首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
Bad Investment Take it from a businessman: The War on Drugs is just money down the drain. As a Republican, I’m neither sof
Bad Investment Take it from a businessman: The War on Drugs is just money down the drain. As a Republican, I’m neither sof
admin
2010-07-19
24
问题
Bad Investment
Take it from a businessman: The War on Drugs is just money down the drain.
As a Republican, I’m neither soft on crime nor pro-drugs in any sense. I believe a person who harms another person should be punished. But as a successful businessman, I also believe that locking up more and more people who are nonviolent drug offenders, the people whose real problem is that they are addicted to drugs, is simply a waste of money and human resources.
Drugs are a handicap. I don’t think anyone should use them. But if a person is using marijuana in his or her own home, doing no harm to anyone other than arguably to himself or herself, should that person be arrested and put in jail? In my opinion, the answer is no.
Any social policy or endeavor should be evaluated based on its actual effectiveness, just as in business any investment should be evaluated based on its returns. By that standard, the nationwide drug war is a failure. After 20-plus years of zero-tolerance policies and increasingly harsh criminal penalties, we have over half a million people behind bars on drug charges nationwide—more than the total prison population in all of Western Europe. We’re spending billions of dollars to keep them locked up. Yet the federal government’s own research demonstrates that drugs are cheaper, purer, and more readily available than when this war started. Heroin use is up. Ecstasy use is up. Teenagers say that marijuana is easier to get than alcohol. No matter how you slice it, this is no success story.
In 1981, the federal government spent about $1.5 billion on the drug war. Today, we spend almost $20 billion a year at the federal level, with the states spending at least that much again. In 1980, the federal government arrested a few hundred thousand people on drug charges; today we arrest 1.6 million people a year for drug offenses. Yet we still have a drug problem. Should we continue until the federal government spends $40 billion and arrests 3.2 million people a year for drugs? What about $80 billion and 6.4 million arrests? The logical conclusion of this is that we’ll be spending the entire gross national product on drug-law enforcement and still not be addressing our drug problem. I believe the costs outweigh the benefits.
In New Mexico, the cost to the state of treating drug use as a crime is over $43 million per year and this does not even include local and federal expenditures, which nearly triple that number. Over hair of that money goes to corrections costs. Yet despite this outlay, New Mexico has one of the highest rates of drug-related crime and one of the highest heroin-usage rates in the nation. Our results dictate that our money be spent another way. That’s why I have called for a reevaluation of my state’s current drug strategies, and we have begun to make great progress in this area.
A study by the RAND Corporation shows that every dollar spent on treatment instead of imprisonment saves $7 in state costs. Treatment is significantly more effective at reducing drug use than jail and prison. I believe the most cost-effective way to deal with nonviolent drug users would be to stop prosecuting them, and instead to make an effective spectrum of treatment services available to those who request it.
I propose a new bottom line for evaluating our success. Currently, our government measures the success of our drug policies by whether drug use went up or down, or whether seizures went up or down, or how many acres of coca we eradicated in South America. These are absolutely the wrong criteria. Instead of asking how many people smoked marijuana last year, we should ask if drug-related crime went up or down. Instead of asking how many people did heroin last year, we should ask whether heroin overdoses went up or down. We should ask if public nuisances associated with drug use and dealing went up or down. In short, we should be trying to reduce the harm caused by and suffered by drug users, instead of simply trying to lock them all up. A drug policy that has these questions in mind would be much more sensible, pragmatic, and cost-effective than our current one.
We need to reform our drug policies. The goal should be to help those addicted to drugs to find a better way. The answer is not imprisonment and legal attack. The answer lies in sentencing reform, in supplying treatment on demand, and in delivering honest drug education to our kids. We need policies that reflect what we know about drug addiction rather than policies that seek to punish it. The days of a drug war waged against our people should come to an end. If we take a new approach—one that deals with drugs through a medical model rather than a criminal justice model—I guarantee that prison rates will drop, violent crime will decrease, property crime will decrease, overdose deaths will decrease, AIDS and hepatitis C will decrease, and more of those needing treatment for drug abuse will receive it.
If we take these and other "harm reduction" approaches toward drug use, we will spend many times less than what we currently spend on the drug war, and the benefit will be a society with less death, disease, crime, suffering, and imprisonment. By any measure, that’s a more sensible investment. (899 words)
What is the best solution to the drug problem the author has proposed?
选项
A、Providing treatment for drug users.
B、Adopting "harm reduction" measures.
C、Approaching the drug war sensibly.
D、Helping those addicted to drugs.
答案
B
解析
根据短文,选项ACD都可能是对的。但是,根据文章的最后一段,选项B是最全面的,因为它包括了其他选项的各个具体的内容。If we take these and other “harm reduction” approaches toward drug use,we will spend many times less than what we currently spend on the drug war,and the benefit will be a society with less death,disease,crime,suffering,and imprisonment.
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/nh3YFFFM
0
专业英语八级
相关试题推荐
A、Bothwerewearingdarksweaters.B、Neitherwaswearingglasses.C、Bothwereaboutthesameage.D、Oneofthemwasmarkedbya
A、Longrangeinvestments.B、Profitableinvestments,C、Thenumberofinvestingcountries.D、Thenumberofcountriesreceivingfor
MultinationalCorporationsMultinationalinvestmenthas【1】________.【1】________.Establishmentofam
MultinationalCorporationsMultinationalinvestmenthas【1】________.【1】________.Establishmentofam
A、ThestudyofEmuoil.B、TheuseofEmuoil.C、TheeffectofEmuoil.D、Neitherofabovechoices.A
TherepublicanmovementhasbeengatheringmomentuminAustraliasincebecamePrimeMinisterin199
A、BushmetIraqiPrimeMinisteronFriday.B、BrzezinskiisamemberofRepublicanParty.C、Americanpeoplehavenomuchconfiden
A、Profitoftheoverseasinvestment.B、Landpremiums.C、Salariestax.D、Stampduty.A
随机试题
计划工作的任务不仅要确保实现目标,而且是要从众多方案中选择尽可能好的资源配置方案,以求得合理地利用资源。这是强调汁划的()
女性,72岁。6天前进食后出现腹泻,呈稀水样,每日7~8次,伴恶心、呕吐,当地医院给予输注葡萄糖等治疗后,感口干加重、尿量增多。1天来反应渐迟钝,淡漠,既往有脑梗塞病史,曾有血糖增高史。查体:BP90/50mmHg,嗜睡状,呼吸正常,即刻查血糖35.3mm
胰腺癌的首发症状一般是
CK-MB异常可表示
学校不得使未成年学生在危及人身安全、健康的校舍和其他教育教学设施中活动,否则就是违反了学生的()。
回答以下问题,相同字符查找。
如果你要在单位里评上“先进个人”,你必须在一件事情上做得足够好。比如,你的本职业务做得比别人好;别人本职业务也做得好时,你就要在单位里有个好人缘;别人也同样有个好人缘时,你还能为单位赢得集体荣誉。下面哪一项最不接近上面这段话的意思?()。
人的大脑聪明与否不仅是天生的,我们后天的行为也会对大脑产生深刻的影响。“用进废退”的生物科学原则,同样适用于人脑。大脑神经细胞和其他组织器官一样,越用越能保持其充沛的活力:总不用的话,人可能会变得越来越笨。以下哪项如果为真,最能支持上述结论?
South-EastAsia’slow-costairlineshavegonefromfeasttofamine.Cheap,short-haul,no-frillsflyingcame【C1】______tothereg
若有以下程序:main(){intk=2,i=2,m;m=(k+=i*=k);printf(“%d,%d\n”,m,i);}执行后的输出结果是
最新回复
(
0
)