100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Exam 3 (NOTES). £7.16   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

Exam 3 (NOTES).

 0 view  0 purchase

Exam of 9 pages for the course 126 MTTC English as a Second Language at 126 MTTC English as a Second Language (Exam 3 (NOTES).)

Preview 2 out of 9  pages

  • June 5, 2024
  • 9
  • 2023/2024
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
All documents for this subject (82)
avatar-seller
denicetho
Exam 3 (NOTES)
Drug Norms - ANS-Define the non-medical use of certain drugs as deviant by the
physical properties of the drugs

Determinants of Deviance/Illegality in Relation to Drugs - ANS-Addiction, social harm,
and pharmacology (lethal dose)

Effects of Drugs - ANS-Dosage; purity/potency; drug mixing (synergistic/multiplier
effect); method of administration; habituation (tolerance development)

Anti-Drug Laws Development - ANS-Often, laws have targeted drug use that is further
removed from white middle class usage; laws target minority drug use patterns

Anti-Opium Ordinance - ANS-Developed in 1875 in San Francisco; first anti-drug law in
the US; largely enabled law enforcement to search and raid the homes and business of
Chinese people

Harrison Act of 1914 - ANS-First *Federal* anti drug use law; regulated the sell & use of
opiates and cocaine; added cocaine to get the support of legislatures from the south;
there was a concern about the use of cocaine by Blacks ("cocaine crazed Negros")

Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 - ANS-Effectively criminalized the possession of marijuana;
had to have a tax stamp to possess marijuana; came about as a bias toward people
from Mexico

Boggs Act of 1952/Narcotics Control Act of 1956 - ANS-Established harsh mandatory
minimums for drug offenses

Early 1970s - ANS-Congress repealed most of the mandatory minimums from the 50s
because they were seen as being unduly harsh and they were ineffective in preventing
the emergence of a drug subculture in the late 60s

1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act - ANS-This legislation (along with a 1984 bill) mandated
harsh mandatory penalties for drug offense, established the death penalty for drug king
pins, and established the "3 strikes and you're out" policy

"Three Strikes You're Out" Policy - ANS-3rd conviction = life in prison

, Netherlands - ANS-Residents of the Netherlands are *less* likely to smoke pot than
those in the US; smoking weed in the Netherlands is actually *not* legalized; looking at
it through the lens of *harm reduction*; one of their goals is to separate the soft drug
market from the hard drug market (think it makes it more difficult for people to move
from soft to hard drugs)

Federal Prison Percent Drug Offenders - ANS-1970 was 16.3%; 1986 when the
Anti-Drug Abuse Act was enacted was 37.7%; 1994 was 61.3%

State Prison Percent Drug Offenders - ANS-Whites saw a 110.6% increase from 1986
to 1991 with 13.2% being drug offenses; Blacks saw a 465.5% increase with 26.6%
being drug offenses

Cocaine Sentencing Disparity (at the Federal Level) - ANS-5g of crack will get you a 5
year mandatory minimum; 500g of powder cocaine will get you the same 5 year
mandatory minimum

50g of crack will get you a 10 year mandatory minimum; 5,000g of powder cocaine will
get you that 10 year mandatory minimum

By 1997, *Sentencing Commission* recommended that Congress reduce this disparity;
Congress didn't listen to it and kept it until 2008

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 - ANS-Reduced the disparity; to get a 5 year
mandatory minimum you must possess 28g (1 ounce) and there must be evidence that
you are intending to sell; powder is still 500g; *DISPARITY IS NOW 18:1 AS APPOSED
TO 100:1*; 10 year mandatory minimum is now 280g

Kyllo v United States - ANS-Dealt with the use of infrared technology & thermal imaging

Fourth Amendment - ANS-Discussing issues with search and seizure; must have a
warrant

Illinois v Caballes 2005 - ANS-Drug sniffing dogs at a legal traffic stop; not a search so
you don't need a warrant

Florid v Jardines 2013 - ANS-Drug sniffing dogs at the front door of a person's home
constitutes a search so a warrant is required

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller denicetho. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £7.16. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

66475 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now

Start selling
£7.16
  • (0)
  Add to cart