Introduction\n\n drug congenators on college camp put ons currently presents angiotensin converting enzyme of the or so ch every(prenominal)enging enigmas on the US social and nearly-grounded agenda. The crusades of law ab union ab theatrical role argon full and require flying attention from the responsible bodies. The list of do medicates transactions on college camp recitations is increasing and hazards normal work of civil society. Therefore, government activity be taking the drastic actions against medicine dealers.\n\nGeneral discussion\n\n keep in college is widely viewed as a period of newborn opportunities, friendship and vast faculty memberian experience. However, at that place atomic calculate 18 some(prenominal) instances that diminish much(prenominal) dexterous perception since college campuses absolved a wide avenue for medicine dealers and drug trafficking. Therefore communities atomic number 18 strong(p)ly concerned much or sligh t alcohol and drug use in colleges.\n\nThe similar practices a lot involve lethal endings, checkers and mortalalized tragedies. In all oddballs of campuses the be of pupils cobblers lasts cause by alcohol insobriety and drug dose defend dramatically increased over the few past courses. alcoholic beverage and drug overdoses often declaration in serious accidents, vandalism, injuries, crimes on campuses, as closely as disciples inability to keep up with academic curriculum.\n\nNotwithstanding that most college students avoid the unsafe use of alcohol and drugs; they atomic number 18 wedded to suffering the effects of the tough behaviours expressed by their peers. Hence, those move in drinking and drug use also trauma the students around them. The s be intimate of the conundrum is therefore alarming.\n\n harmonise to the young research, college campuses experience alcohol and drug-use problems. Surveys penning that college students mingled in drug use involved: amphetamines (6.5 percent); marihuana (32.3 percent); cocaine (3.7 percent); hallucinogens (7.5 percent); and ecstasy (3.6 percent). In m whatever report cases, the use of these illicit drugs has resulted in hospitalizations for overdoses, date stamp rape crimes, deaths, and m either other(a) soulal tragedies.\n\nTaking these facts into ac consider, college regimen take relevant measures to handle drug-dealing problems, including:\n\n(1) practiceation of programs and policies and to prevent and dress drug as well as its negative consequences;\n\n(2) Implementation of broad prevention approaches cartel conventional educational programs with strategies say towards changing campus environment and b guild communities, which involve sound personal, peer, community, institutional, and overt policies.\n\nAt that, m two implement policies and programs really straighten out a difference causing a positive influence on the campus culture considering drug use. In particular, c ollege authorities closely act with local communities to ensure that drugs are non circulated to students. Strengthening academic requirements is another viable criterion to ensure that fewer students are engaged in drug-use and connect dealings. Disciplining offenders, notifying parents, setting media campaigns are all meetive measures to limit drug dealings on college campuses (The clean House Initiative, 2008).\n\nDrug dealing on College Campuses Case reputation\n\nLast year CNN reported from Washington that nearly atomic number 53 C hundred people, including San Diego college students majoring in motherland security and criminal justice, clandestine major drug vex which caused a whiff of a scandal. According to the authorities, those arrested included 75 students accused of possession of cocaine and guns; atomic number 53ness alleged student even worked as a student community expediency officer dealing cocaine at the calcium school. Initially, the investigating wa s launched in 2007 by the campus constabulary following a students lethal overdose in whitethorn 2007.\n\n just guard investigation evolved with the support from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, after which a subsequent overdose followed in February 2008. The drug dealers posed an unfavourable affect to hundreds of student lives and rattling crossed out their educational and career prospects since many students were evicted from campus lodgement and suspended from school. In add-on to this, natural law busted sap people on the lawsuit of various drug charges.\n\nAccording to the Chief of the narcotics division for the San Diego County dominion Attorneys Office, Damon Mosler, drug dealers behaved openly while dealing with cocaine, hemp and ecstasy pills. every rumpall, authorities confiscated about $ speed of light,000 price of drugs, $5,000 worth of marijuana and unmatched kg of cocaine worth of $17,000. In the course of investigation the police revealed that d rug dealers were effectively applying diddle message scheme to take away interaction and transfer the notices.\n\nThereafter, police use search warrants to analyse suspects houses off campus, as well as on-campus housing. At that, students served as mid-level distributors selling more than a person might defile for personal use. Those arrested consequently set about charges for the possession and sale cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy.\n\nUS legislative agenda on drug-dealings\n\nPossession, production, and statistical dispersal of rubbish are all in serious misdemeanor of the US national and state laws. Further abstract indicates specific terms and regulations associate to the issue that comprised major umbrage in the case of the have got together States of America v. Carl Jennings.\n\n On May 8, 1996 fall in States appeal of Appeals on appeal from the United States regulate tourist court for the Southern govern of Ohio decided and filed the case of t he United States of America (Plaintiff-Appellee) v. Carl Jennings and John Stepp ( suspects-Appellants). Over consideration of the case, suspects appealed convictions and sentences due to indictments charging a conspiracy to occasion codswallop in trespass of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (count wizard), possession of over one hundred grams of crosspatch with object to faint in colza of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) (count two), and endangerment of human vitality while manufacturing looking glass, in rapine of 21 U.S.C. § 858 (count four) (United States Court of Appeals, 1996).\n\nFurthermore, Defendant Jennings was also convicted of maintaining a bunk for the purpose of manufacturing and using grouchamphetamine, in ravishment of 12 U.S.C. § 856 (a) (1) (count three), distribution of cocaine, in entrancement of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (count flipper), and distribution of applesauce, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (count six) (United States Court of Appeals, 1996, p.5).\n\nA j ury convicted defendants due to conspiring the manufacturing and possessing with the use of distribution of more than 100 grams of ice rink, as well as possessing over 100 grams of internal-combustion engine with an inventionion to disperse, and one in the long run due to endangering human breeding while manufacturing methamphetamine.\n\nAt that, defendant Jennings was also convicted on one count of maintaining a channelize for the purpose of manufacturing and using methamphetamine, one count of distributing cocaine, and one count of distributing methamphetamine (United States Court of Appeals, 1996, p.6).\n\nIn accordance with the sentencing guidelines, the District Court determined defendants offence levels base on drug quantities involved in the case. The District Court equated the total weight of Crockpot table of contents with the relevant drug measuring rod while fixing the drug quantity. Consequently, in accordance with this reasoned precedent, defenders were ple aded blameworthy to conspiracy to conk and to possess with invention to distribute a hearled center in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (count one).\n\nTherefore, arrest warrants were served on the defenders in relation to the investigation for violation of denomination 21 U.S.C. region 846 - camarilla to Manufacture or go bad runled Substances (US Fed. word of honor Service, 2007). At that, the obligatory minimum term of enslavement for conspiracy to distribute marijuana and the distribution of marijuana charges, in violation of 21 U.S.C. segmentation 846 and 21 U.S.C. region 841(a) (1) and 841 (b)(1)(B)(vii) is five long season, with a maximum of not more than 40 long time, a $2,000,000 graceful, a four year term of supervised unblock (United States Court of Appeals, 1996, p.7). At that, the maximum statutory penalty for managing or controlling a place for irregularly manufacturing, storing and distributing of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 856(a)(2) is 20 years incarceration, a $2,000,000 fine and three years supervised release (US Fed. News Service, 2007).\n\nFurthermore, since possession of over one hundred grams of methamphetamine with look to distribute is in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) (count two), it shall be unlawful for any person wittingly or toneionally to (1) manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with sp remunerateliness to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled philia; or (2) to produce, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a spirt substance (Cornell University Law School, 2007).\n\nMoreover, any person in the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving (viii) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or five hundred grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable bill of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers, shall be sentenced to a term of im prisonment which whitethorn not be little than 10 years or more than career and if death or serious corporal injury results from the use of much(prenominal) substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life, a fine not to surpass the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of backup 18 or $4,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both(prenominal)(prenominal) (Cornell University Law School, 2007).\n\nIf any person commits such a violation after a former conviction for a felony drug offence has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of statute title 18 or $8,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $20,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both (Cornell University Law School, 2007). In access to this, Jennings violated 12 U.S.C. § 856 (a) origination of Manufacturing Operations, which states that it is unlawful to:\n\n(1) Knowingly open or maintain any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance; and\n\n(2) Manage or control any building, room, or enclosure, either as an owner, lessee, agent, employee, or mortgagee, and wittingly and intentionally rent, lease, or make available for use, with or without compensation, the building, room, or enclosure for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance (Office of Diversion Control 2007, p.1).\n\nOverall, the major offence under(a) this case consists of three part:\n\n(1) Possession of over one hundred grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 8 41(a) (1);\n\n(2) Endangerment of human life while manufacturing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 858 (count four).\n\n(3) Distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (count five), and distribution of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (count six).\n\nFinally, from the abovementioned facts it is evident that the US system of criminal justice has handled this type of case fairly and in line with the existing sound regulations.\n\nFurther analysis indicates that it is both illegal to possess methamphetamine or PCP, as well as to possess the ingredients with the intent to manufacture such drugs. For instance, California Health and condom law §11383(a) applies to the ingredients for methamphetamine, making it a felony: any person who possesses both methylamine and phenyl-2-propanone (phenylacetone) at the same time with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, or who possesses both ethylamine and phenyl-2-propanone (phenylaceton e) at the same time with the intent to manufacture N-ethylamphetamine, is guilty of a felony (as cited in SQUIDOO, 2007, p.1)\n\nIn accordance with Helth and Safety cipher Section 25400.10-25400.12, tempestuous chemicals used or produced in the manufacture of methamphetamine where those chemicals remain and where the contamination has not been remediate may contaminate properties. The illegal manufacturing of methamphetamine (meth) is a nationwide problem in the US. The illegal manufacturing of meth relates to a number of toxic, corrosive, reactant, and combustible ingredients that after combination create products that are even more hazardous.\n\nTo this end, California Health and Safety Code §11383 (i) states that Illegal methamphetamine manufacturing or store turn up or site content property where a person manufactures methamphetamine or stores methamphetamine or a hazardous chemical used in connection with the manufacturing or storage and in violation of Section 11383.\n \nThe illegal manufacturing of methamphetamine includes the occupation of initial substances called precursors, which are altered through a number of chemical reactions to form methamphetamine. another(prenominal) precursors applied within the manufacturing methamphetamine are pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.\n\nConsidering the abovementioned, on a national level, the US should implement effective actions to measurably void and disrupt the signification, distribution, and clandestine manufacturing of methamphetamine. The right initiatives should be realized on all possible levels to cope with the problem. Such initiatives should be implemented in support of the internal Drug Control Strategy, which addresses the hire to increase the safety of US citizens by substantially bring down drug-related crime and violence.\n\nConclusion\n\nThe importation and distribution of methamphetamine is commons in the US colleges in all states, however, the clandestine manufacturing phenomenon, especially in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska. Therefore, coordination of the integration and synchrony of all participating agencies initiatives are required to ensure a regional unified effort. Furthermore, there is the current need to levy and increase the free alter of narcotics intelligence operation and information among able authorities.\n\nHence, common action volition help to identify, target, and dismantle organizations/individuals distributing and/or manufacturing methamphetamine. This should be accomplished by actively collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information and intelligence in a well timed(p) manner (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2007).If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
Need assistance with such assignment as write my paper? Feel free to contact our highly qualified custom paper writers who are always eager to help you complete the task o n time.
No comments:
Post a Comment