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.
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
In William J. Bennett’s address entitled “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” Bennett maintains that the drug problem in America can be ultimately solved. In my opinion, the drug problem in America is one that cannot be completely resolved to the point where drug use no longer exists in America, but drug abuse can be alleviated. One effective way to do this would be to legalize the personal use of drugs that are more common and less potent (like marijuana), and to stop wasting time and tax dollars punishing minor offenders.
Timothy Lynch, writing in the conservative magazine the National Review, writes about how the drug war has not made very much progress and has essentially failed. Lynch writes about how voters in California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Alaska, and Maine that have rejected ideas to improve the war on drugs and instead they “approved initiatives calling for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes” (40). Lynch also writes that “the supply of drugs has not been hampered in any serious way by the war on drugs” (41). This supports the conservative’s claim that the war on drugs is not making any progress to stop the supply of drugs coming into America. Conservative writer for the magazine National Review, William Buckley, shows his outrage towards the Council on Crime in America for their lack of motivation to change the drug policies that are ineffective. Buckley asks, “If 1.35 million drug users were arrested in 1994, how many drug users were not arrested? The Council informs us that there are more than 4 million casual users of cocaine” (70). Buckley goes on to discuss in the article, “Misfire on Drug Policy,” how the laws set up by the Council were meant to decrease the number of drug users, not increase the number of violators. Richard Lowry writes an article for the National Review, quoting a Council on Foreign Relations report on drug eradication policies
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.
As crime and corruption continues to rise in many countries and inner cities, more people and public officials have begun to discuss whether drugs should be legalized. In the passage “Legal Drugs Unlikely to Foster Nation of Zombies”, author Stephen Chapman argues in favour of his conclusion that drugs should be legalized as prohibition of drugs is causing more harm to society. Chapman’s conclusion is based on a convergent argument in which he provides three explicit premises for support that can be stated in standard from like this:
the only way to make money. Minimum wage salaries can not compare to the huge
Works Cited "The California Marijuana Vote." New Yorker 23 Dec 1996: 62+. Brookhiser, Richard. "Pot Luck." National Review 11 Nov 1996: 27+ Simmons, Michael. "Give Pot a Chance." Rolling Stone 26 Dec 1996: 111+. Rist, Curtis and Harrison, Laird. "Weed the People." People 21 Oct. 1996: 75+. Funk and Wagnall's Volume 23 "Marijuana" 1996 Baum, Dan. "California's Separate Peace." Rolling Stone 30 Oct. 1997: 43+ Brookhiser, Richard. "Lost in the Weed." U.S. News & World Report 3 Jan. 1997: 9 Buckley, William "Legalization of Marijuana Long Overdue" The Albuquerque Journal. Online. 8 June 1993.
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.
I think that if drugs were legalized, use of legal drugs would tend to rise because it would be easier to obtain them and it may encourage people to try them out. However, the increase would only be for a short time period. In the long run, drug use would decrease because all the users that are using more drugs because they are easier to get would overdose and kill themselves and set an example for other people thinking about trying drugs. Another reason why drug use would decrease is that the reason why some people use drugs is because they are illegal.
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).
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.
Ask anyone what the most popular drug of the 21st century is, and he will tell you it is marijuana. And why is this? Well for one, marijuana is a highly accessible drug. Whether at a high school, a town, a college campus, or a gas station, marijuana can be found there. And while it is quite easy to find, it is also not financially straining to purchase either. One can get a various range of amounts inexpensively depending on who is dealing it. And, unlike many other drugs, marijuana is not addictive. Available, cheap, and no strings attached, these words sound like they are describing a new product people can buy at the store, not an illegal drug. But marijuana has been illegal in the United States since 1937, when Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. Since then those who sell, grow, buy, and possess marijuana are arrested, fined, and some are even incarcerated. The highest amount of jail time for a marijuana-related crime is forty years and fines have skyrocketed to millions of dollars. Yet, why is there such severity in the penalties associated with the drug? Is marijuana truly that dangerous to the citizens of the United States? And how did it come to be that way? Well, if studied, one can see that marijuana is a great remedy for all sort of medical conditions, and that it is illegal because of a bigotry against Mexican immigrants in the early 1900s.
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior by criminalizing drug use does not work still leaves us looking for a solution, so what other options exist? This paper will discuss the pros and cons about one option: decriminalizing drugs.
However, in the early 1900’s things changed, and prejudice and fear began to develop around marijuana because it was being used and associated with Mexican immigrants. In the 1930’s, the massive unemployment rates increased public resentment and disgust of Mexican immigrants, which escalated public and governmental concern (PBS, 2014). In 1930 a new federal law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was created. Harry J. Anslinger was appointed the first commissioner of the FBN in 1930 (Filan, 2011). In 1936, as the head of the FBN, Anslinger received several reports about smoking marijuana.
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