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.
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.
During the duration of this paper, I will discuss an issue that has been controversial for over a century; prohibition and how it has effected, currently effects, and will, most likey, continue to effect American society. The aspects that I choose to address from this issue are political, historical, they make you wonder, and they should effect anyone who reads this paper. For decades, the American government has had a restriction or ban on drugs and alcohol. Also for decades, these restrictions have been met with resistance from our society. In the early twentieth century, from 1920 through 1933, it was the prohibition of alcohol. A corrupt time, in which, so called, "criminals" and law makers both manufactured and sold bootlegged alcohol. There was high demand then and everyone was in it for the money, everyone. A time which proved to be a failed attempt by the government to take away what is now one of the United States' top commodities. During the 1970's President Richard Nixon started an ongoing "war on drugs" and every president since Nixon has continued this fight to, somehow, rid the entire country of illicit drugs. Today, a few states have taken a new approach to one of these drugs and eyebrows are being raised to the war on drugs all together. States, such as, California, Washington, and Calorado have loosened their tight grip on prohibiting marijuana and even have medical marijuana dispenseries. This idea has been proven to have boosted those economies, and it has allowed people with cancer to use a medication that actually gives them comfort. However, marijuana is still illegal. Why would we restrict the nation from something that beneficial...
the only way to make money. Minimum wage salaries can not compare to the huge
Cannabis, since its discovery, has been used for recreational and medical purposes. It was seen as a drug that was “safe” and did put the body at risk but benefited it. However, this is not the case anymore because the government under I Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 law banned the use of the narcotic and has the right to persecute anyone who attains the substance. Nonetheless, the question is not whether the drug is “safe” to use but whether the States should have the power to regulate marijuana or the federal government should continue having the control over the drug. Since 1996, 23 states including Washington D.C have passed laws that have legalized the medical use of marijuana, yet the federal government does not protect or even recognize the rights of users or possessors. The debate over marijuana has picked up momentum and many would agree that all this uprising conflict can be traced back to the constitution and the flaws it presents. The constitution is blamed for not properly distributing the States and Federal powers. Although the federal government currently holds supremacy over marijuana, States should have the power to regulate the drug because under the 10th amendment the federal government only has those powers specifically granted in the constitution, Likewise the States have the right to trade within their own state under the Commerce Clause.
Karl Marx was a nineteenth century, German philosopher, economist, a revolutionary socialist whose philosophy known as Marxism became the foundation of communism. ”Despite Karl Marx stating social classes are the
As proof, anti-Marxists point to the failure of the Soviet model of socialism, that is, an undemocratic government controlling the means of production, replacing markets with bureaucratic planning of production and distribution. (1) But on Marx's view undeveloped countries like czarist Russia with a minority working class were in no position to lead what was to be in any case a global change from an interdependent world market to socialism "as the act of the dominant peoples 'all at once' and simultaneously." (2) If anything the USSR's failure proved Marx right! (3) In the end Marx envisioned not government control...
Ever since marijuana’s introduction to the United States of America in 1611, controversy of the use and legalization of the claimed-to-be Schedule I drug spread around the nation. While few selective states currently allow marijuana’s production and distribution, the remaining states still skepticize the harmlessness and usefulness of this particular drug; therefore, it remains illegal in the majority of the nation. The government officials and citizens of the opposing states believe the drug creates a threat to citizens due to its “overly-harmful” effects mentally and physically and offers no alternate purposes but creating troublesome addicts hazardous to society; however, they are rather misinformed about marijuana’s abilities. While marijuana has a small amount of negligible effects to its users, the herbal drug more importantly has remarkable health benefits, and legalizing one of the oldest and most commonly known drugs would redirect America’s future with the advantages outweighing the disadvantages.
A controversial topic that has spread throughout the nation of the United States of America, and that is also widely popular, is the issue on cannabis. Cannabis is infamous for its natural state as a plant, and also for its ability for allowing people of all kinds to become “high”. A bad name has been given since there has been much negativity and false claims towards the subject. Cannabis is used medicinally to help those in need to aid to medical disabilities, disorders, as well as chronic pains. This plant is an issue through the laws of congress and year after year, lobbyist to this day are still fighting for its legality. In this paper, I will present an argument in support of legalizing the use of cannabis, and then argue that this argument has certain flaws that
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).
Legalization of marijuana has become an increasingly popular topic for debate in society, with “sentiment in favor of legalization [increasing] by 20 [percentage] points in just over a decade,” bringing support for legalization to 52% (Dionne and Galston). The most common arguments for reforming current legislation are the following: enforcement wastes public resources, taxation can provide a new source of revenue, and enforcement of current laws is discriminatory (Dionne and Galston). It is necessary to look at the impact on the primary stakeholders by analyzing the various harms and benefits through application of the ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology, in order to determine the solution that will result in the best possible outcome. In determining the ethicality of legalizing marijuana, it is necessary to understand the background of the issue, and to identify the most important stakeholders. In the 1930s, many states began outlawing the substance; ironically California was the first of these states (Rendon).
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.
"Legalization of Drugs and Crime Rate." Food and Values --- Legalization of Drugs and Crime Rate. Google Sites. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. https://sites.google.com/site/cchu9005legalizationofdrugs/the-team
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."
Karl Marx was a German philosopher and political theorist. He developed the socio-political theory of Marxism. One of his most famous works is The Communist Manifesto that he co-wrote with Friedrich Engels. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx discusses his theories on society, economics and politics. He believed that “all societies progress through the dialectic of class struggle”. He criticized capitalism, and referred to it as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". Marx believed that capitalism was unfair because the rich middle and upper class people manipulated the system and used it for their own benefit while we get the short end of the stick. We, being average Americans— like myself— who go to college full-time, juggle a job, and yet are constantly struggling just to make ends meet: the unappreciated, exploited and underpaid every day h...
Marx thought of a society that would create equality and bring power to the people. He didn 't expect society to be totally equal but a society with distributed justice. According to Marx, a good society is when there is no exploitation. To get rid of exploitation, we have to get rid of surplus values and make everyone equal. But Marx also knows that no good society can exist as long as exploitation is allowed. That is why some societies will want a Marx type of living and some will not. A society that has used and embodied the Marxist tradition is Russia. They have used Marx ideas and lived by the communist manifesto. This way of life worked for many years and to the people of Russia, it made a good society. But to people outside of Russia, people who lived in a democratic state or country, they looked at it as a failed society. A type of society that should not be allowed to exist in the world of democracy. But like Marx said, some societies will be able to live in a Marxist environment and some won’t. Marx also states, “ In a communist society, the working class will be more important than the capital class”(M 10-25-2016). By having everyone equal, this allows for class conflict to be no more and exploitation not exist. Marx knows there can be no good society but a Marxist society will do its best to form a ideal