If a parent sees their child is not exactly on time in development or acting perfectly age appropriate they run to get their child evaluated to seek help.
Do you have research to support this claim? I can see what you mean, but you have to support each point.
These statistics highlight the point that as a society people have shifted from the need to be naturally perfect to realizing perhaps they are not perfect.
I'm not following what you mean here.
In past generations, even in the early twenty-first century people viewed diagnosis as a scary thing.
This is a claim you'd need to support with evidence/research.
In a study has done students without ADHD took Adderall to report how it makes them feel and react.
Unclear. What about the study? There's a strong need for more information about what's going on in this paragraph.
obviously
avoid the word "obviously" in academic writing—assume that little to nothing is obvious, but has to be discussed
unfortunately "obviously" takes on a bit of a combative tone with the reader (if they don't think it's obvious, does that mean they are reading wrongly?)
Hopkins “the study’s focus period
In a Johns Hopkins study conducted "from 2006...
67 percent”.
in-text citation
the need for medicine to combat ADHD was on the rise
This seems fundamental to your paper—it gives it a sense of being about something, a conversation. Was the need real or artificial? This is an interesting chicken or the egg kind of question. Was the increase in diagnosis creating the sense of a sudden "demand," or was the increase in diagnosis a real biproduct of social change, requiring a real drug to attenuate the problem? Why did it jump so much? That's a central question of your paper.
erhaps this is why people only should stop taking the drug by recommendation of the doctor and often it is done a gradual process in order to lessen the effects of the withdrawal symptoms.
This sounds more like the fine print of information about a drug—which I get, you're talking about a drug—but there should be some clear point you're making in your paper. I don't see one here other than just supplying all of the WebMD information about adderall.
“withdrawal symptoms including severe tiredness, sleep problems, mental/mood changes such as depression”
Again, this is another source that isn't going to give you star quotables. You can just paraphrase and cite this information.
doctor may decide to stop taking
well the doctor isn't the one taking it
Based on the extent of one’s ADHD and how their body response would be the catalyst for a need to increase the dosage
incomplete sentence
emotions”.
page number?
Flanigan
You would benefit from recognizing more context to this source here—the full author name, venue of the publication, and the fact that it's from an article arguing that young people should have more and seemingly undiagnosed access to adderall (just skimmed—you verify).
Adderall may be a simpler choice for many requiring less of the dosage to be taken as well as the ability to take it less frequently throughout the day.
What is/are your source(s) for all of this information?
10-12 hours, whereas Ritalin lasts for 6-12 hours.
This is the primary difference? I suppose the low ends differ, but you're saying they both last up to about 12 hours. They don't seem all that differentiated by this factor.
Another potential possibility is that there were actually more children developing ADHD
What does your research say about the likelihood of these possibilities?
According to Healthline “ADHD cases began to climb significantly in the 1990s. There may be a few factors behind the rise in diagnoses: doctors were able to diagnose ADHD more efficiently, more parents were aware of ADHD and are reporting their children’s symptoms, more children were actually developing ADHD. More and more medications to treat the disorder became available as the number of ADHD cases rose. The medications also became more effective at treating ADHD. Many have long-acting benefits for patients who need relief from symptoms for longer periods”
It doesn't feel necessary to your paper to quote all this. You're quoting Healthline—not a place that's going to give you quotable lines. You could paraphrase the most important information.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder or ADHD was first introduced in 1902 by a pediatric doctor named Sir George.
cite your sources! use in-text citations throughout
Although Adderall is extremely beneficial to those suffering from ADHD it is also commonly obtained and consumed illegally by people who abuse it.
Good—this sets up the facts of the matter. Is there then a position (doesn't need to be too strong of one, but one) you could take based on your research? That it's overprescribed, for example (something with more nuance based on what you've found), or something else?
The category of drugs that is interesting to explore is a medication taken daily to deal with behaviors.
Sentence doesn't feel necessary. Can jump right into the meat and potatoes of your paper.
futurist
futurist?
about it and
about it, and
safety reasons
how so?
Popper
MLA style suggests that your first introduction of an author's name should probably be the full name, especially when their name could sound like a brand, like Popper.
as explained by the U.S Congress,
Well, these reports have an author, but at a minimum you could work on the phrasing here—that a U.S. Report (context here) suggests, "..." —and vary that phrasing in the subsequent signal phrases.
the World or Blue Apron for the extremely low price and one-time fee of $1-$10
You're saying that a hack opened up to be able to do this without paying for the subscription? Just clarifying.
painful, Norton
comma splice
four U.S healthcare organizations
context?
Experian
who's this?
, ‘
use double quotation marks throughout: " " use single quotation marks just for a quote within a quote "he turned to me and said, 'this is an example.'"
all hope was lost
good moment to be very clear with what you mean, even if it feels obvious—hope for what?
government’
government's
the dark web
well...users on the dark web, more than the web itself, right?
$50,000 bank account for just $500, obtaining $3,000 worth of counterfeit bills for only $600, or purchasing the services of a hitman
source?
the dark web tailored to mostly criminals
Again, without saying what the dark web really is, you're losing readers.
network, ‘A lot of
Need more signal phrasing here—this is just a comma splice leading into an un-introduced quote.
the dark web
Should, in a phrase, say what the dark web is from the very start. You can say more as you go.
still culturally relevant today and a model of the morality of marijuana
both of these are assumptions—and didn't you just claim yourself that no one can say what is or is not moral?
Marijuana is not immoral at all and in reality it was really thoughts of the past and people who were greedy who made it this way
vastly overgeneralizing and assumptive
Big Pharma and racist people of the 20th century helped spread the idea that Marijuana was immoral and caused immoral activity due to their own greed and immoral thought process.
this isn't discussed in your essay
It seems that the more open minded a person is and the more thinking they do for themselves the more okay they are with marijuana.
assumption
then you’re going to come to your own conclusions on whether it is or isn’t moral
assumption
odds are you’re gonna believe that the use of marijuana is morally wrong
Actually, no, the odds are not that. In fact, there is some evidence that directly contradicts this claim. It would however be prudent to note how certain religious tenants direct attitudes towards alcohol, but you need to use more evidence and offer more nuance in your claims.
it was embedded into your thought process from an early age
cannot just say this without evidence
but who can say who is right
Many can. In fact, the issue of who says what is right is the problem you're identifying itself: the people, the state, thinkers, believers—who should?
Morality is not something that a single person can define,
There have been centuries of long, multi-dimensional philosophical debates about ethics. You can't dismiss all of morality and ethics so easily.
Richard Garlikov a Philosophy professor who has taught at the University of Michigan and the University of Troy states in his essay “Morality and Law” “
We discussed how this is not a credible source.
A lot of people if they don’t already see a problem with it in the eyes of god, have a problem with it because it is illegal.
You need evidence to support this claim.
In part due to racism in that time, marijuana was associated with both illegal immigrants and the
You have not demonstrated how the film is related to race, or why this is an important thing to discuss in 2019.
America was far more racist and people were scared at the thought of African Americans, parents felt that if they had kids doing things that African Americans were doing, they were failing. African Americans and other minorities were thought to be violent and thuggish so if they were using marijuana the drug must cause these acts, an incredibly ludicrous statement, but this was the thought process of the times. In the movie the characters are enticed to try marijuana and after they do all hell breaks lose and they turn into violent crazy people. This simply shows how at the time people had grave misconceptions on the drug and were not taught correctly about it. Even marijuanas strongest critics today see reefer madness as a total joke, but this shows the hard climb Marijuana has had to get back to a morally positive substance.
Regardless of the truth and validity of the claim (it certainly is true and valid), it doesn't work here without any evidence, or material of substance. In a paper like this you need to support claims you make with statistical, analytical, cultural, historical, or other forms of support. The reader will not "take your word for it."
“Long before
lacks signal phrasing
Gramuglia,2017
This source is not in your bibliography.
one of the worst films ever made
by whom?
Reefer Madness
You should probably offer some brief description and context of the film
Barry Gordon, a 1981 graduate of the Ohio State University College of Medicine and a founding fellow of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine, who resides and runs his own cannabis clinic in Venice Florida is very outspoken on the topic.
Good context, but this is still not a credible source to call upon for sheer information. You could analyze his rhetoric and think about it in the context of the information you provide, but this is not a credible source to share a reliable perspective from in and of itself—because it is from a site that promotes its own brand and sale of marijuana, and a blog on selling the product.
Lovering points out that over 23 million Americans use recreational drugs today that are illegal and that over 80 million have admitted to using some before in life.
Use page number in-text citations
The author Rob Lovering wrote the book “A Moral Defense of Recreational Drug Use” because he was motivated over the fact that he felt Marijuana and other recreational drugs are under fire for reasons that don’t make sense.
We discussed the ethos of this author being somewhat problematic, and that you need to place the text in more context.
drug use.
again, and throughout: cite
Transversely
check word choice
In the United States today there is a direct link to states which have high religious percentage have the lowest drug use percentage such as Alabama, Utah, Mississippi, and Tennessee
This is a strong finding, but has to be cited properly.
religious people aren’t just listening to the land of the law and are using religion as their main moral compass is the fact the Bible and Quran preach getting drunk is immoral
This is, at least in the Christian religion, also open to interpretations. See: how much Catholics can drink.
Religious people look towards the words of their sacred texts to guide them in life and help them make moral decisions that way and this is why religious people feel that marijuana is immoral, even if it may not be imprudent or illegal in all areas.
Another overgeneralization
Religious people see the use of marijuana as immoral regardless of it is harmful to the user or those around them due to the fact that it alters the mind and replaces the spirit of god in the user’s mind.
Overgeneralization
an intoxicant.”
Citation?
“When we choose to ingest mind-altering substances, we are effectively choosing to give ourselves over to the control of something other than the Holy Spirit. Anything that takes control of our mind, will, and emotions is a false god. Any master we obey other than the Lord is an idol, and idolatry is sin”
needs signal phrasing
Religion has been around since the beginning of written word as humans have always been interested in why things are the way they are. Almost all of human history every civilization has looked to a higher power to answer the questions that they couldn’t themselves and they’ve also looked towards a higher power to give them a moral compass to live by. Almost all major religions that are practiced in the world today whether it be, Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism prohibit the use of substances that intoxicate you and stray your thoughts away from God.
Begins too vaguely here, and needs to be less overgeneralizing. Open with a more concrete conversation—what is this paragraph suggesting? Then explore evidence.
So what I want to solely look at is the use of marijuana by a responsible human an immoral act if it is why? And if it isn’t why not?
Without drawing in more voices and depth in this paragraph, you are ostensibly repeating what you've said in the previous paragraph, mostly.
Morality as stated above is about the distinction between right and wrong but who can truly say what is right and what is wrong?
This is an oversimplification of ethical philosophy.
What makes the drug immoral in certain people’s eyes and how we we even define the term immorality anyway?
Needs to conclude with a statement about what your research suggests.
What I am interested in looking into the arguments
delete "what"
Marijuana is the topic of discussion because people would agree a substance like heroin is immoral and not right to do, and on the opposite side of the spectrum, most people would say that a substance like Coffee is perfectly fine.
Unclear what your point is—that you think marijuana fits in the middle of this spectrum? A fairly objective claim without some kind of logos.
there’s still a stigma
Evidence?
I think has people most divided
What evidence do you have to support this claim? Sheer opinion is misleading in the context of a research-oriented paper.
of who you are you have an opinion on it.
This is an example of what we discussed in class as "playing god." You're making a claim about all people, one that doesn't hold up.
Who decides what is and isn’t moral? Morality is a very subjective thing and nobody truly has the exact same moral standards as any other person on earth. Morality is defined as the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Many people look towards religion or legality as the end all be all to what is and isn’t moral
We discussed this a bit in peer review workshop—in that it starts very vaguely here. You're making an important point in the largest sense, but you need to offer some more specific mode of entry into your paper. Perhaps there is some perspective you could offer on the kind of moral relativism you're trying to suggest—something more concrete and direct.
There’s not much data that shows any relationship between socioeconomic status, political ideologies, or race when it comes to who does and who does not partake in substance abuse.
A quick review of research seems to suggest this is inaccurate.
paradox
again, this isn't really a paradox by definition
D. D. Palmer, was a magnetic healer practicing in the Midwest in the late 1800s. He claimed that he once cured a janitor’s deafness by manipulating his neck.
also plagiarized
Various theories focus on the small facet joints in the spine, on repositioning disc material, on reducing muscle tension or stiffness, and on other possibilities.
This is plagiarized. Yes you cite the source you took it from, but you write it off as your own writing instead of noting that it's taken verbatim.
As Opioids are not a sham product they do alleviate pain but work most effectively for a short period and in sync with non pharmacological remedies.
There are several moments in your paper where you need to offer more transparency of research via in-text citations.
initially.
initially, suggesting that "if...
Millions of Americans suffer from back pain annually and similarly millions of prescriptions are written for opioids to treat them. We quickly shun opioids today because of their addictive nature that wasn’t apparent initially and has brought us to an epidemic. Opioids were a solution in a sense, for many years, in which doctors had found a universal medication that cures all pain. Opioids made pain management easy for doctors because it moved the growing number of patients as hospital and medical practice spaces are limited and the number of patients seeming unlimited.
There's some redundancy here with text prior.
Doctors liberally
how liberally?
The origins of the ten point scale that doctors or nurses ask patients in hospitals is well intentioned.
Ah--this would have been important to mention when you were talking about how pain rx's speed up doctor choices.
. (Saunders, et al. )
place the period after the in-text citation ...osis (Saunders, et al.).
These include most importantly pain and as Fridovich described as “emotionally and physically draining”.
unclear sentence
Since opioids are commonly prescribed for chronic pains the efficacy is diminished as stated above since the user is not only dependant because the pain doesn’t secede but on top of that the withdrawal symptoms are opposite to the drugs initial effects.
run-on sentence
Giving the clinical findings that opioids are ineffective in prolonged use such as it is today
incomplete sentence
in doctors angle
unclear
Opioid modest
unclear
despite the settlement
Which settlement? it seems like something has been lost between the previous sentence, which seemed to be talking about something else, and this one. There's nothing about a lawsuit before this.
Similarly to big tobacco opioid manufacturers released false claims that the medicines are not as harmful as they are in reality
when?
its
that they are
Corporate Council Members of the American Pain Society.
It seems like your point here is that the doctor/medical world is in cahoots with big phrama on this issue, but you need to make those connections clearer.
host sponsored meetings
what does this mean?
Purdue had promotional advertising for OxyContin
would be interesting to look at one of their ads for a second in the paper, if you'd like—would add to the depth of your conversation
less time to find exact problem in the patient
do you have research to support this claim?
refer patients with addiction for appropriate treatment have few resources to do s
This is unclear—resources they need to refer them? It seems like few resources are needed to refer them, but that there are more complex issues in play as to whether they will be recognized as in need of referral and referred.
Doctors do not take time to counsel and guid patients about addiction until they are properly paid for doing so.
This feels like a different conversation from the one about who economically benefits from the Rx—big pharma. Perhaps there's a doctor connection, too, but you have to be clear and use your research.
the opioid market being priced at $8.4 billion dollars which was calculated by tracking the use of the medications.
could you say more about the market—who gets the money (concretely—company names), how much goes into advertising, etc? this feels like powerful context for your essay
facile
strange word to repeat
dependant
dependent
market and
market, and (you need the comma when you have two subjects and two verbs—in essence are combining what could have been two complete sentences)
USA Today
no author?
Until doctors finally operated on him which lead him become and advocate against the current practices of Opioid prescriptions.
incomplete sentence
Followed by more fast acting opioids like OxyContin and Roxicet to relieve pain post treatment.
incomplete sentence
highlighted
use present tense when talking about written sources—MLA style
is
are
and
an
users and
users, and
paradox
I'm not sure what the paradox is.
and modernized world
need in-text citations
as said by the White House
Syntax is jarring here—plus, feel like there's a more powerful way to use this information, or to quote what the White House statement said about opioids.
it’s
its
Social media support alone isn’t enough to carry a movement to achieve it’s goal.
This is a good point. It relates a bit to the article I suggested to you ( the one on "The Digital Literacy Myth").
, that
succeed; that is
it’s
its
Just this little demonstration of support is enough for some people to believe they’re contributing to the cause and making a change. Although, if everyone just posted their support on social media and nothing else, there wouldn’t be any change. Without the mobilization of a movement or the physical act of activism, no change will ever come forth.
This, however, is a clearer claim and directly related to social media (however not necessarily related—or would it be from what you've found?—to OWS).
A major aspect could be in the comparison between the stability of the nations as the protests took place. In Egypt’s case, the people were protesting against important issues in their country that had a major affect on their lives. In Chile, the terrible education system had a major influence on the lives of the students who had little chance of a higher education. On the other hand, the Kony 2012 movement was trying to get people to protest for something in a country across the world from them. Whatever was happening in the jungles of Africa had little to no affect on the everyday lives of people in America. And in the Occupy Wall Street movement, the economy was bouncing back from a terrible financial crisis that occurred a few years earlier. Things were starting to stabilize and look better for the nations financial situation. The issue of financial inequality wasn’t as important and affluential to the lives of the protestors and other citizens to keep the movement alive.
Hm...what's interesting about this paragraphs and the scenarios you mention is that it might not really be social media at all that influenced whether a movement was "successful" or not—but a much more complex network of social circumstances and possibility.
So if it bears similarities to successful protests, why did it fail in the case of Occupy Wall Street?
This seems a bit more open to interpretation—in part because the mayor physically ended it with the bulldozing of Zocotti Park.
it’s
its
it’s
its
One
Another
This is just one example of several of movements organized and popularized by social media that ultimately fail to bring about the change they protest for.
Lots of information above lacking in-text citation
it’s
its
it’s
its
While social media use proved to be very influential in the success protests in Egypt and Chile, it’s necessary to view a scenario where social media’s role in other protests regarding less important issues that don’t have such an effect on the lives of the people.
good transition
you
who is "you"?
demonstrations
cite
This wasn’t the dominate medium of which people heard of the protests, as nearly half of the interviewees heard of the event through face-to-face communication, though it still was the second most common source of information.
Need in-text citations above.
2011
Use in-text citations throughout more thoroughly.
Throughout the past decade, a time where social media has grown exponentially in popularity, it has had positive effects on major activism efforts across the globe.
Syntax of this sentence, in particular the "it," is very strange.
while also remaining discrete or anonymous
worth considering how this was done before the internet
it had to be done physically or through word of mouth
I think there a couple other media-oriented modes worth acknowledging.
anyone
well...we think "anyone," but "anyone" really means anyone with an internet access and who uses the internet...which is many but fewer than anyone
With such gargantuan amounts of people on social media, it opens up new possibilities for meeting with people you’ve met online, especially in the aspect of activism.
Needs a sharper point here
has
have
you
social media users
Bibliography
Organize your bibliography by the first letter of the entry, alphabetically, without bullets.
So in cases of drugs they can seize property, cars and etc. and make a lot of money from it, which ultimately goes back to the economic system and can help out police officers.
This information should be recognized and part of your conversation about what the government has to spend
Imagine a healthy teenage athlete named John. John is a regular high school senior that plays football for the high school team and is basically living the all American teenage dream with friends, good grades, and a possible scholarship on the way for his athletic skills. John starts taking prescription opioids with his friends as a method of getting high as well as relieving any strains he receives in his muscles from playing football. Eventually, the drug use that started out as a social activity to do with friends becomes something John continuously does in his private life, getting hooked on it. John’s friends, now noticing their friend is usually more high than sober decide to stop taking the opioids as well as giving them to John. John, now cut off from his source, starts looking elsewhere to get the drugs he needs to support his addiction. He meets a man online willing to sell him opioids for a price that John can’t afford, but still he accepts. Over the next week John’s mom notices a couple of twenty dollar bills missing from her purse and John’s friends on the football team notice that they are missing some bills from their wallets after leaving them in the locker room during practice. John has stolen the money from them and unless they confront him about or take serious action, John is at risk to keep stealing from them or to start robbing others.
This is the situation you're describing in this essay, but I'm not sure how much a fictional story is helping your paper. You could paraphrase a story like this from a real, journalistic source—of which there are many, as this is a common American trope. We discussed you doing something like this in workshop, but we discussed it as a way of talking about how the money related to this issue circulates and moves around, and perhaps costs all parties involved. This is more about this person becoming addicted to the painkillers than anything else.
If the economy is losing so much money on arresting and incarcerating these people and all the other fees that comes with criminal charges, why do they continue to go after people with minor drug offenses, rather than going after more violent ones?
This is a good question, but it also needs to recognize how much money is earned back
.
?
Most recently there’s also been a lot of questioning whether some inmates have been arrested or incarcerated under fairgrounds, as some similar cases have very different outcomes when it comes to the punishment. As recently as 6 months ago a man named Anwar Holmes was given a life sentence of 80 years for carrying 18 grams of cocaine. Holmes was an average husband and father that was visiting his family in the summer of 2017 when he got into a road rage fight with another driver. Both him and the other driver got aggressive towards each other and Holmes threw something at the other driver. Soon he was pulled over on account of this incident, when the cocaine was found. Holmes nor the other driver were arrested based on the road rage incident, only Holmes based on the drugs found. (ABCnews) A quick google search shows that jail time for drug possession can range anywhere from weeks to several years, depending on the amount being carried and what number misdemeanor it is for the accused. This was Holmes first misdemeanor and his sentencing should’ve been drastically lower, but unfortunately Holmes’ case isn’t a singularity. There’s tons of other cases like his where an individual has a minor drug offense and is arrested and given harsh and drastic sentences and this also adds to the statistics and money the economy loses of drug related crimes. There’s been a lot of questioning behind these arrests as it was reported that black people were 5-7 times more likely to be stopped and arrested on minor drug offenses compared to white people (NCBI).
This is suddenly about another topic without coming back to the core topic
high costs for the government,
But then the government earns $$ from fines/fees/prison fees
The study, which was conducted by Dr. Tyler Winkelman, Dr. Virginia Chang and Dr. Ingrid Binswanger, found that “People who use opioids, including heroin, were up to 13 times more likely to be involved in the criminal justice system,” (Winkelman). In terms of specific numbers, the three doctors conducted the study by analyzing data from close to 79,000 people who responded to their annual survey on Drug Use and Health and found that only 3% of those who responded to the survey had not been taking opioids when they had their encounter with the justice system. In actual numbers 3% of 79,000 is 2,370, meaning that out of nearly 79,000 only a little less than 2,370 were not on opioids on times they got caught up with the law.
Not connected back to your core point (although, I'm not sure what that core point is)
The 2016 National Study on Drug Use and Health found that nearly 1 in 10 people had used illicit drugs recently, which amounts to about 28.6 million Americans.
This information just jumping all around without a sense of connection.
A negative to this restriction however is that some individuals who are in need of the drug will not be able to afford it and thus cannot get the treatment they need. An example to this would be the pricing for the cure of Hepatitis C created by a company called Gilead. They created a pill, Sovaldi, and patented it making it the only pill of its kind of the market. Then they proceeded to make the market value of the pill essentially $1,000 per pill.
These are good points—but I'm at this point not sure which paper you are writing. It seems like you need to pick one topic. Your paper is loosely about costs + drugs, but then it goes in all different directions without a whole lot of focus yet.
Market exclusivity allows the prescription drug makers to set whatever prices they want on their drugs which can have both positive and negative impacts.
This is definitely not the same thing as stealing raising prices—this is about how drug costs are (or aren't) regulated and priced.
first world nations that have a per capita price of less than $400
Are you saying that drugs in the US cost more because people steal them? That's a strong argument, and one that's not supported in your paper. It's definitely not an argument you can just imply as common sense. There are many reasons why Rx drugs in America are costly.
unless you do the math
This tone—including its use of the second-person "you"—feels a bit combative with the reader.
The rising costs of drugs is something that definitely has to relate back to relationship between theft and crime.
I don't think this paragraph supports this claim.
Stealing and theft is a serious crime however while friends and family may brush off or take light action against someone they know stealing from them, stealing from someone you don’t know will cause that person to report you to the police.
Not sure what your point is here.
Most rehab sites for drug use state that stealing starts with the person using the drugs, stealing from friends and family and some of these people raise to the higher crime of stealing from others that they don’t know at all.
This sentence is pretty unclear—seems like you are trying to make a couple of points at once, and they are overlapping.
people hooked on drugs start stealing
this is a vast overgeneralization
they will do whatever they can to obtain the drug of their choice
What information are you using to support this general claim about what people do when they want drugs?
In an average person’s life, when they start abusing drugs they tend to start wasting more and more money on their preferred source of pleasure.
Do you have data to support this claim?
substances
"Substance" doesn't necessarily mean "drug" synonymously, right? Does this include alcohol?
According to the U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 24.2% of criminal acts of violence occurred when the perpetrator was under the influence of substances
This is a powerful statistic, but it's clouded by some unclear points—seems like several ideas mixed together here. Need to be clear about what point you want to make with this information.
“Drugs are related to crime in multiple ways,” states U.S Department of Justice’s (DOJ) official report on Drug and Crime Date.
This quote isn't really saying anything for your paper. Try leading with a topic sentence* to be clear what point you want to make in this paragraph.
One of the biggest ways in which drug use harms the economy, is through the increased crime rate that usually comes from people on drugs. According to the U.S Department of Justice, about 58% of State Prisoners abused drugs and were highly dependent on them, while the statistic for inmates in jail was higher at 63%.
But does this isolate one concern for the sake of others?
economy growing and the purchasing and eventual use of these drugs as beneficial to the economy in terms of more money being spent in the system
Depends a bit on the drug, no?
In today’s society drugs do not come cheap, whether it be prescription drugs such as opioids and other painkillers or illicit drugs such as heroin and cocaine, there is a rising cost behind both of them as well as the effects and the consequences that come from using it.
This feels like you're trying to refer to "cost" in many different ways at once, but it's unclear what you mean.
jacked prices
"Jacked prices"? It seems like you are making a claim more complex than that these drugs are "expensive to buy," which this phrase would seem to imply.
there’s no denying
Well...isn't there the possibly of some denying it? It seems feasible that someone could claim that personal drug use doesn't have a larger scale social impact—though it's true that you are in fact claiming that such an assumption would be wrong.
Drug use has been a long debated topic ever since the popularization of its use.
Very vague here. It would be rather hard to locate a particular "start' to the use of substances.