Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
history of drugs and criminalisation
the effect of drug trafficking
drug and alcohol prohibition
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: history of drugs and criminalisation
Anti-legalization of Drugs
Drugs have been around for many centuries and proceeds to be a major
issue
for the last few decades. Marijuana was first federally prohibited in
1937. Today, nearly 70 million Americans admit to having tried it (
Inciardi 19 ). Whether people stop using drugs, there will always be
more and more people reaching out to use drugs. For the past few
decades, many people have tried to legalize drug use as well as
stopping the use of drugs. Society, in my opinion, would not know how
to react if drugs were to be legalized. I think that legalizing drugs
will not only ruin the community, but also people's lives.
Legalization of drugs has been a failure in other nations. Great
Britain, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are among the nations which
have successfully provided areas where drug takers can obtain and use
drugs. Recently, an MTV documentary on the drug issue highlighted
coffeehouses in Amsterdam as a model for controlled, successful
environment in which young Europeans can enjoy marijuana. However, the
experience with legalizing drugs has had its negative effects. For
instance, violent crime is a major problem in the Netherlands. A 1992
study of crime victims in twenty mostly European countries ranks the
Netherlands as the number one country in Europe for assaults and
threats (Olson 79 ). The British system didn't work. Addiction levels
rose, especially among teenagers, and more people became addicts. This
sets an example to how it will hurt the nation as one, not only will
the nation look bad, but go bad as well.
Crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand. Many believe that
legalizing drugs w...
... middle of paper ...
...stigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United
States
1996, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office ( 1997)
Inciardi, James A. "The Wars on Drugs." Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1986
Kennedy, X.J., Dorthy M. Kennedy, and Jane E. Aaron, eds.
The Bedford Reader. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford, 1997
"Legalizing Drugs." Greenhaven Press. San Diego: 1996
Olson, William J. " Drugs Should Not Be Legalized. " Greenhaven Press.
65-92
Riga, Peter J. " Legalization Would Help Solve The Nation's Drug
Problem."
Greenhaven Press. 52-54
Rosenthal, A.M. " The Case For Slavery." Kennedy, Kennedy, and Aaron
370-372
" Two Crucial Issues in the Argument for Drug Legalization." 25 July,
1999:
Vidal, Gore " Drugs." Kennedy, Kennedy, and Aaron 365-367
this issue that has the potential to pulverise this country is why it is such a
Should marijuana be sold at corner stores to anyone? Recently, some of Canada¡'s politicians have claimed to introduce the legislation of legalizing marijuana. According to the policy, the possession of marijuana will not be considered as a criminal sanction. Indeed, marijuana will become a legal substance. People who are over 16 can buy it over the counter just as alcohol or tobacco. Although legalizing marijuana may be beneficial to those people with medical purposes, it will create more problems and dangers to the society. The problems that associated with legalizing marijuana are causing negative impacts on public health and increasing marijuana consumption among youths. Also, the misuse of marijuana may cause people to drive under the influence of the drug, and hence, more accidents may occur, causing more expenses on public health care. Clearly, the downsides of legalizing marijuana outweigh its benefits.
the only way to make money. Minimum wage salaries can not compare to the huge
Throughout U.S governmental history, policies have been known to affect the way of life and every aspect. The topic it choose to research is about “The War on Drugs”, the impact policies have on society and if it does help the public or tend to extent social inequality. This topic is very important to me in the sense that, I look at the community I live and see how drugs have affected people lifes, broken up families and also destroyed the community itself. I wanted to know if the “war on drugs” stop our neighborhood from being flooded with drugs or it just over shadow the real problems that needs to be tackled.
Anti-drug legislation has had an extensive and fascinating record in the United States. The initial drug that showed prevalent use in the nation was Opium, which came primarily from China. Opium was utilized as a recommendation drug by doctors, but the growing cases of addiction led to laws alongside this drug. The greater part of the opium addicts were girls due to the doctors tend to recommend the drug for many women’s particular problems. In 1875, a law was approved in California barring individuals from smoking opium. While the law pertained generally to Chinese immigrants it was the first place in anti-drug provision is the Unites States. At the Federal stage, the prohibition of importation of opium by Chinese nationals happened in 1887 and in 1905 opium smoking was constrained in the Philippines (Harrison). While these regulations were the initial steps, they did not have any absolute provisions to decrease drug supply and use in the country. The laws beleaguered the lessening of delivery of drugs in the country and do not deal with the problem of treatment of a true illness.
Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage; therefore, anybody could afford it (367). Wilson stated that during 1960’s, British physicians were allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts until the number of addicts increased fivefold. He argued that cocaine is not a “victimless crime.” Addicts victimize children by neglect and spouses by not providing (370). Wilson upholds that illegality of drugs increases crime because users need to pay for their habit (372). He believes the benefit of illegal drugs is it forces patients who enter under legal compulsion to complete their treatment due to the pressure and drug-education programs in the schools (374). Wilson is convinced the difference between nicotine and cocaine is that while tobacco shortens one’s life, cocaine debase it and destroys the addicts humanity (375). Wilson’s argument is strong because he demonstrates his knowledge of the subject and supports it with many clear, scientific facts and historical examples of drug usage. He interprets facts differently by seeing “logical fallacy and factual error” (371) in what other perceive as being a true. He also acknowledges his opposition by addressing how the advocates of legalization respond to his position. Wilson recognizes that that he may be wrong about his conclusions of drug legalization. Yet he states if he is wrong, money will be saved, while if he is right, and the legalizers prevail, then millions of people, thousands of infants and hundreds of neighborhoods will live a life of disease (377-8). In the article “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” by William J. Bennentt, drug legalization was not supported. Bennett wants to address the “root causes” of drugs by means of...
The legal prohibition on most psychoactive drugs has been in place in this country for the better part of a century. This policy of prohibition, however, has never been based on reason or careful consideration, but on the paranoia of a small segment of society and the indifferent willingness of the majority to accept this vocal minority’s claims without question. Outlawing any use of a particular drug is a violation of the basic freedom of individuals to act as they please in their private lives. However, even if one does not accept this belief, an objective analysis of the United States’ history of prohibition clearly shows that attempts to enforce this policy have done far more harm than good, and have utterly failed to control behavior in the intended manner.
For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.
To fully understand the significance and the seriousness of a War one must first fully understand the reasons that caused it in the first place. In this specific case the solution begins with several important yet seemingly simple questions…What is marijuana? How is it used? And why is it so coveted and widely distributed in Jamaica as well as the rest of the world?… All these questions help clarify the reasoning behind the war on drugs and further investigation shows how Jamaica ends up being an important country in this puzzle as well. Lets begin with the first question, (What is marijuana), of course the dictionary definition is simply put,-a preparation of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa, for use as an intoxicating hallucinogenic drug; applied to a crude preparation of the dried leaves, flowering tops, and stem of the plant that is generally smoked. However, beyond this explanation is what is commonly known as weed, which is simply an alternative to tobacco that results in sensational relaxed feeling that is described as high. This drugs origin can be traced back to ancient days when it was used as a healing supplement to cure several different medical conditions; its been used as a drink as well as an eliminator of menstrual pain and even more ironic marijuana has served as a religious connotation as well. However, the most commonly known usage of marijuana (after its being outlawed in the 1930’s) is as a drug and smoked or consumed by other means.
The “War on Drugs” is the name given to the battle of prohibition that the United States has been fighting for over forty years. And it has been America’s longest war. The “war” was officially declared by President Richard Nixon in the 1970’s due to the abuse of illegitimate drugs. Nixon claimed it as “public enemy number one” and enacted laws to fight the importation of narcotics. The United States’ War on Drugs began in response to cocaine trafficking in the late 1980’s. As the war continues to go on, winning it hardly seems feasible. As stated by NewsHour, the National Office of Drug Control Policy spends approximately nineteen billion dollars a year trying to stop the drug trade. The expenses shoot up, indirectly, through crime, hospital stays and such. However, people spend approximately three times as much money buying drugs as the government spends fighting against them. How can this war be won when the government has to spend so much money combating in opposition to it??
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.
Drugs have been around for thousands of years and were used for a variety of reasons. They were used for healing aliments that one might have and for recreational reasons. However, as time went on and society advanced so did its outlook on any form of a controlled substance and their uses. We began to see the benefits they had and developed other ways to use them for everyday illnesses, which wasn’t anything new, but we finally had the ability to understand why they helped. In the late 1800s Coke-a-Cola marketed their drink, or tonic, as having healing properties and claimed that if was a cure all. But, as time wore on we began to see the negative side and decided to control it for fear of what would happen, which lead to Prohibition and the war on drugs.
to grow out of hand. Those who do not learn from experience are bound to repeat
The world has many different issues, and without them the world would be a perfect place. An issue that causes a lot of controversy is drug abuse. Though the world can never be a perfect place, humans still need to do our best to make in inhabitable as possible, and drugs cause a lot of harm towards humans. Therefore, it is my belief that the first thing that needs to be fixed should be drugs and their abuse. Many possible solutions to this problem exist.
It is important to be informed of what we are defending, and in this case it is to not legalize drugs. One may ask, what are drugs? Drugs are chemicals, that may affect your body in many different ways, whether it be good or bad. However, most of the time, it 's not always a positive outcome. Some drugs even leave lifetime damage to your brain and body. Although, there are many different ways to take drugs, some of the most common ways are; inhalation, ingestion, and injection. All three ways, however affect the body differently. You don 't always know what you are ingesting or injecting and even inhaling. Most of the time, because drugs are illegal, they are sold through drug dealers