Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
One of the recent major policies is the policy on illicit drugs. The key premise of the development and establishment of this policy was the increase in illegal drug shipments and criminal activity under the influence of narcotic substances. The effects of the policy varied significantly (Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). The most vivid representation was the impact of the policy on the intergovernmental partnership. The establishment of the policy allowed the government to fight drug trafficking more efficiently on both local and national levels. Another important aspect of the policy was the employment of innovative strategies that presupposed strict drug control on the federal level (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Therefore, this policy made local consultations available for the citizens and emphasized the importance of fighting drug dealing. Eventually, the development of the policy normalized the regulations concerning several illicit substances (for instance, marijuana and hemp). The key outcome consisted of the fact that federal laws reached a level of flexibility that allowed the local and state courts to reach verdicts on this type of illegal activity.
The policy on illicit drugs had a serious impact on criminal justice operations and numerous interest groups. First, the federal laws concerning drug trafficking were put on the list of the state legislatures that had to be amended. This was done to let the states develop their own restrictive/ non-restrictive legislation that would take into consideration the policies on hemp and marijuana. The key aspect of this initiative was the preemption of federal interference and the encouragement of the local and state legislations on illicit drugs. This decision was based on the assumption that different states and localities have different points of view on the issue of illegal narcotic substances. Therefore, the legislature was developed in a way that allowed local and state administrations to employ certain amendments that were intended to improve the economic development of the area, health of the citizens, and, most importantly, public safety. This policy is a representation of a federal approach to the legal issue that perfectly balances between the law enforcement and strict prohibition of illicit narcotic substances (Coomber & Moyle, 2014). In perspective, the policy can be viewed as a powerful instrument of deterrence, education, and treatment. Another important question is the change that this public policy has brought.
Federal laws allowed the United States to secure its borders and minimize the number of individuals that were drug dealing. Consequently, the policy has been modified over the years in several ways. The government changed how interstate drug trafficking is detected and pre-empted. Another modification emphasizes the significance and efficiency of collaborating with local and state law enforcement agencies. The current policy also points out the importance of utilizing modern information systems (Perrone, Helgesen, & Fischer, 2012). The latter can be an effective instrument designed to train the experts in the area and help them detect and prevent any possible cases of drug abuse. These additional measures help law enforcement agencies to identify the sites of illegal drug manufacturing. In addition to that, the policy has been amended significantly if compared to its original statement. Nowadays, the policy on illicit drugs is the main source of federal leadership and resources. It supports law enforcement agencies and is in charge of ensuring public safety.
References
Coomber, R., & Moyle, L. (2014). Beyond drug dealing: Developing and extending the concept of ‘social supply’ of illicit drugs to ‘minimally commercial supply’. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 21(2), 157-164.
Mallicoat, S. L., & Gardiner, C. L. (2014). Criminal justice policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Perrone, D., Helgesen, R. D., & Fischer, R. G. (2012). United States drug prohibition and legal highs: How drug testing may lead cannabis users to Spice. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 20(3), 216-224.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.