting drugs is misleading. The President needs to consider that demand fuels supply, and that cutting down demand will likely result in automatic lack of market for the suppliers and could mark the turning point for the illegal drugs market. The author needs to appreciate the fact that an addictive drug will always have demand due to the human desire to always find instant pleasure. Education, rehabilitation, and federal funding of treatment options have shown to work best as compared to supply side options.
Outline for reaction paper about drugs
Topic: President Trump’s stand on the war on drugs
- Which U.S States are most affected?
- What have previous administrations done to deal with the situation?
- First approach
- Second approach
- Third approach
- The supply and demand sides
What the President should do to win the war?