Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
legalize all drugs
drug legalization in the united states
legalize all drugs
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: legalize all drugs
The arguments that I have just laid out are not perfect and they have some apparent flaws that some philosophers would strongly disagree with, while there are other arguments that some of the great philosophers would agree with. I will critique the arguments that I have just laid out using the perspective of three different philosophers who all have their own ideas of how the state should function and the role of the citizen. The three philosophers that I will use in this critique will be Karl Marx, John Stewart Mill, and John Locke. The reason why I picked these three philosophers is because they all agree with some aspects of my writing, while disagreeing with others. One will disagree with the role of the state and the citizens, but agree with legalizing recreational drug use, while the other two will agree with the role of the state and citizens, but disagree with legalizing drug use.
Karl Marx is the philosopher who would disagree with many of the arguments that I presented above. The reason why Marx would disagree with so many of my arguments is because he is a strong believer of the state being in charge of society and having complete control over the citizens. In the society that I created, it is largely a free society where the people are in charge of their actions and the government has a limited role in the daily transactions that are occurring between citizens. Marx would believe that in my society where there are different social classes, these classes would always be in a battle with one another and will be exploiting the lower class so they can make a bigger profit.
In my society where the political economy is capitalism, there will be a wide variety of incomes. Some citizens will have more smarts, other...
... middle of paper ...
...vious philosophers have showed that there are some minor critiques on my theory; however the general theories and principles are generally accepted and promoted in the writings of Marx, Mill, and Locke. Marx was the only one who would agree with the legalization of recreational drug use, while Mill and Locke would not have been in favor of it because of the harm it would likely cause to other people who would be involved by the use of these drugs. In regards to the function of the state, Mill and Locke would have agreed with my writing because the state is limited and the citizens are free to do as they wish as long as they do not interfere with other citizens rights. Marx would not have agreed with this because his philosophy of the state is communism. The three of these philosophers all agreed on certain aspects and disagreed on other aspects of my writing.
We live in a “recreational drug culture”, with the current criminalization of illicit drugs being driven by the common but not entirely universally accepted assumption that negative externalities will instead be placed in on society. Addressing the seemingly ever-infinite "war on drugs", in "Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use", Douglas Husak argues in favour of the decriminalization of drugs in terms of not criminalizing the use of such recreational drugs. In this paper, I will dispute that Kusak 's argument succeeds because of the lack of justification for prohibition, and the counterproductiveness and how numerically evident the ineffectiveness of these contemporary punitive policies are.
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
the only way to make money. Minimum wage salaries can not compare to the huge
The subject of implemented drug policies has continued to exist in society as a controversial topic. Mills would advocate that drug use is a personal choice and in prohibiting it means prohibiting an individual’s free rights to govern themselves. Though drug use is a personal choice, its usage has affected society in form or the other. The choice weighs heavily on the individual’s interest in his freedom to use drugs against the potential harm this may cause to himself and to others. More recently, the war on drugs have escalated the prohibition of recreational drug use. In order to evaluate its justification, the reasons prohibiting its use need to first be explored.
Marijuana, or Cannabis, is a plant that has been in use since ancient times. Cannabis has had significant affects on history and societies throughout the years. It is a plant that can grow in any environment, with the exception of the Arctic Circle. Up until recent years the Cannabis plant has never been looked upon negatively. The debate on Cannabis has started again; with some people thinking that it should be legal and others thinking that it should stay illegal. It is time for people to see Cannabis as what it really is and not as what manipulative advertisements have shown it to be.
...ons of this issue provide were fully supported. I concluded that the anti-legalist hold a stronger argument than the legalist. Still, Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars.
These are the two lines of reasoning I will take to argue against drug prohibition in this paper. After giving a brief history of prohibition, I will show that it is wrong in principal and that there is no moral basis for this policy. I will then show that, regardless of moral considerations, prohibition has not and probably cannot work, and more specifically that the "war on drugs" has been a disaster which should be ended immediately. I will then conclude by discussing possible consequences of legalization.
Many feel today we are loosing the war on drugs. People consider legalization unnecessary. They feel that it will increase the amount of drug use throughout the world. They state that in many cases, drug users who have quit quit because of trouble with the law. Legalization would eliminate the legal forces that discourage the users from using or selling drugs. They also say that by making drugs legal, the people who have never tried drugs for fear of getting caught by the law will have no reason to be afraid anymore and will become users (Potter 1998).
As human beings, we are naturally curious about different things in our society. We want to absorb as much knowledge as possible, whether it is in a classroom environment or by experiencing it ourselves. When it comes to illegal drugs, people want to experience it for themselves since it has a different effect on each individual. In the United States, the drug use is quite high. Different legislators and philosophers believe that legalizing drugs will have more benefits than harms to our society. I believe that it will be the opposite. In this paper, I will present several arguments about why certain drugs should not be legalized, but decriminalized instead.
...tic society is unlike a Dictatorship, or Fascist regime, or Monarchy for a reason. A Government body, composed of individuals—like individuals—cannot truly know the consequences of legalization, but still—in many uncertain circumstances—makes decisions, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. However, it is the society which the Government serves, which gives it power. It is then on us—society—to be entrusted with the task of demonstrating responsibility, and thus giving the Government the power of giving permission. Much like the social contracts which found our laws, mores, and norms, Government has a contract to society to meet its [societies] needs. Likewise, society is contracted to the Government, to not act beyond its needs—to be self-contained; otherwise borne out of our own selfishness those permissions are taken, and society is solely to blame.
What exactly is marijuana? Marijuana, also known as pot or hemp, is a naturally grown substance that contains THC. THC changes how the brain works and gives the user a high that relieves many different pains and even helps erase bad memories. The hemp plant can be found in just about any place, but has to be kept in heat. Marijuana is from a naturally grown plant so why not be able to use it legally? Well, there are many reasons against the legalization of marijuana and there are also many very good reasons to legalize it for medical and recreational use. So to the government and everyone against legalizing marijuana, too bad! It’s natural and people are going to smoke no matter what the laws are, so why not just make it legal? Making the use of marijuana legal everywhere will more than likely help stop the chaos between the smokers and nonsmokers and reduce the outrageously high total of 858, 408 who are arrested annually for marijuana possession and use.
crack, has gained such a reputation in recent years, just as heroin did in t...
This essay is a successful argument because it convinces a person through all that is detailed why legalization of drugs will not work in this society. He describes through his values on the issue of drug legalization and the effects they have on many people. Lynch makes a few value statements through a claim of values, which states an argument for the paper through his personal reasoning (Faigley and Selzer 32)...
After reviewing the two outlooks on drugs, paternalism and liberty, I believe the argument for liberty is more philosophically sound. While I do not believe full blown legalization is the best idea for our society, I do believe the utilitarian point of view on drugs is the best compromise. Friedman argues that the war on drugs is too costly, and that the best solution would be just to decriminalize them. With the process of decriminalization, it will lower street crime, sale to minors, and outlaw the advertisement of drugs. Instead of informing the public about how bad drugs are, I believe decriminalizing them would educate the public on what they would be taking and if it really a good idea to put that in their body. Bennett and Wilson fight
The current drug epidemic in the United States has been the deadliest in American history and is not going away anytime soon (Lopez, 2017, The opioid epidemic, explained). In 1971 President Richard Nixon introduced the War on Drugs in effort to counter the current drug epidemic at that time. Despite unsuccessful results I decided to look for more efficient and effective methods to solve such an epidemic. Results were collected in a recent survey which helped gather public opinion and what path the United States should follow when it comes to countering such a problem. It is important to listen to public opinion and through a survey is one of the best ways to gauge such information. This paper will analyze