How to Write a National Drug Strategy Research Paper
To start your national drug strategy research paper, pick a country that has or had a national drug strategy with which you disagree. Write an essay that answers the following questions. You will probably need at least 7 pages, the average will be around 10-12 to truly analyze the topic.
You can choose any country when writing on a National Drug Strategy. Don't just take the easy way out and choose the United State's drug policy or drug strategy. Think outside the box and impress your professor. Some good countries to examine in relation to their national drug policy are: Mexico, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, England, and Sweden. We suggest these because they either have terrible problems with drugs or have shown to be particularly adept at thwarting drug abuse in their nation.
How to Organize Your Drug Strategy Paper
The following are some pointers on how to organize your research paper on a national drug strategy. We give you some important questions to answer when thinking about the research you will present.
- Why do you disagree with this national drug strategy and what would your preferred drug policy be?
- Be specific about:
- Your differences in terms of goals
- The distribution of costs and benefits associated with those policies
- And/or the manner in which the national strategy pursues the goal.
- Justify your preference in terms of your goals and other relevant criteria.
- Be specific about:
- Who were the key players for understanding why that strategy was selected?
- Justify your selections.
- Why did they believe that that strategy would help them achieve their goal(s) on drugs? Notice that you have to tell us what their goal(s) was(were) and then tell us how they perceive cause and effect to work (i.e., what analytic perspective guided their policy preferences).
- IF you disagree with that policy, what arguments would you use to either convince this (these) key player(s) that your drug strategy is appropriate for the nation OR to mobilize an alternative group that would have significantly increased the chances that your policy choice would have been adopted?
- If you choose to mobilize an alternative group(s), which one(s) is(are) it(they) and why do you think that it(they) could have made a difference?
- What international policies would facilitate reaching your goals? If they are unilateral policies, why would you expect them to work? This discussion offers an overview and analysis of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy for 2005. First, a summary of the policy and its component elements of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement is offered. Then, a critical analysis of the policy is undertaken. It is concluded that despite a few shortcomings, the policy is relatively balanced and comprehensive, and as such, is likely to be successful in achieving the stated objectives. And should they be unilateral? If they are cooperative policies, why would you expect them to work and why should they be cooperative?
What type of evidence should be used to evaluate whether your policy mix is accomplishing your goals? What would the relevant data have to show to determine success, failure, and progress in meeting your goals?
An Example of a Research Paper on President Bush Jr.'s National Drug Strategy
This discussion offers and overview and analysis of George Bush's National Drug Control Strategy for 2005. First, a summary of the policy and its component elements of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement is offered. Then, a critical analysis of the policy is undertaken. It is concluded that despite a few shortcomings, the policy is relatively balanced and comprehensive, and as such, is likely to be successful in achieving the stated objectives.
In the past, the Bush Administration’s strategy was centered on facilitating significant drops in the rate of usage of illicit substances, particularly among young people. Because these goals have been met, this year’s strategy has turned towards a more ambitious, over arching approach to further ameliorating the drug problem throughout the United States. The five-year objective is achieving a 25% decrease in the use of illegal substances.
The policy is described as representing a deliberate balance between the prevention, treatment, and the disruption of the distribution channels. This balance is further reflected in the division of allocated funds for drug-related programs and expenditures. Approximately 39% of the annual funds allocated supports treatment and prevention efforts, while 61% of the funds are used to support various aspects of law enforcement.
The strategy pertaining to prevention of illicit drug use focuses on the roles of education and community involvement as the chief tools in the fight against illegal drug use. The strategy emphasizes the importance of increased student drug testing as a significant aspect of preventing drug use among young people. The policy goes on to detail the increases in funding that have been used to support and expand student drug testing efforts throughout many secondary schools in the United States. In addition, both case studies and statistics are offered to bolster the efficacy of this approach.
Promotional campaigns, education, advertising, and community coalitions are some of the initiatives that form the foundation of the prevention aspect of the 2005 National Drug Control Strategy. According to the report, all of these strategies have been shown to reduce the rate of illegal drug use among young people. Furthermore, young people who avoid illegal drugs are much less likely to adopt drug use as adults.
Treatment is another aspect of the strategy. The policy recognizes that drug problems are unique among criminal offenses, because of the high likelihood that addiction is involved. Initiatives that limit access to drugs, identify users and abusers at an early stage, and implement treatment rather than incarceration are all important elements of this strategy.
Disruption of the economic incentive for drug distribution is the third, and most heavily-funded, component of the policy. The strategy focuses on law enforcement initiatives to disrupt the production, transport, distribution, and sale of illicit substances both domestically and internationally.
The President’s National Drug Control Strategy speaks of adopting a balanced approach to the problem of illegal drug use, which in my opinion, represents a positive development. However, in actuality, the report clearly indicates that more attention and funding remains focused on the investigative, law enforcement, and corrections aspects of curtailing illegal drug use. Specifically, the funding and resources that are directed towards these efforts amount to twenty percent more than that which is available for prevention and treatment programs and initiatives.
It is true that this represents a balance of sorts, but it also reveals what I regard as a fatal shortcoming in the policy, namely, a failure to focus a sufficient amount of attention on comprehensive prevention and, especially, treatment efforts. On a related note, the policy also fails to distinguish adequately between different types of illegal substances, so that marijuana use, for example, is tacitly equated with heroin or crack cocaine use. While many people harbor a perspective that does equate these activities on a moral level, there can be no doubt that marijuana and heroin impact American society differently.
The most encouraging aspect of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy for 2005 is its explicit acknowledgement that because of the physiological nature of drug addiction, these crimes are necessarily different than most other types of criminal transgression. Throughout the policy, language is used that indicates that the Bush Administration understands the unique nature of illegal drug abuse and addiction, as well as the importance of developing and implementing law enforcement strategies that consider rehabilitation for first-time and/or addicted offenders.
The policy specifically points out the funding for emerging initiatives such as drug courts, in which normal requirements for sentencing are set aside in favor of penalties that involve mandatory rehabilitation. In addition, the policy advocates the use of non-traditional community resources, such as the faith-based community, for prevention and education efforts.
Although I believe that there are some shortcomings in the policy, I believe that the overall approach outlined in the President’s National Drug Control Strategy for 2005 will be shown to be effective and beneficial. Clearly, the strategy has been formulated with care, compassion, and careful analysis of recent findings pertaining not only to the prevalence of illicit drug use, but also to which treatment and prevention strategies appear to be the most effective.
Considering the amount of criticism that has recently been leveled at the Bush Administration for favoring socially conservative ideological agendas over scientific data, the President’s National Drug Control Strategy for 2005 demonstrates a thorough grasp of and respect for the findings emerging from the scientific and academic communities with respect to the most effective approaches to prevention, treatment, and prosecution of illegal drug use.
The strategies set for the in the President’s National Drug Control Strategy for 2005 address prevention, treatment, and law enforcement, all of which are crucial for an effective remedy to the drug problem in the United States. Although more resources and funding are allocated to law enforcement than to treatment and prevention efforts, the policy represents a generally balanced, comprehensive effort that reflects recent findings in the field.