Huemer discusses the governments abilities to limit individual’s freedoms by making drugs illegal. The first argument concludes that the government should prohibit drug use because the government should prevent people from doing things that harm themselves, and drug use is harmful to users. The problem with this argument is that the government does not prohibit everything that harms user. We have the choice to have unprotected sex, to smoke tobacco, eat too much, etc., therefore we should have the choice to decide if we want to use drugs. However, Huemer wants to show that these other examples are different from allowing drug use. He does this by considering three options: drug use harms other people besides the user, drug use is more harmful then these other activities, and drug use harms in a different way than those other activities. In option one, Huemer says that it is not the governments business to prevent these sorts of harm. Huemer then discredits option two that drug use is more harmful than these other activities by explaining that while drug use can result in death so does tobacco and obesity; yet, the rights to these activities are not infringed upon like it is for drug use, and in fact, drug use has a lower chance of death then these other cases. He also discusses the notion that drug use could be harmful to one’s …show more content…
Hallucinogens should be illegal though because you cannot also predict the behavior of those using hallucinogens and could result in violent behavior. For other drugs, if someone wants to spend their time in an alternate state of mind, then that is an individual’s decision. Rather than making it illegal, governments should spread educational awareness about the effects and the consequences of these drugs. All the government should do is try and protect their citizens, but they do not have the power to override their
Douglas N. Husak's A Moral Right to Use Drugs In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
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 war on drugs] has created a multibillion-dollar black market, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of government officials throughout the world,” noted Eric Schlosser in his essay, “A People’s Democratic Platform”, which presents a case for decriminalizing controlled substances. Government policies regarding drugs are more focused towards illegalization rather than revitalization. Schlosser identifies a few of the crippling side effects of the current drug policy put in place by the Richard Nixon administration in the 1970s to prohibit drug use and the violence and destruction that ensue from it (Schlosser 3). Ironically, not only is drug use as prevalent as ever, drug-related crime has also become a staple of our society. In fact, the policy of the criminalization of drugs has fostered a steady increase in crime over the past several decades. This research will aim to critically analyze the impact of government statutes regarding drugs on the society as a whole.
Chapman’s supports his argument by trying to prove that people will not be tempted to try illicit drugs just because they are legal, but fails to make his argument clear regarding what kind of drugs he is speaking about. Chapman’s passage focuses only on a few drugs like cocaine and marijuana, but his implicit conclusion sounds like he wants all drugs to be legalized. Not only is his argument unclear, Chapman fails to provide unbiased evidence, statistics and information that would convince us that it really would be best for society if drugs were made legal. Overall, the argument presented in this passage fails to illustrate both sides of the argument, and convince readers that drugs should be
Heumer starts his article about drugs and the harm to the user, and he states that the government shouldn’t be allowed to make laws based off of if the action is harmful to the user, but that is what ever law is based off of. Murder, speed limits, every law is established on public safety in mind. He states that this would become an issue, because too many laws would be made. Laws are constantly being passed to keep up with the demands of society. Smoking is very dangerous, this is why there is a law made that you must be at least 18 to use. The laws that are passed are there to protect the people, even if laws were made only for a specific degree of harm, you would still need someone to define what is too harmful for the citizens of the United
Some of the most prominent economists already involved in the issue are Jeffrey Miron and Mark Thornton. One strand of the discussion comes from Jeffrey Miron 2004. He discusses the current battle with the regulation and legalization of drugs in the United States and provides an analysis of the problems associated with prohibition. Miron offers a balanced, sophisticated and in-depth analysis of the true costs, benefits, and consequences of strictly enforcing drug prohibition. He argues that the effects of prohibition on drug use have been modest at best and have numerous highly unfavorable detrimental side effects. Specifically, prohibition is shown to directly increase violence, even when it deters drug use. Miron's analysis leads to the alarming discovery that the more resources given to the war on drugs, the higher the homicide rate. He provides a cost-benefit analysis on several alternatives to the war on drugs. His conclusion is indisputable. He proclaims that any of the numerous and widely discussed alternatives are likely to be a substantial improvement over the current policy of total
The war on drugs and the violence that comes with it has always brought around a hot debate about drug legalization. The amount of violence that is associated with drugs is a result from harsher drug laws and prohibition.
“The immorality of marijuana use can only be based on one set of moral beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian abstinence from intoxication is the correct set or moral beliefs” (Arguments For And Against Legalization Of Marijuana). The legalization of Marijuana has many advantages and disadvantages. If this product is legalized, then it would be acceptable to skyrocket the taxes to purchase in-order to maintain control. The disadvantage may be a slight increase of individuals driving while high or intoxicated. “Legal prohibition does not stop consumers from consuming drugs, it does not stop trafficants from producing and selling it. The price of the final product increases to abnormally high values because of the black market status, which together with the powerful effects of drug addiction causes users to commit crimes in order to fund their addiction” (Arguments For And Against Legalization
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.
Nutt, David J., Leslie A. King, and Lawrence D. Phillips. “Drug Harms in the UK: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis.” Lancet 376 (2010): 1558-65. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.
Drug addiction is a chronic which always the brain disease is relapsed that leads to the seeking of compulsive drugs (NIH 2012). Nowadays, drug abuse still is a serious issue for a long time although the government tries to control the drugs by rigorous imprisonment and better education program. Some people cannot understand that why and how people can be a drug addicted person. And the drug users are regarded as the lack of moral principles or willpower (National Institute on Drug Abuse 2012). People think there is no way to reduce the number of the people who take drugs, so drugs should be legalized. Another reason is that the drugs illegal poses threat to society. If the drug is legal, the society would be more peaceful. As far as I am concern,
Doing drugs is dangerous, yes… but so is tanning, smoking, drinking, chewing tobacco… the list goes on and on. People are still free to do these things, notwithstanding the fact that they may be stupid acts. The ratio of deaths from tobacco versus drugs is 425:1, and that of alcohol versus drugs is 50:1. Drugs are less dangerous than both of these legal things, and people are still free to do them and not free to do drugs?
Drugs Should Not Be Legalized. " Greenhaven Press. 65-92 Riga, Peter J. " " Legalization Would Help Solve The Nation's Drug Problems.
Drug abuse has been a hot topic for our society due to how stimulants interfere with health, prosperity, and the lives of others in all nations. All drugs have the potential to be misapplied, whether obtained by prescription, over the counter, or illegally. Drug abuse is a despicable disease that affects many helpless people. Majority of those who are beset with this disease go untreated due to health insurance companies who neglect and discriminate this issue. As an outcome of missed opportunities of treatments, abusers become homeless, very ill, or even worst, death.
... the physical and mental health of Americans and threatening the future of the United States, which is a consensus of most Americans. The peculiarity of drugs determines that they can’t be legalized in the society like cigarette and alcohol, and the degree of dependence of drug users on drugs far surpasses that of alcohol. Therefore, it is a kind of dangerous and inadvisable choice to legalize drugs. The comparatively radical reform schemes proposed by people, who insist on legalizing drugs, can't be adopted and accepted by the government and most people either. The extreme complexity and chronicity of drug issue and how to control the spreading of drugs should still depend on the unification of the whole society’s understanding on this issue as well as the settlement of other social issues related to drugs. It definitely does more harm than good to legalize drugs.