In the United States the use of illegal drugs is prohibited. If one uses or possesses any type of an illegal substance it is considered a criminal offense. One must know that 15 million Americans use drugs each month (Husak 7). There are various points of view that disagree and agree with this law. An advanced society must realize that the idea of any attempt to allow illegal drugs to be legalized, in any way in society, cannot be morally permissible; a sound minded person cannot allow more addiction in a drug infested country. For our purpose an advanced society is a large number of persons that are morally knowledgeable of human wellbeing. A drug, for our purpose, is described as any substance other than food which by its chemical nature affects the structure or function of the living organism. The idea of changing illegal substance laws started with drug legalization, which stretches back to the early decades of the 20th century, but the contemporary debate emerged in1988. Kurt L. Schmoke called for the debate on drug control and strategies. Schmokes’s argument was that for generations the United States has been pursuing policies of prosecution and repression that resulted in little more than overcrowded courts and prisons, increased profits for drug traffickers, and higher rates of addiction. There are two main view points on the changing of drug laws. One is the Prohibition view point which is against drug legalization. Prohibitionist believe that laws that are set in place are enough and that the legalization of drugs would further disrupt family structure and imply drug use to American youth that would lower perceptions of harms and risks, as well as failing to eliminate drug addiction.( Inciardi 20). The parallel v... ... middle of paper ... ...n illegal substance must consider after addiction free choice is no longer free. The first few times an individual uses an addictive substance, but that choice disappears as addiction becomes an experienced reality (Inciardi 39). Work cited Heath, Samuel . "The Relationship between Parental Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Child Maltreatment ."childabuse,com (2011): n. pag. Web. 15 Apr 2011. Husak, Douglas . The Legalization of Drugs . Cambridge, New York: Cambridge Press, 2005. 198. Print. Inciardi , James A. The Drug Legalization debate . 2nd . Thousand Oaks, California : Sage Publications Inc., 1999. 1-117. Print. University of California - San Francisco. "Prescription Drug Addiction Is Under Investigation." ScienceDaily, 19 Apr. 2007. Web. 15 Apr. 2011. Wills, Suzanne. "Marijuana policy questions ." Drug Policy Forum of Texas (2004): n. pag. Web. 15 Apr 2011.
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.
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...
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
So long as people continue to use illicit drugs, the drug trade and all the problems that go with it will continue. This fact has led to an enormous debate as to whether legalizing drug use will reduce the problem. Many think that, if drugs were legalized, this would take the profit out of the sales, and reduce the drug cartels’ ability to generate the revenues necessary to conduct their operations. Legalization of drugs also would enable the U.S. government to tax the sale of drugs, and to use those revenues for programs designed to help stop people from using them. That debate, however, is the subject of another civics presentation.
“The proponents of drug legalization argue that although drugs can cause health and social problems, these are not sufficient reasons for making them illegal”(Trevino & Richard, 2002, p.105). The other main question that drug users raise are that alcohol and cigarettes both cause extreme harm but they are legal! “A study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) reports that alcohol abuse and alcoholism generated about 60% of the estimated costs ($148 billion), while drug abuse and dependence accounted for the remaining 40% ($98 billion)”(Trevino & Richard, 2002, p.92). Statistics show that there are more issues with alcohol abuse than drug abuse, but drugs are considered much worse in our
In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed. Additionally, I will highlight and evaluate the influences acting on individual legislators' decisions to continue support for these ineffective policies as a more general demonstration of Congress' role in the formation of our nation's drug policy strategy. Finally, I will conclude this analysis by outlining the changes I feel necessary for future progress to be made. Primary among these changes are a general promotion of drug education and the elimination of our current system's many de-legitimating hypocrisies.
The argument over drug reform and the current prohibition has been going on for years. It seems to be an argument between a wise parent and a young teenager, but as generations change more and more of the parents seem to switch sides. While prohibitionists say the mainstream drugs like cocaine, heroin, LSD, and marijuana are harmful and immoral, legalizers argue the opposite (Rachels 223). While they are both valid and interesting arguments the drugs named above still remain illegal. Many organizations and respected citizens have come to America’s attention in their support for drug reform or complete legalization of certain drugs. These people range from normal citizens who support the recreational use of marijuana to judges and ex- law enforcement agents who say the war on drugs has been a failure. The drug issue in the United States of America has been going on for years with the counterculture of the sixties up until the more recent medicinal marijuana debates today, and it seems that it is not going to go away anytime soon.
I base my support of the decriminalization of all drugs on a principle of human rights, but the horror and frustration with which I voice this support is based on practicality. The most tangible effect of the unfortunately labeled "Drug War" in the United States is a prison population larger than Russia's and China's, and an inestimable death toll that rivals the number of American casualties from any given war, disease or catastrophe.
be beneficial.” In: Scott Barbour (Ed.), Drug Legalization: Current Controversies. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000, pp. 102-108.
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...
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 US has a complex patch that has been demonstrated in its framework and enforcement practices that are associated with drug laws. A number of federal and state policies have been formulated that sometimes seem to overlap hence giving rise to a number of conflicts among the different level of governments. This essay will explore and demonstrate the federal drug policy that the US Federal Government is designing and the issues of federalism that the policy raises.
The prohibitionist national policy towards drugs in U.S has been extremely contentious in the present times. After decades of the stance that costs billions how many each year, the paltry achievements and the countless negative externalities have led to a clamor for alternative policies instead of a “War on Drugs”.
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.