Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: War On Drugs Marijuana Laws - 1,405 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Activists hope ballot questions signal support for marijuana bills By Steve Leblanc, Associated Press, 12 / 5 / 2000 17: 05 BOSTON (AP) When researchers launched the nation's most ambitious heart study 50 years ago, they chose Framingham, a middle-class town west of Boston and cross-section of America. Now supporters of liberalized marijuana laws are hoping voters in this Massachusetts heartland are signaling a fundamental shift in public attitudes about the state's war on drugs. On Election Day, Framingham voters overwhelmingly approved a nonbinding question calling for a law that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation with a fine of no more than $ 100. Voters in Ipswich, Winchester and Harwich also backed nonbinding questions calling for easing of marijuana laws. In March, Amherst voters called for the repeal of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana.

Approval of the measures comes as the U. S. Supreme Court indicated it will hear the federal government's efforts to block state laws allowing ill patients to use marijuana for pain relief. Sponsors of the questions say they prove support for weakening of marijuana laws extends beyond traditional liberal enclaves like Cambridge and Amherst. ''There is a terrific, discernible disconnect between the public and our elected officials on the issue of the war on drugs, ''s aid Allen St. Pierre of the National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws. Armed with those votes of confidence, pro-marijuana activists are taking their message to a much tougher crowd: Beacon Hill lawmakers.

One proposal would decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of pot by making it a civil infraction punishable by a fine. Another would give a boost to the state's 1996 medical marijuana law by allowing people to grow their own. The 1996 law, which allows people with certain illnesses to use marijuana, is on hold because people would have to register with a state Department of Health research project. Federal law currently prohibits such projects.

If they are unsuccessful in the Legislature, activists are preparing to take their proposal to the ballot box in 2002, St. Pierre said. Voters in Rep. Bradford Hill's traditionally conservative Ipswich district soundly approved a nonbinding referendum calling on Hill to support legislation making possession of marijuana a civil violation like a traffic ticket. Hill, a Republican, isn't ready to take that step. He said he was baffled by the vote and will hold hearings in his district to gauge public opinion. ''Philosophically, I don't agree.

I have had three friends from high school pass away because of drug abuse, '' he said. ''But clearly a message was sent through that vote. '' Hill said he wants to see what effect the decriminalization of marijuana has had in other states. Voters in eight state have approved medical marijuana ballot questions, including Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Maine, according to St. Pierre. Lawmakers in Hawaii approved a similar measure.

During the 1970 s, lawmakers in 11 states approved laws decriminalizing marijuana, he said. In 1998, Oregon legislators repealed a marijuana decriminalization law, but voters quickly rejected the repeal and reinstated the law, St. Pierre said. More recent efforts to ease Massachusetts' drug laws have met with less success.

A statewide ballot question which would have diverted money seized in drug raids to drug treatment failed. A proposed ballot initiative would fund drug-treatment programs with assets seized from offenders MICHAEL CUTLER: "If people really want to do something about drug abuse -- and not just say they do -- this proposition is a step in the right direction. " Even in an era of unparalleled skepticism about America's war on drugs, the Massachusetts drug-policy-reform movement is used to being ignored. For years, activists pushing to improve what are seen as "useless" and "unfair" drug policies have found themselves up against the same impenetrable barrier: the law-and-order lobby. Police, in general, liken change to a public-safety threat, while politicians shy away from any stance that could be perceived as soft on crime. Rather than clamor for legislators' attention, reformers, under the banner of the Coalition for Fair Treatment, are now taking their movement to the electorate. As one member explains, "We believe the public is more ready to change injustices of the drug war than legislators acknowledge. " Since last summer, the statewide coalition, a broad and rather unlikely group of educators, attorneys, and civil-rights advocates, has launched an aggressive campaign, collecting more than 75, 500 signatures in an attempt to put an initiative on the ballot this November.

Petition P, as it's known, focuses on two basics in drug policy: substance-abuse treatment and the state's civil-asset-forfeiture law, which allows the government to take ownership of all property that "facilitated" a drug crime -- even before any conviction occurs. The ballot initiative, if approved by voters, would use the forfeited assets to fund treatment for drug users. And it would make it harder for authorities to seize property from suspected drug offenders. Petition P has drawn fire from anti-crime activists and law-enforcement officials, who call it a "ruse" that would force cutbacks in drug enforcement and allow dealers to escape prosecution. Their resistance was on display at an April 25 legislative hearing, during which all 11 of the state's district attorneys voiced opposition to the initiative. They even put forth an unexpected alternative -- funding drug-treatment programs through fines imposed on dealers -- that, in effect, jeopardizes the ballot initiative's future.

But although the alternative proposed by the DAs would help fund treatment, it overlooks a crucial component of Petition P -- namely, state forfeiture funds. So it's questionable whether it is, in fact, an acceptable legal substitute. The signatures collected have brought the initiative before state legislators, who now have until May 3 to either pass it, offer options, or take no action and thereby send it to the voters. And now that an alternative backed by the powerful police unions exists, legislators could easily give the thumbs-up to its language instead.

Yet Petition P remains the first substantial chance to reform the drug war's woeful effects in Massachusetts. The ballot initiative would funnel millions of much-needed dollars into drug-treatment programs for low-level offenders, a tactic that has proven effective at combating drug-related crime, and it would get that money from state forfeiture funds, which currently amount to a slush fund for law enforcement. In other words, it would eliminate what's described as the current law's most pernicious aspect: giving forfeited assets to the very agencies seizing them. And by so doing, Petition P would make Massachusetts the first state to correct the conflict of interest inherent in the forfeiture law. "This gives voters a chance to say 'Enough' to tired rhetoric, " says Richard Evans, a Northampton civil lawyer and the force behind the initiative, "and [instead] make Massachusetts a leader in drug-policy reform. " Despite what the state's DAs would have the public believe, Petition P is not an outrageous proposal. It would, after all, increase funds for drug-treatment programs with money and assets taken from the very people feeding addiction: the dealers. Expanded treatment, for sure, is a good thing.

Study after study has shown that treatment can be more effective than jail time at combating drug use and drug-related crime. In 1994, the state of California surveyed 150, 000 participants in substance-abuse programs and discovered that their criminal activity had dropped by 60 percent. Treatment also costs less than incarceration. In 1997, the Rand Corporation, a relatively conservative think tank, determined that annual prison expenses are approximately $ 30, 000 per inmate, and that treatment ranges from $ 2000 to $ 16, 000 per person. "We " re concerned about effective, just, and humane policy, " says Stephen Saloon, a Petition P proponent and director of the Criminal Justice Policy Coalition, a statewide advocacy organization. "Incarcerating addicts does not address addiction. " To boost resources available for treatment, Petition P authors have focused on the problematic civil-asset-forfeiture law -- and, specifically, on what are seen as "troublesome" and "unfair" loopholes. Right now, Massachusetts legislation allows police to seize everything from cars to houses to bank accounts before people are convicted of crimes -- a practice that, in effect, presumes guilt. It's then up to property owners to prove that their belongings aren't the product of drug sales. " 'Forfeiture' is a nice word, " says Michael Cutler, a former...


Free research essays on topics related to: drug treatment, war on drugs, treatment programs, marijuana laws, substance abuse

Research essay sample on War On Drugs Marijuana Laws

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com