Month: November 2020

In Zinn’s chapter, “The 200 Election and the ‘War on Terrorism,'” Zinn discussed the early 2000’s and how the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers affected American’s views on Muslims. What I found to be most interesting in this chapter was the fact that Zinn didn’t agree with most Americans in the sense that he believed Americans had started this war. He didn’t believe the “full extent of the human catastrophe caused by the bombing of Afghanistan was not being conveyed to Americans by the mainstream press and the major television networks, which seemed determined to show their ‘patriotism'” (679). He says that immediately after the attack, President Bush declared a war on terrorism and said that they should do their best to keep terrorists out, which is what led to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, “gave the Department of justice the power to detain noncitizen simply on the suspicion, without charges, without the procedural rights provided in the Constitution” (680). This led to all Muslims being grouped as terrorists in the eyes of Americans. To me, this was an interesting look view on the 9/11 attack, because most American’s agreed with Bush and didn’t see it in the sense that they had bombed Afghanistan first.

In the Article written by Mariam Elba, she discusses an interview between Khaled Beydon and the Intercept about his experience of Muslim and Christian immigrants. What I found most interesting about this piece was that Beydon believes Trump plays a large role in escalating the War on Terror. He says that the war is “best characterized as a transparent, brazen, explicit unleashing of Islamophobia that is spear headed by the likes of Donald Trump” (Elba). I’ve never really thought about in in the sense that the presidents would play a large role in the way American Citizens view Muslims and the War on Terror. For example, he says that the difference between Trump, and Obama/Bush is the narrative they relay to the public. This makes complete sense and the broader idea I took from this was that the kind of person a leader is and the way they portray other people will reflect how those citizens then treat them. In this case, because Trump enhanced the War on Terror, it led American citizens to hold on to the believe of grouping Muslims as terrorists.

In Zinn’s chapter, “The 2000 Election and the ‘War on Terrorism’” he discusses the U.S government’s reactions to the 9/11 attacks and describes fundamental changes to American foreign policy that could be the change needed in the War on Terrorism. I thought an interesting point was that it has been clear throughout history that violence could not defeat terrorism, but the U.S decided to do that anyways. The common theme throughout many of these historical events was present here too, the government went to great lengths to control the flow of media showing the horrific effects of their bombings. Zinn brought up the question that perhaps if the U.S changed their foreign policies to create more peaceful relations with other countries, then who would hate us and want to hurt us? I thought this was a very powerful moral question that addresses the power hungry attitudes of America in the global community. This seems like an easy solution that comes with large consequences and sacrifices that many would be hesitant to give up. 

Mariam Elba’s article about Islamophobia describes how this has been a part of the U.S legal system and culture. I was surprised that from 1790 to 1952, the Naturalization Act required whiteness as a condition for citizenship. An immigrant had to prove that they were white in order to be considered for citizenship. I thought it was interesting to look at the different views among the Presidents. Bush created a good Muslim versus bad Muslim attitude. Obama had positive rhetoric toward Muslims, but his policies differed from these ideas. Trump believes that all Muslims are bad. These extremely prevalent leadership roles reflect and influence the beliefs of the U.S as a whole. They are endorsing negative stereotypes that have been entrenched in society for many years. How will we be able to defeat these stereotypes and disconnect the Muslim identity with terrorism?

The Intercept article discussed how Islamophobia has been instilled within America’s laws and policies long before the War on Terror. There has been a myth that Islamohpbia only become prevalent after 9/11 and the election of Donald Trump, but it has been an underlying issue for much longer. This is something I never thought about because the focus of my schooling has been honed in on the systemic issues of racism towards just African Americans, which deserves ample attention, but other ethnicities and religions that have been scrutinized under American law have been silenced. It was not only until 9/11 occurred that I started hearing about how Muslims were seen as incompatible with Americanness and a threat to our society.  The article mentioned that the “See something, Saw something” campaign elevated the negatives presumptions around Muslims. This slogan became the mantra after 9/11 and made citizens aware, but also paranoid. People reported suspicious behavior without reason, which became an opportunity to stereotype Muslims as potential threats to national security. A campaign working towards increased safety within society became a tool for stereotyping Muslims.

Another key insight of this article was the recent movement within the media of praising Muslim women. At the surface level, this can be seen as progress towards trying to offset the systemic and individual racism towards Islamic people. Although, as we have continued learning in this class, really nothing is as ethically motivated as it seems in politics and media. The demographic of Muslims that are praised in commercials and Hollywood films are Muslims who are distant from the Muslim identity and are of a much lighter skin tone, portraying their characteristics of whiteness. This implicitly elevates American culture more than Muslim culture. This reminded me of our past readings regarding Native American’s and how their culture has been appropriated and been white-washed in the corporate world. In American society, we like to preach that our nation values all cultures and is diverse in our religious and ethnic makeup, but it seems that this is all a hoax. The cultures that are different from the stereotyped white American culture constantly get scrutinized and are merely looked at as being different, rather than being appreciated and accepted. How can our society diminish white supremacy if it has been supported for hundreds of years within our laws and political officials?

The movie Just Mercy really showed us the criminal justice system and all the flaws that it has. Specifically the flaws of it not being equal and are bias to African Americans and other minorities. In the court system people of color are more likely to be incarcerated for a crime they did not do, just because of their skin color. If a white person got caught for the same thing as a person of color it is automatically expected that the white person would get a shorter sentence or even just get a warning while the person of color would get the worst punishment possible. Just Mercy uses Walter McMilian as a narrative to talk about the corrupt power in his case. The corrupt power comes from having foundations in white supremacy.
Before reading this I did not really know what the “war on drugs” truly meant. I did not know that this brought a lot of harm to the African American community. Nixon wanted to criminalize heroin and by doing that also associating criminalization with the African American community. The court system should work on ending the war on drugs so we can keep minorities out of prison for unreasonable drug charges. So instead of going to prison they can work on overcoming their addiction and learn to not use drugs as a replacement for coping for traumatic experiences.

Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall’s analysis of the War on Drugs offers a criticism of the political movement and outlines the process by which it developed into a threat to black communities. As this study observes, the War on Drugs offered great monetary incentives for police departments to “get tough on crime” through federal funding of police militarization to combat drug crime as well as corrupt policies such as Civil Asset Forfeiture. The analysis then illustrates the disproportionate criminalization of black communities under the War on Drugs as a result, forcing black people into lower-class statuses by denying black drug offenders the right to vote, receive academic financial aid, and acquire employment. The analysis quotes an interview of Nixon advisor John Ehrlichman where he admits to the implementation of the War on Drugs as a means of harming black Americans. Though some may doubt the validity of this testimony, I think it’s important to note that the War on Drugs was prompted at a time when drug crime wasn’t on the rise and public opinion polls revealed that it wasn’t a primary concern of the American people, as revealed in Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, suggesting motives beside genuine drug crime response.

Destin Daniel Crettin’s Just Mercy explores the work of Equal Justice Initiative attorney Bryan Stevenson to document the personal harms that the American legal system inflicts on black men and lower-class communities in part because of the War on Drugs. My main takeaway from this film was that the law is by no means objective, serving as ammunition for both oppressors and liberators in the legal arena. The legal racial profiling that became commonplace because of the War on Drugs led to the wrongful conviction of Johnnie D McMillan, secured solely by the false testimony of a white felon with an incentive to lie to evade the death penalty. Afterward, when Stevenson petitions for a retrial and presents overwhelming evidence of McMillan’s innocence, the district judge denies him on the premise of the DA’s argument that Meyers was falsely motivated when he admitted to lying in his original testimony. The judge’s decision is illustrative of a justice system that has been designed to allow harm to black communities through subjective interpretation of legal evidence.

I think that Just Mercy‘s portrayal of the Monroeville community is very indicative of a societal acceptance of the criminalization of black people in the United States. Stevenson and his colleagues at the EJI receive stark opposition to their work to offer legal counsel to Death Row convicts, suggesting an acceptance of capital punishment for conviction of violent crimes, regardless of any evidence suggesting innocence. Meanwhile, Monroeville’s District Attorney defends his obligation to protect the community by keeping McMillan on Death Row despite evidence of his innocence, maintaining a criminalizing perspective on poor black men.

The issue of criminal justice reform is one of the most pressing of our time. Recently, media representation of falsely accused have brought the issue of the faults of the system into the public sphere. Just Mercy tells a very personal narrative of Walter McMillian, but the abuses of corrupt power featured in his case are tells of a massive systemic problem. The criminal justice system is rotted from the inside out, starting with its foundations in white supremacy. In the past summer alone, public awareness of the evils at work in our criminal justice system has inspired an educational movement that we have to take advantage of and inspire real change. We can use the personal stories of Walter McMillian, the Central Park Five, and many others as rallying points for the movement. There is so much work to be done to rebuild- and it begins with acknowledging the failures and supporting the groups working to resolve them.

One organization worth supporting (or even just following their cases) is the Innocence Project. They pursue cases of the wrongfully accused, often getting freedom for people that have been serving lifetime sentences- when their only crime was being Black in a system that further brutalizes the oppressed. The Innocence Project website often has profiles of their clients- I highly recommend looking into some of the ridiculous injustices people still face to this day.

The movie Just Mercy gave insight into the flaws that affect the criminal justice system today. The reality is that despite claims of equality, the courts remain biased against people of color, who are way more likely to get incarcerated for a crime that they did not commit or receive a way larger sentence than a white man or woman who committed the same crime. This is deeply wrong, and it makes me curious about what can be done to start changing this. The innocence project is on the right track, but due to resources, is only able to help a tiny percentage of those wronged by the criminal justice system. How do we as a nation, help to  expand the work they are doing?

Something I took away from the reading was the misconception of the phrase “War on Drugs”. When we hear this, we associate it with positive things. Helping everyone by stopping drugs which are bad. Yet this war on drugs brought a lot of harm with it, especially to the colored community. It needs to be acknowledged that everyone grows up in different communities, and are taught different things, and have different opportunities. Although this may seem as unintentional discrimination, I think that Nixon needs to be looked at under a harsher microscope, as he wanted to criminalize heroin and associate that criminilazation with the community of people of color.

Before reading this, if I had heard the term “War on Drugs” I would’ve had a much different reaction then I now do after reading the article. What other terms like this are sugar-coated where it is known as something different from reality? How can we start to change the systems that are rigged against people of color, concerning both drugs and oversentancing?

The prolonged War on Drugs has affected so many Americans over the years. Everyone knows someone who has struggled with addiction, and the stigma behind drugs created by the government has made it difficult for many to get effective treatment. When the war on drugs began, the government was aiming to eliminate all drugs because they were viewed as a vice. They thought they could control the population and their desires but that is an unreasonable thing to do for a free society. People also are more inclined to do things that are illegal or risky because of human nature so the drive of breaking the rules encouraged some to use drugs. 

After studying the historical progression of this country, it has become clear that America has a tendency to repeat its prior actions when it shouldn’t. America learned from the Prohibition Era that banning vices like alcohol or drugs is not effective. It creates black markets for the goods that cannot be regulated by governmental organizations like the FDA to make sure the products are safe for consumption. The war on drugs leads to the same black markets being formed, leading to more overdose deaths because the drugs are not regulated by the government. Organized crime is also a large factor in prohibiting drugs or alcohol. Today, gangs in urban areas are usually the ones who control the drug market. Gang violence can arise from territorial issues and lead to premature deaths of those involved.

As we saw in Just Mercy, the justice system in our country has been a large part of the war on drugs. The article also said that about half of the incarcerations in America at any given time are due to drug-related incidents. Possession, distribution, and other charges are heavily criminalized in many states and have put thousands of Americans behind bars due to small drug charges that do nothing to help the problem of addiction that is said to be at the core of the war on drugs. The courts are also not convicting all Americans the same. Minorities like Blacks and Latinos are far more likely to serve time for drug charges than whites. Lawyers like Bryan in Just Mercy are trying to fix the unjust court system and advocate for minorities facing unreasonable sentences for drug charges. America needs to reform its court system and end the war on drugs to keep minorities and youths out of prison and allow them to work to overcome addiction, not use drugs to cope with traumatic events due to the War on Drugs like going to prison or seeing violence.

It is so easy for people to hear the words “anti-drugs” or “banning drugs” and immediately believe whatever the message or ruling is, it is a good one. However, for so many low income people and in particular, people of color the war on drugs has been devastating. White privilege is something that is incredibly relevant today, and has been around for many hundreds of years. Unfortunately, racial biases are at an all time high when it comes to drug possession and drug use. Hispanics and blacks are 3x more likely to be searched while they are in their vehicles than whites. While this does not surprise me, because of how corrupt the system is, this saddens me. Racial biases involving drugs have become way too normalized and it is incredibly unfair. 

While watching the movie Just Mercy, I became incredibly upset. So many people of color are wrongfully convicted or get sentences for crimes that are astronomically different than whites. The racial biases within our systems has been a problem for a very long time, and I truthfully do not know when it will stop. I am increasingly saddened and astonished by the racism that is still so prevalent in not only our country, but in our court systems. One thing that I am interested to see how it plays out is the fact that Oregon just decriminalized all drugs. The disparity between drug laws in all the states is very interesting to me, and I am intrigued to see how this ruling plays out. Overall, this reading and movie left me saddened and discouraged with the way our systems have performed in regards to drug laws and sentencing.

For the most part, the information provided by “Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs” was not a surprise to me, which is not a good thing. When new pieces of striking information cease to surprise us, that is an indicator that the world we live in desperately needs a change. Moreover, I appreciate how this article analyzed prohibition from an economist’s perspective, particularly the section that contrasts what proponents of prohibition think about drug prohibition policies to what happens when those policies are implemented. In short, the conclusion from this section of the article is that legalizing the market for drugs will eliminate monopolies, drug cartels, and the violence most of these entities have a reputation for as less-violent and more eager drug suppliers can legally compete in the market.

After reading “Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs,” something of interest to me is the relationship between public officials in power and individuals involved in the drug market. I acknowledge that people who are negatively affected by whatever drug they consume cannot seek legal recourse in places where drugs are illegal and must mete out justice in their own hands. Most of these people to fall into this trap, I imagine, are low-income persons of color who do not have the wealth and privilege to get even. In response, I am sure that some public officials recreationally use drugs- even when they may be illegal- and their likelihood of either becoming addicted or overdosing is quite high if we consider the stress they endure at their job daily. What recourse would public officials’ families take if they have had a poor experience with a particular type of drug? Of course, they cannot seek legal recourse, nor can they necessarily take justice into their own hands by committing some act of violence against the individual or group in the drug market without risking their family members’ safety. Do they, too, end up in the same boat as low-income persons of color who do not have wealth and privilege to get even? If so, what does this reveal to us about the nature of the drug market?

“Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs” has really made me aware of the history of this issue. President Nixon declared war on drugs, and it all seemed positive and helpful. No one will oppose a war on drugs, so other governors started to implement their own reforms in their states. This was where this war started to become detrimental to communities of color, especially. All the passed laws and acts are so controversial because most common, privileged people would not think twice about them, so they weren’t an issue that the public saw till recently. A lot of awareness has come through the summer protests, but it is still not enough.

Nonetheless, this topic can’t be more relevant today. The war on drugs has been such a devastating phenomenon for communities of color, but that rarely is something discussed within other communities or politics because people assume the war on drugs is a good thing. People think, “When has anti-drugs been a bad thing?” But they don’t bother to do the research. The movement isn’t bad because drugs are good; it is bad because it implements racial bias and devastates communities of color and the prison system. I think it is also interesting to note that Oregon has just decriminalized all drugs this week. With this decision, the rest of the United States can look towards Oregon and see how it affects its inhabitants, its prison systems, and its government. Many folks see Oregon as irrational, and this decision as crazy, but I believe it is because they are uneducated or blinded by their own privilege. I would love to see other states follow Oregon. Still, I also recognize how that might not happen anytime soon or ever because drugs are such a polarizing and emotional topic.

The movie Just Mercy details the extremely emotional and inspirational real-life story of Walter McMillian’s exoneration from Alabama’s death row prison, Holman State Prison. Just Mercy stars the phenomenal actors Michael B. Jordan, who plays Bryan Stevenson, and Jamie Foxx, who plays Walter “Johnny D.” McMillian. Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx’s outstanding acting exposed the racist and corrupt criminal justice system in America and enhanced the movie’s powerful message of hope. After watching the movie, I gained a tremendous amount of respect for Bryan Stevenson, Walter McMillian’s lawyer and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative. Stevenson, a Harvard law school graduate, overcame many obstacles in order to ultimately free Walter McMillian, an African American man from Monroeville, Alabama who was wrongly sentenced to death for a murder he did not commit. 

In the beginning of Just Mercy, Michael B. Jordan meets with an Alabama District Attorney in hopes of gaining more information surrounding the case of Walter McMillian. Michael B. Jordan opens up the meeting by asserting to the Alabama District Attorney that he has very serious doubts about the reliability of Walter McMillian’s criminal record as he claims that McMillian’s conviction was based on false testimony. The Alabama District Attorney refutes Michael B. Jordan’s beliefs and claims that McMillian, “…Caused a lot of pain for folks around here, and if you go digging in those wounds, you are going to make a lot of people very unhappy.” Michael B. Jordan is unfazed and responds, “Well it isn’t my job to make people happy, it is to achieve justice for my client.” Bryan Stevenson’s relentless pursuit for the justice of Walter McMillian, which is depicted by Michael B. Jordan in this scene, ultimately leads to the miraculous release of Walter McMillian from death row at the conclusion of the movie. Bryan Stevenson should be recognized as a hero in the United States as he put himself at risk in order to combat the racist and corrupt criminal justice system in Alabama to exonerate Walter McMillian and so many other wrongfully convicted prisoners.

In the last half-century, the United States prison population has grown immensely. Much of this growth can be attributed to tough drug laws that were passed in the 1970s and 1980s. These laws, championed by Republicans and Democrats alike, were in response to the rise in recreational drug use as well as drug addictions. Politicians identified this problem but imposed drug laws that were enforced discriminatorily, treating the issue of drugs as a criminal problem for African-Americans and a medical one for white people. The “War on Drugs” resulted in drug policies that included mandatory minimum sentencing and harsh penalties for “schedule 1” and “schedule 2” drugs. In recent years, many of these drug laws have been repealed, creating a dilemma for inmates arrested under previous laws.

President Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971, citing the rampant use of drugs in urban areas. While drug use was, in fact, growing, Nixon’s motivations were less pure. John Ehrlichman, a Nixon aide said, “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities” (qtd. In Coyne, Hall). Nixon and the Republicans were not alone in their mission to combat drug use, though. In 1973, Governor Nelson Rockefeller, a Democrat, implemented his own reforms, known as the “Rockefeller drug laws,” which implemented mandatory minimum sentencing and served as a model for future drug policies across the country. 

These policies are counterproductive to drug abuse, having “contributed to an increase in drug overdoses and fostered and sustained the creation of powerful drug cartels” (Coyne, Hall). Instead of lowering the usage of harmful drugs, the drug prohibition movement led to the use of more potent drugs, creating more serious addiction and medical problems. The government also loses the ability to regulate the industry, or collect taxes on the potential revenue. People with drug problems are less willing to report their health concerns out of fear of incarceration. According to Coyne and Hall, “it is time to consider the broader decriminalization or legalization of drugs, from marijuana to harder substances, and to focus on a more treatment-based approach” (Coyne, Hall). It is clear that state governments are moving this direction, as most states have legalized marijuana in some form, and Oregon recently decriminalized small amounts of heroin and cocaine.

Being from Louisiana, the worlds prison capital, I had learned extensively about the United States’ criminal justice system and the many problems with it. I was the president of my community service club and we worked to try and break the stereotypes around previously incarcerated people. We also partnered with a local organization, First 72+, that helps people make the transition out of prison and back into society. Needless to say, this issue is very close to my heart. Through all my time learning about this issue I have always found the most powerful thing to be people’s personal stories.

That’s why when rewatching Just Mercy this weekend I was again touched by the struggles of Johnny D and Herbert Richardson. I constantly felt the frustration of Bryan and wanted to get up and help. These movies are good because it gives humanity to people on death row but also inspires others who do not know much about it to look into it more. Specifically the statistics in the end of the movie that point out how many people are wrongly put to death, and how for every 9 people executed 1 person is proven innocent. This is scarily high and needs to be corrected, and I think the first step is by raising awareness through things like this movie.

After reading the article “Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs”, I realized how uninformed I was on the topic of Drug restrictions and prohibition. Personally, I had only really started to take notice of it when the first states began to legalize marijuana. I never realized how much these restrictions actually were affecting people not only in our country but outside of it too. I did, however, learn about the alcohol prohibition and the opposite effect it ended up having on alcohol consumption and how it actually did way more harm than good. However, it never struck me that the war on drugs has yielded similar results to the alcohol ban.

When Richard Nixon first declared war on drugs, I’m sure his intentions were good and were simply trying to protect citizens from the dangers of illicit drugs, however, similarly to the alcohol prohibition of 1920 it has done a lot more harm than Nixon probably had in mind. The penalties for being caught with illicit drugs have become so stingy that nearly half of the 186,000 prisoners in federal prison have been arrested because of drug-related charges. Not to mention the effects that a drug charge can have on someone’s life outside of prison. Tens of thousands of students a year are denied financial aid from universities because of their drug-related backgrounds, many people have trouble finding employment with limited job opportunities.

I found the article “Four decades and Counting” to be very interesting and surprising. I feel as though I was uneducated about the war on drugs and this article was quite englightening. It was interesting to see the parallels between the War on Drugs and Prohibition in the 1920s. Throughout our lives, we are told how awful drugs are and they are only for bad people but I feel as though it is not talked about the amount of money that is circulating in the drug economy. It is interesting to see the detriments that were brought about through the prohibition on drugs. The article discusses how there was a sharp decline in alcohol use after the law was in place but shortly after it spiked back up to the pre-prohibition levels. This highlights the idea that if something is taken away from people they will most likely find a way to have it back and therefore overindulge leading to over-use. 

It is interesting to see that Oregon just passed a law decriminalizing all drugs including cocaine and heroin. I am curious to see if this law will be passed in other states. I know that in Boston, there is a big issue with opioid use. Driving through Boston, there is a whole couple of miles that are filled with drug addicts. This is scary to see and I am curious to see the laws that will be passed throughout America decriminalizing drugs. 

I found the article “Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs” to be extremely interesting and eye-opening. I have never done much research or reading on the War on Drugs or the drug market in general, so I found many concepts surprising. I could not believe that nearly half of the 186,000 people serving time in federal prisons in the US are incarcerated on drug-related charges. This is such a staggering number that I think should be more publicized so people are aware of how many people are affected. Additionally, I found what happens to the individuals after they serve time in prison equally as surprising, with it haunting them for the rest of their lives, especially minorities or other disadvantaged groups.

Such a controversial topic that our country is divided on, such as the drug market, makes it difficult to make decisions and laws regarding it. On the surface, one may think it is a simple right and wrong scenario- drugs are bad, let’s get rid of them, however it is much more complicated than that, especially because of the money factor. I wonder if drugs did not generate as much money flow in the market, how the country would respond, if they would be more or less likely to ban them.

The statistics in this article are what make it so compelling, because the numbers do not lie. The fact that more people died in the United States from drug overdoses than from car crashes between 2000 and 2014, is astonishing. That should not happen, and should be a huge reality check for anyone reading. It also seems like launching the War on Drugs had some opposite effects than what it was hoping for, such as the spread of drug-related disease increasing as well as violence. I wonder what will happen to the drug market as the years continue, and how many more people are pulled into its world, willingly or unwillingly, and if we will come up with better ways to help those that are.

Firstly, I wanted to start out by saying that I found Four Decades and Counting to be a very informative and interesting article that discussed the War on Drugs both within the United States and abroad, as well as incarceration rates regarding drugs within the United States. Something that I found very intersting that the article talked about was the oddly similar situations that America was in during the War on Drugs and the Prohibition Era in the 1920’s. In the 1920s, the United States saw the creation, distribution, and sale of illegal alcohol. On top of that, gangs formed across the country and death rates from alcohol increased. During the War on Drugs, the United States saw very simliar things. There was an increase in drug overdoses which then also fostered the growith of drug cartels. Something that I do not understand is, why did the United States look back to their recent past to decide whether or not their decisions regarding drugs would be a benefit or not? On another note, a fact that I found interesting from the article was that the population of black people within the United States is 16% yet black people represent 62% of all drug offenders who are currently incarserated. After watching the movie Just Mercy, I wonder how many of those people were falsely accused. My last point from the article that I too found interesting was that the War on Drugs was not contained to the United States. The US faught this war both at home, within Mexico (fighting against gangs and cartels), and in Afghanistan. I found this last country to be rather surprising; however, the article later describes that the money made from selling drugs is used to fund groups like the Taliban.

The movie Just Mercy is one of the most powerful and moving stories that I have heard about via film in a long time. Not only was I actively engaged throughout the film but I felt attached to the characters as well. I found it very inspiring that a young man fresh out of law school would pick up his life and move to Alabama to help people in prison get off death row. Adding to why this was impactful for me was because this new graduate was a black man who moved and worked in a town filled with a ton of white supremacists. We know this because the entire case of Walter McMillian was forged just so that the town could lock away another black man. In addition to that, we find out at the end of the movie that Walter McMillian’s friend from prison, Anthony Ray Hinton, was also wrongly convicted of a crime. Luckily, he too was released with the help of EJI. Another way we know that the town is against black people is because the home that Bryan Stevenson was staying at recieved a phone call from a man saying that he planted a bomb somewhere in the home. It is as clear as daylight that this town was against blacks. Overall, I really enjoyed watching the movie Just Mercy and following along with the story of both Walter McMillian and Bryan Stevenson.

After reading the article, “Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs,” I was astonished by the extensiveness of the war on drugs. The article mentions fighting the Taliban, drugs in Afghanistan, and other instances of the war on drugs, and they surpassed the level of longevity that I ever knew existed in this everlasting fight. However, the point that I was most interested in, and spent the most time with was the economic aspect of the prohibition of drugs. Early on in the section, “Proponents of drug prohibition argue that by banning certain substances, they can reduce or eliminate both the demand and the supply for drugs, thereby significantly reducing or even eradicating the drug market. What these arguments fail to appreciate, however, is that making markets illegal fails to reduce, much less eliminate, the market for drugs. Instead, these mandates mainly push the market for drugs into underground black markets.” I found this so interesting because basic laws of supply and demand allow a complete understanding of what happens when the two are affected; the black market gains prominence. When the supply of a good is shifted left, or decreased, the quantity of that good demanded decreases and the price increases. While this appears to be a good thing because people are demanding less of that good, they find other alternatives and ways to source the good that are illegal and even more harmful to society. At this point, the black market becomes a large factor in the drug market and begins to do harm to society through the sales of illegal, synthetic, and dangerous drugs. People turn to the black market for cheaper prices and lower quality goods and end up doing more harm to themselves and society than they would have in a previous situation.

I find this war on drugs to be very intriguing due to its complex nature and lack of a positive solution. Despite the government’s best efforts to take drugs off of the streets and out of the hands of junkies, drugs will always be a prominent aspect of society. When one producer of drugs is shut down and arrested, another one arises in his spot and continues the cycle. Also, I firmly believe that drug addicts will find drugs, no matter what it takes. If drugs are taken off of the streets in one area, Drug addicts will find somewhere else to buy them from and incorporate drugs into their area’s again. Accordingly, there will be an everlasting demand for drugs and with that demand always comes a supply; an endless cycle of societal destruction and negative consequences.