Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: I need 4 separate Annotated Bibliographies, from 4 different sources that will be faxed to you within the next hour. I'll need it to be in 2 parts, (ie the Summary, then a Reflection) for each of the 4 separate articles that I'll be faxing you. These topics are all covering the US Drug War. I need it to be doubled spaced, and done exactly like an example I'll be faxing. Also, I will be including a guideline of how the paper's need to be done. Obviously, the summary will just sum up the articles, and what they are saying. However, I need the reflections to be leaning towards the opinions of a more liberal point of view. In other words, to express a negative view for the current situation concerning the war on drugs.

Essay Instructions: Case Study. Legalization of sale of marajuana in the U.S. (specifically California) the positive impact on the current drug war in Mexico.

Essay Instructions: The references used in this must contain 10 references. The references must be from scholarly journals, textbooks and online websites. I have some references included below. The references must be no older than 6 years old. References:

Bullington, Bruce (2004). Drug Policy and Its Detractors: The United States as the elephant in the closet. Journal of Drug Issues, 34 (3), 687-721.

Mauer, Marc (2004). Race, Class and the Development of Criminal Justice Policy. The Review of Policy Research, 21(1), 79-92.

Burke, Todd, Crenshaw, M. Justin. Khat: A potential concern for law enforcement.[On-line]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/august04/ august04leb.htm

Kennedy, Joseph E. (2003). Drug wars in black and white. Law and Contemporary Problems. 66(3), 153-181.

Boyum, David, Kleiman, Mark A.R. (2003). Breaking the drug-crime link. The Public Interest, 152, 19-38.

Courtwright, David T. Dark Paradise: Opiate Addiction in America before 1940. In Musto M.D., David (1999). The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control(pp. 9-34). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


White, W.L. (1998). Themes in Chemical Prohibition. In Fields, Richard (3rd Edition). Drugs in Perspective (pp. 117-182) New York, NY: McGraw Hill Publications.


Musto M.D., David. (1999). Drugs, Alcohol Abuse and Crime: A historical perspective on national policies. [On-line]. Available:
http;//www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/national_assembly/conferenc e_proceed/session1.html

Maris, C.W. (1999). The disaster of war: American repression versus Dutch tolerance in Drug policy. Journal of Drug Issues, 29(3), 493-510.


O?Reagan, Kevin. (1996). The politics of the American court system with a special Emphasis on the Supreme Court. In Brendan Maguire and Polly R. Radosh. The past, present, and future of American criminal justice (pp. 134-135). Dix Hills, NY: General Halls, Inc.


The general theme of the paper should be the history of American drug policies to include the themes used to justify these laws, i.e. supply reduction, harm reduction, prohibition.

Essay Instructions: The Budgetary Politics in the War on Drugs: Rewarding Inefficiency?

Research Questions:
I?m arguing an answer to these questions regarding budgetary politics in the drug war since 1980 to 2003. First, why have their been substantial increases in the drug war budget over the past twenty years? Second, why hasn?t performance budgeting been effective ? why and how are Congressional Appropriations Committees rewarding the unsuccessful War on Drugs? In other words, why is failure in US bureaucracy policy rewarded with higher budgets?

My response:

The answer lies in examining the internal dynamics of Congressional, Presidential, and bureaucratic institutions, which influence the individuals within them. Presidents must win popular and congressional approval to implement their political agendas. Bureaucrats must secure continued funding to keep their jobs, and that leads them to strive for large budgets. Members of Congress seek reelection. Failure in the War on Drugs has been rewarded with higher budgets because high level bureaucrats and election minded politicians share a common interest in seeing these particular sorts of bureaucratic agencies grow. The bureaucrats want them to grow because it allows them to keep their jobs and increase their power; and the politicians also want them to grown because it allows them to keep their jobs and maintain their power. In this case, the growth of the bureaucracy budgets helps politicians keep their job because politicians? competency is evaluated more in terms of how they are striving to protect the public interest, rather than meeting some actual need or performance standard. Consequently, performance budgeting has been a complete failure for this policy war. In addition, the rhetoric that the bureaucrats and politicians use emphasizes how each agency protects the public and provides a key public service. Thus, politicians use rhetoric to create the fears of drug abuse that they in turn protect people from by substantially increasing these agency?s budgets.


TO THE WRITER: I?m looking for an 18 page ?paper?, which will be part of a chapter in my work. I don?t want anything written about how the drug war has been a failure (I?ve already written about that), and I?ve already written how the budgets for the agencies involved in the drug war have increased at a higher level than other domestic discretionary budgets over the last 20 years. I also don?t want a literature review of why budgets increase. Instead, I want a purely substantive paper citing a lot of evidence ? with no introduction and no conclusion. The paper should draw upon Congressional hearings and Appropriations Committee hearings over the past 20 years. Detailing the rhetoric of budget justifications, this paper should show these explanations stemming from Congressmen, the bureaucracy, and the President. I want this paper to illustrate that Congressmen use self-promoting rationalizations to appropriate funds to the War on Drugs (despite its unsuccessful record). In addition, bureaucrats, Congressmen, and the President all utilize the rhetoric of fear to convey a sense of urgency about this policy arena to the American public. In doing so, they essentially construct a ?problem,? which they, in turn, pledge to remedy (I want this paper to provide evidence for that) with higher budgets.

Moreover, from program-performance base budgeting to zero-based budgeting, from the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act to George W. Bush?s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), these performance- budgetary strategies were implemented to hold government agencies accountable through their budgets. Despite the exuberant rhetoric in favor of performance-based budgeting in the federal government, evidence for its existence in the War on Drugs is nonexistent. I also want this paper to explain this previous statement.

You should also have received an attached document that is my introduction for my project. It may help you get a better understanding, if the last 3 paragraphs were unclear. **What you will be writing will most likely be used in chapter 4, as outlined in the introduction.


Sources that may be helpful


Wildavsky, Aaron and Naomi Caiden. 2001. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process.

Schick, Allen. 2000. The Federal Budget.

Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action.

Gosling, James J. 2002. Budgetary Politics in American Governments.

Bertram, Eva, and Morris Blachman, Kenneth Sharpe, and Peter Andreas. 1996. Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial.

Murphy, Patrick, et al. 2000. Improving Anti-Drug Budgeting.

Blais, Andre and Stephane Dion, Editors. 1991. The Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrat: Appraisals and Evidence.

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Budget Summaries 1989-2004.
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov


Budget Justifications before the subcommittees in the Committee on Appropriations for the agencies involved in the drug war, i.e.:

DEA (Justice Dept)
FBI (Justice)
Federal Bureau of Prisons (Justice)

U.S. Customs (Treasury)

Dept. of Health and Human Services
U.S. Coast Guard
ONDCP