Conflict Theorists

Conflict system was developed from the denote that the structural functionalism system neglected appointment in decree and was politically conservative. This infringe supposition also addressed the comprehend failure of structural functionalism to account for spay in society (Ritzer, 1992, p. 61). This theory has evolved to embroil elements of structural functionalism and traditional Marxist management on dominant and subordinate groups.Conflict theory often depicts a polarization of the forces of righteousness and order on the one run and left wing political activists and nonage group members reacting to what they saw as luxuriant police repression of political protests and urban riots on the other (Giffen, et al. , 1991, pp. 8-9) This aspect of appointment theory assumes, however, that the dominant and subordinate groups are more than or less homogenized in nature.Most research in the field of medicate policy recently, however, deals with power being regain in institutional structures in society such as economic, governmental and spectral institutions (Giffen, et al. 1991, p. 10) that do not presuppose homogenous groups. An example of this would be the comment of Riley later on attending a conference on drug issues in the United States, where he remarked that many researchers felt the real soil for the war on drugs in that democracy was that it helped to suppress blacks and minorities. (Riley 1994b) One of the failings of conflict theory becomes apparent when researchers in the history of this enactment find half-size in the real discussion of the laws that pertains to race.Giffen, et al. (1991) write that the early legislations dominion proponents had the altruistic aims of supporting the international anti-opium motion despite the anti-Chinese sentiment of the times (p. 525). The concomitant that the laws were used solely against the Chinese at first is indicative of this anti-Chinese sentiment, and not the population of the laws themselves. Later legislation was driven in general by enforcement officials, as there was little in the way of public holler for more rigorous anti-opium legislation (p. 525).Johns (1991) below the heading Race The Creation of an adversary Class, writes bluntly The enforcement tactics of the War on Drugs are focussed on minority populations (p. 155). In her paper, Johns (1991) posits that the War on Drugs takes management away from the factors which down the stairslie the problems of drugs and trafficking, partly because the more powerful segments in society (p. 150) do not want attention focused the poor job they are doing to bring around the ills of society. Johns also expands the group being crush to include the poor, who founder been hit with monumental housing and health care cuts under the Republican Presidencies.The dichotomy between those in power and minorities and the poor is self-perpetuating, in that these groups have a limited upward mobility (and, con sequently crimes like trafficking in illicit drugs becomes appealing), and when they do try to increase their wealth with illicit means, those in power attend to that as justification for minorities and the poor being in the position they are in. The conflict theory is problematic in describing wherefore there is a war on drugs. It may help to explain (as Johns (1991) successfully does) why a War on Drugs continues in the U. S. , but leaves unanswered questions when use to other situations.