All drugs should be legalized for use in private homes It creates the impression that the need for legalizing drugs are being heard everywhere throughout the world. There are contentions expressing that legalizing drugs is the best way to win the drug war. The implementing drugs does places strain on us, however the fallout of authorizing drugs would make an effectively colossal issue totally out of control. On the off chance that one investigates the arguments about drug legalization, it winds up evident that legalizing drugs won't unravel any of our country's drug issues. Firstly, Drugs affect everybody, not only the individuals who use them. Individuals often, state that people have the right to do as they see fit as long as they don't …show more content…
Vicious violations like murders, strikes and aggressive behaviour at home. All because drugs cause violent behaviour. Crime is high in high-drug use regions not because the individuals are carrying out a crime to get drugs, but the impact of the drugs made them all the more eager to perpetrate a crime. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that cocaine use is connected to high rates of crime and that “manslaughter casualties may have incited viciousness through irritability, jumpy reasoning or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacologic impacts of cocaine” (Anon, 2008). Violent behaviour caused by drugs won't stop since it is lawful. Legal cocaine wouldn't make a man less vicious than illegally purchased cocaine. Crime submitted due to drugs will increase as the quantity of drug clients increase with the legalisation of drugs. Legalization fans disregard the way that the general population carrying out fierce crimes are career criminals who won't stop their unlawful exercises once drugs are legalized, they will rather look for new sources of criminal reward. In the event that drugs were legal not only will there be an expanded crime rate because of the expanded number of clients, but there will still be a underground market and benefit rationale. On the off chance that medications were legal, it is proposed that they would be sold at managed government stores, or as …show more content…
Alcohol use didn’t diminish when it was sanctioned and at the point when premature birth ended up lawful, it also did not diminish. When an activity winds up legal the quantity of individuals taking an interest in that activity builds, drugs won't be any different. Youthful youngsters and adolescents won't have the capacity to buy drugs, similarly as they can't buy liquor. Drug dealers would then focus on youngsters, and in what capacity will they figure out how to state no to drug dealers when they see their parents getting high with the consent of the government. Legalization would make a vast gathering of new kid drug clients. Ron M. Lewenberg once stated: "In a society of victims and mendicants to the welfare state, drug legalization is suicide. We refuse to hold people morally and financially culpable for their actions, yet drugs should be readily available. That’s like giving alcohol and car keys to a rebellious 13-year-old. Only a virtuous society can remain free from tyranny and slavery. Drug-legalization is a mockery of liberty no less than socialism is to equality” (Lewenberg R,
While most people can control their liquor, unfortunately others can’t. Legalizing alcohol was a big mistake, the many different tragedies that occurs because of alcohol is insane. The fact that imbeciles are allowed to drink is even worse. 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, and this condition is not likely to change soon. It is necessary to defend the prohibition of any drug against the background of legalized alcohol. Observe, then, that an increase in the use of some drugs as a result of legalization might actually result in a net decrease in the independent harms of drug and alcohol abuse taken together” (Husak 112). Being that alcohol is currently legal, there’s a 99.9% chance that it won’t change soon. Some drugs are banned, but, alcohol is still being sold in stores. Marijuana is a nonviolent drug, whereas alcohol promotes anger and pure violence. By legalizing marijuana and making drinking alcohol illegal, there’s a chance that violence will decrease. The video “Why We Need to End the War on Drugs” spoken by Ethan Nadelmann, he discussed both valid points about drugs and whether it should be legalized or stay
“[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.
the only way to make money. Minimum wage salaries can not compare to the huge
The war on drugs in our culture is a continuous action that is swiftly lessening our society. This has been going on for roughly 10-15 years and has yet to slow down in any way. Drugs continue to be a problem for the obvious reason that certain people abuse them in a way that can lead to ultimate harm on such a person. These drugs do not just consist of street drugs (marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy), but prescription medications as well. Although there are some instances where drugs are being used by subjects excessively, there has been medical research to prove that some of these drugs have made a successful impact on certain disorders and diseases.
However, before the specific outcomes of Congressional influence and policy impact can be evaluated it becomes important to first review the general history and current situation of drugs today. Our present drug laws were first enacted at the beginning of the century. At the time, recreational use of narcotics was not a major social issue. The first regulatory legislation was for the purpose of standardizing the manufacturing and purity of pharmaceutical products. Shortly after, the first criminal laws were enacted which addressed opium products and cocaine. Although some states had prohibited the recreational use of marijuana, there was no federal criminal legislation until 1937. By contrast, the use of alcohol and its legality was a major social issue in United States in the early 20th century. This temperance movement culminated in the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. Recreational drug use, particularly heroin, became more prevalent among the urban poor during the early ?60s. Because of the high cost of heroin and its uncertain purity, its use was associated with crime and frequent overdoses.
When societies finally become comfortable with reality, they begin to abandon the murderous laws that impede their growth. Currently, the social stigma and legislated morality regarding the use of illicit drugs yield perhaps the most destructive effects on American society. Drug laws have led to a removal of non-violent citizens from society- either directly by incarceration or indirectly by death - that is genocidal in quantity and essence.
Our economic statue tells us that a supply rapidly grows up to meet a demand. But if the demand is widespread then suppression is useless. It is harmful to society because since by raising the price of the drug in question, it raises the profits of middlemen, which gives them an even more powerful drug to stimulate demand further. The vast profits to be made from cocaine and heroin, which would be cheap and easily affordable, even by the poorest in affluent societies if they were legal. Besides, it is well known the illegality in itself has attraction for youth already inclined to disaffection.
When I heard the Learn’d Astronomer is a short poem by Walt Whitman. In this poem the narrator, presumably Whitman himself, describes what happened when he attended a lecture on astronomy. One of its important themes deals with the difference between learning through teachers and text, and actually going through something on your own and experiencing it in first person. It is about the freedom to learn outside the confines of a classroom or lecture hall. The poem suggests that experiencing an event yourself and learning from it is superior to learning from an academic lecture. This is what makes this poem great as it promotes learning visually and from experience rather than being told things that have less value to you as being facts. This reminds of the transcendentalist writer Henry David Thoreau who believed in experiencing nature. It also represents a good example of Whitman as the poet of democracy. He wrote for everyone, not any sort of elite group. His rejection of the classroom and his grammatical imperfections in the poem can be seen as a statement against items that includ...
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 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.
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.
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.
One of the most prevalent misconceptions, Benson and Rasmussen, contend is the notion that a large percentage of drug users commit nondrug crimes, what might be called the “drugs-cause-crime” assumption implicit in the government’s drug-war strategy. If true, then an effective crackdown on drug use would reduce nondrug crime rates.... ... middle of paper ... ...
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 ... ...