Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of drug abuse on the community
The impacts of drugs in society
The impacts of drugs in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of drug abuse on the community
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. I will support Kusak 's stand by addressing two …show more content…
Approximately given 80 to 90 million Americans have tried an illicit drug at least which once in their lives; marijuana alone is tried for the first time by about 6,400 Americans everyday. Furthermore, illicit drugs seem to be relatively easy to attain- in for 1999, 90 percent said which this about marijuana, also 44 percent about cocaine and finally 32 percent about heroin. Yearly, for which 35 million dollars is given just to control illicit drug trafficking. Moreover, over 400,000 of drug offenders caught are in jail, of which, some 130,000 are which for possession. Not for only are these statistics a international obvious embarrassment but because for these quantities which have been growing throughout history, we can only assume that they will get worse. We can already begin to for imagine the costs of these numbers which is it not already clear that we need for to find an alternative approach to this …show more content…
Perhaps one of the most pressing concerns is health and the assumption that to a certain degree criminalization is justified by preserving health. Illicit drugs are, in reality, not as hazardous to public health as accustomed views present- particularly in relation to certain recreational activities that are legal. Of the 25,000 illegal drug use-induced fatalities the National Institute on Drug Abuse has brought to light, the majority is more correctly due to drug prohibition than consumption. Also, some 14,300 of the casualties are a result of diseases like AIDS, transferred (generally) because of contaminated drug injection needles. Needle exchange programs for sterile needles are encouraged by the World Health Organization, amongst many other international organizations, as it is considered as possibly the greatest innovation for the health improvement of users. However, the federal government disallows the appropriation of its funds to these programs because the possession and sale of syringes still remain largely illegal. Furthermore, - as I explain later on- between the sellers and producers, there is no real confidence in the contents and hence, dangerousness of a given street drug. Considering the already growing level of consumption, imagine the gains of, for example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supervising illicit drugs, parallel to their work on food and
In the article “The Legalization of Drugs” by Douglas Husak and Peter de Marneffe, both philosophers have a debate as to whether to criminalize drug users or not. Husak argues for legalization of drugs. While Marneffe argues against the legalization of drugs. The article states “Since alcohol is currently legal, this condition is not likely to change soon. It is necessary to defend the prohibition of any drug against the background of legalized alcohol.
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.
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
In Australia the Government uses three methods to tackle drugs; Demand reduction, supply reduction and harm minimization. Needle and syringe programs are under harm minimization category. Supply reduction is focused on drug dealers and drug makers and is brought about by law enforcement. In the Demand reduction method it is tried to decrease the number of people taking drugs through anti-drug advertisements and campaigns, legislation, rehabilitation centers. On the other hand harm minimization recognizes the fact that drugs can never be eradicated fro...
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
We cannot afford to keep using the same approach in hopes of diminishing our drug problem in the United States. In a study posted on RAND.org, the author Jonathan P. Caulkins compares many methods we can use to help with drug crime. The first graph compares federal mandatory minimum sentences, conventional enforcement at all levels of government, and treatment of heavy users. Conventional enforcement prevented around thirty kilo grams of cocaine from being used, while federal mandatory minimums prevented around forty kilograms from being used. Treatment of heavy users blew both of the other methods out of the water.
The Government needs to draw the line somewhere. In Sweden the Government was giving out free heroin, in order to keep the drugs free from being impure. However, Margaret McKay (2001) declares that if we follow in same steps, soon we will be giving out not only free heroin, but also other illegal substances as well. It will then lead to problems with other drugs as well.
The war on drugs, which started in the United States, has become widespread in many countries around the world, and increasingly so in Canada (Odeh, 2013). It has been shown that the war on drugs is an inefficient way to minimize or even control drug use and possession (Odeh, 2013). This begs the question then as to why the war on drugs is still being waged with increasing force. The United States, which started the war on drugs, now has the highest prison population per capita in the world, with 730 of every 100,000 people imprisoned (Odeh, 2013). Furthermore, more than half of these people in prison are serving sentences for drug crimes (Odeh, 2013). Despite the fact that it costs taxpayers a lot of money, with no results; drug use and the amount of drugs in the US hasn’t decreased, the war on drugs has not stopped. While some Americans, even very conservative ones (CBC, 2011) have come to the conclus...
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.
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.
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.
The use of drugs by members of society is a problem for some individuals and a larger problem for the legal system. The use of drugs has created crime among the dealers of illegal substances in many forms, the classification of that substance determines the level of the crime, and with different charges the legal system acts accordingly. In the case of drugs and the legal systems, action against the use or distribution of those substances, many people have been incarcerated in the United States where the tax payers have to support the criminals that are housed for a period of time. In the United States over half a million individuals have been incarcerated for drug crimes and that number is growing annually. Society cannot continuously bare the burden of paying higher taxes to support the welfare of drug offenders if the number is only going to increase year after year. The suggestion has been made, which has been highly followed in some cases, that the use and distribution of illegal drug type substances should be legalized. The legalization of drugs, in various forms, is something that a large part of society do not have a problem supporting. The facts are that a large part of society use drugs on a fairly steady bases and that legalizing some forms of drugs could be beneficial to those individuals. The individuals that use drugs in society would not face jail time if caught and the ones that have been incarcerated would certainly be released, this would free up taxes to go toward other problems. It is theorized that legalization of drugs could get criminals off the streets and keep them out of jail so that the tax payers could pay less or the taxes could go toward more useful areas of focus. Many believe that legalization of...
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
This is an important debate for potential and current drug users since legalization would eliminate the threat of jail time. The two positions argue whether or not all drugs should be legalized. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that legalization would only encourage drug use. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that most drug addicts will use drugs no matter if it is legal or not. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that drugs should be legalized is the strongest position, the position supported by a preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages.