The excerpt “The Political Practice of Public Relations and Rhetoric” was written by William N Elwood, in 1994 and is from the book Rhetoric and the War on Drugs. The clips were from the T.V. show The Wire.
The phrase “war on drugs” was first used by President Richard Nixon in the year 1969. The problem with drugs became more severe in the early 70’s as soldiers came back from the war in Vietnam addicted to heroin. Following which in 1973 Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to declare an all out war on drugs. Shortly after that all attention was turned to the Columbian drug trades. Then in the year 1974 First Lady Nancy Reagan announced her famous slogan, “Just say no” when asked to do drugs. In the past 40 years, approximately 2.5 trillion dollars have been spent trying to fight this supposed “war on drugs”. Looking back upon the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s (which obviously didn’t last very long), it seems like problems with substance abuse arise during times of economic depression/downfall. Fighting the “war” on drugs now is similar to when we were dead set against alcohol, just different substances.
The pitch of the article is that because the President or other high government officials refer to the problem we’re currently having with drugs as a “war” it then becomes more of an issue to society. Instead of it just being in the “hood” or in just urban areas, the drug problem is nationwide. The complaint is that this problem with drugs can’t be declared a war because it doesn’t fit the definition of war…i.e. there is no enemy or soldiers and there can never be a victory.
The main point we focused on is how the label of war, on the drug problem, changes the view on drugs in a community. In the article it mentions how Presidents Bush and Reagan made the war on drugs a major issue for citizens in turn causing the drug issues to become more prevalent. Within the clip we watched, we saw a police officer and his sergeant having a conversation about how the term war wasn’t necessarily right for the drug situation. He said “You call something a war and people are going to start acting like warriors”. Referring this back to the article, the word “war” was used on purpose to take a stance against drugs and help citizens to understand the severity of the issue. “Metaphor most brings about learning because it provides a prospective that eases audience of a speakers assertions”, in other words the government uses this term, “war”, to bring people together as a whole to defeat the problem instead of trying to deal with it individually or hiding from it. Think about it this way, if we called swine flu just a bug instead of using the words “epidemic” or “deadly virus” the reaction of the citizens would be less severe and there would be less action to resolve the problem. Within the article it says the Presidents hold the enemy accountable, but with the war on drugs there is no enemy connecting this with the clip if it’s called a war then everyone becomes the enemy so therefore is everyone held accountable? As shown in the second video, the police forces are the ones who are expected to uphold the war. Police actions would therefore intensify and “the body count would rise”. If everyone is suspected to be the enemy then no one will come forward and help the police because in the eyes of the neighborhood, the police are the enemy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So, just as the group mentioned, the "war on drugs" wasn't really ever much of a war before Reagan declared it as one...to me it's more of like a domestic issue. I, in no way shape or form, condone the use of drugs, encourage it, or want to legalize it, but at the same time I think that this war on drugs has been going on for far too long. First, like the article mentioned, by calling this a "war" and stirring people up by it, problems that we didn't have before are popping up. For example, when you make middle school kids go through a boring seminar type thing like DARE or GREAT every stinking year, you're running the risk of making the kids want to rebel against everything you're saying. It's not effective. And secondly, I understand that there are probably a lot of people who may find themselves caught up in drug deals and may be subjected to violence under poor judgement, but at the same time, they put themselves in that position. I think that the government is having our police forces focus too much on this "war on drugs," when they could be putting more time, money, and energy into more serious concerns. In the Constitution we're given private personal choices...and they can be either good or bad decisions. So why is the government trying so hard to essentially protect us from ourselves??
ReplyDeleteThe label "war on drugs" made this whole mess, not just the war part. Think about it. As humans, we have a need to understand everything that happens at all times, no matter what it is. So someone decides to say "well drugs are getting bad so lets just say we have a war on drugs and everyone will want to help stop it." Ok, now that you gave it a name like that out of nowhere, people start staring at the word war and compare it to an actual war. With that information, people begin to try and further understand it and then the shit hits the fan as everyone comes out with the best way to fight this war that we created to begin with. And to top this cluster fuck sundae, it turns out that the drugs are winning after all the money people have dumped into the cause. Furthermore, we spend all of our time trying to define what that war on drugs means and no time figuring out when we win. Now we see that its just a buzz word politics get behind to try and win us over, because drugs are bad and they don't like drugs. I think everyone would agree that most drugs do have a lot of harmful side effects, but why don't we kill two birds with one stone and legalize pot. I'm not saying this from a personal stand point because I don't smoke, but it would ease the burden of the "war," and think of how many people could manufacture and sell it to give our economy a shift kick. I mean alcohol is way worse than pot will ever be and that craps everywhere. But i digress, no one knows where the lines are anymore when it comes to fighting the war on drugs, do we let the government try to handle it, the lone rangers doing what they can to stop the dealers, or do we just ignore it and see what happens? I don't honestly know
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the war on drugs has gone on too long. No one cares anymore if you ask me. First of all I would like to clear up that I am not for drugs and do not want anything to be legalized for that matter, but if a man is doing drugs and is causing no harm to anyone but himself, it should not matter. It is his fault that he is being an idiot and causing harm to himself to get some high that only gives a short period of satisfaction. I think the line should stop when drugs are the cause of violence. It is easier said than done because there are so many situations than can result because of drugs, but each situation should be reviewed, and then someone can decide a verdict. The war on drugs will never stop because somewhere in this world, drugs will also be produced and grown. This is a war that cannot be won or lost, but it can certainly be controlled.
ReplyDeleteCluster fuck sundae. Matt I gotta hand it to you, I laughed my ass off when I read that. Anyways I agree with Matt completely. I’m not saying weed is good for you, but neither is drinking. In fact drinking alcohol kills more brain cells than smoking weed does. I think the government should cash in on marijuana just like they do everything else. Do you realize how much additional tax money they could bring in from a tax of marijuana? A hell of a lot. Just like they tax the hell out of everything else we buy. All in all take something like weed, legalize it, tax it, and focus in on the stuff that is really killing people. There will never be an end to this “war on drugs” in the same way that there will never be an end to the war on terror. This “war” will never end because it makes money, on both sides. People selling this crap and the amount of jobs that go into trying to stop it. So really the government almost needs this to go on after the amount of money they have already invested into it and the amount of jobs that would be lost if there were no longer a problem to deal with.
ReplyDeleteI found many comments, from the article, very interesting. Like how the campaigning on ‘the drug war’ made a big difference with children growing up and understanding some of the issues that go along with using illegal drugs, and how it became acceptable for them to say no. The comment that was even more interesting, that I did not know, was how after all the campaigning and how much the issue had been in the public eye, it made virtually no impact on the “hard-core” adult drug users. This war on drugs has gone on for so long that it does not really feel like a war, just a way of life. It is no longer a sock to turn on the TV and find the show Celebrity Rehab or Intervention. Both of which take you into the lives of drug addicts and how they are trying to quit their addiction. So can we even call it a war anymore? Like one of the character said in one of the clips, “it isn’t a war because wars come to an end.” So are we ever going to see an end to this ‘war on drugs’?
ReplyDeleteAs much as we all want the drugs to disappear and end the war on drugs, it won't happen. We won't have a world like Pandora, and drugs will always be there. People will always be buying, smuggling, and doing whatever to try and get drugs. Although we can probably bring the drug use down, eliminating it would just impossible. So lets just face the facts, drugs will never be gone. The article used the word "war" to unify the people to help fight the war, but we all cant ever be unified under this circumstance, and I think drugs are a personal choice. I can't really say that legalizing it might help control it, but marijuana is used for medicinal purposes anyway to relieve pain and its not as bad as alcohol. Anyways like I said, I can't really say how things will work out but the fact of the matter is stressing the issue more than it needs to be stressed might not be the right way of going about it.
ReplyDeleteBased on the results of various prohibitions, I think that it is safe to say that prohibition does not work. Take abortion and prostitution for example. When abortion was illegal, women resorted to dangerous back-alley abortions (and how else did the wire hanger urban legend arise. Obviously, the illegality of prostitution does not work either. Instead of trying to curb the problem, women now sell their bodies to the black market. It is just the same with drugs. The "War on Drugs" has lumped anybody who uses drugs into the same category as drug dealers, kingpins, thugs, etc. Wouldn't drug use be safer if the government took it into their own hands? Drug dealers would no longer be necessary, the DEA would not need to fight cartels from other countries, and users could rest assured that the drugs were not contaminated. Even if they just legalized weed, they would not only make sin tax money, but they would rob the black market of any money that they profited from pot. It wouldn't be a gateway drug anymore either, since the only reason it has a stepping stone effect is a result of its legal status. The Reagans did not do much to help either. By telling kids to just say no, Nancy gave drugs the forbidden fruit appeal, and Ronald put crack in the hood anyway (just kidding...or not). Regardless, this "war on drugs" is worthless and has done nothing but overcrowd prisons and unveil corruption within the government.
ReplyDeleteIn response to both Matt and Sam’s comment about legalizing pot, I would like to be the devil’s advocate by saying that even though people smoke weed and get away with it all the time, it doesn’t mean it’s ethical and should be legalized. Yeah, yeah you can debate the positives, how it can serve a medical purpose and why weed isn’t that bad until you’re blue in the face. It’s an overly debated subject that will never ever be passed through legislation. But for those who believe it still can be passed, American government officials will never take a shortcut and blow off an issue because “everyone does it so we mind as well give up.” Shortcuts do not better society; identifying the cause and taking small steps at a time will allow us to progress. I found it interesting that three presidents admitted to losing the war on drugs. I agree that it is impossible to fully stop drug usage but winning the war on drugs to me is being able to move a nation towards being aware of the negative side effects of drugs and lessoning the impact they have on society. It doesn’t really help that celebrities from Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan are crack divas but I hope that younger generations see that drugs have not gotten these people anywhere in life and it most likely won’t get them anywhere either.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "War on drugs" is widely used and I believe it is truly misunderstood by most. With so many people not really understanding a concept that we, as a population, are trying to promote, how can they support it. I find it interesting that it is called a war at all, war is a violent word, is is associated more with killing people and being destructive than with preventing anything at all. I do believe that the government could still pass a law that would alter drug use to a certain extent, but not until the term "war on drugs" can be better identified and understood. I agree with those who say the government will never give up simply because the majority of people use the drugs. I too found it fascinating that the president would admit a loss to a war on drugs, but not because its drugs, but because it is a loss to a cause that has been supported for decades. We will never be able to stop drugs, they are not as well understood as they should be by those who use them, maybe that is why they are using, im not here to judge. As long as drugs are being supported with people who are looked up to, this "war will not succeed". Society is more prone to witnessing what groups such as the government don't want to be known for. If you think about how much positive ideals are represented in the news or by celebrities, there is very little. Suciety witnesses these terrible things in the media such as violent crimes, death, drugs, and I feel we begin to accept it as being part of our identity. We are not just what we see however, we can be much more or much less, we must not follow the trends, we should be promoting fee thinking, not to be what everyone shows you you are limited to. People will always be out there that want to do what may be illegal or taboo, because there will always be someone who wants to know why this is identified the way it is.
ReplyDeleteI thought that these wars were just a trend. War on drug or the war on terrorism. Ibuprofen is a drug, should we ban that? War cause fear in people so they are likely to agree with the leader. Wording is the key to make people listen. Wars like these will usually never end because the opponent is immortal. There will always be someone that wants to break the law unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteThis modern age prohibition is just another phase. Just because drugs kill faster than alcohol, it's somehow more acceptable for alcohol. Alcohol, if it were to be discovered today, would definitely be labeled a narcotic and illegal. If you think about it, why would we willingly drink poison to our bodies, if it had no benefits? This war on drugs is just another trend, just as alcohol was a trend.
ReplyDeleteCalling this problem a "war on drugs" was a very smart trategic move on Reagan's part. By doing this he moved it from an issue to a problem. It is a serious problem that so much of our population is addicted to drugs. When people are under the influence of drugs they endanger the lives of others around them. I feel that the government should be doing MORE to stop this drug issue. I feel that it wouldn't be too terribly hard to put an end to it once and for all if the government really tried.
ReplyDelete