He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility. This is a false analogy, and where Scott uses the term “discrimination” in an inappropriate manner. Racial and ethnic discrimination is different because people do not choose to be a certain race like choosing to be a smoker. Furthermore, people do not negatively affect others in their vicinity with secondhand ethnicity. By stating that nonsmokers “force their beliefs on the rest of society,” Scott suggests that smokers are victims of violences, and are threatened with restriction of the First Amendment.
For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. We can assume by the premises that the argument would have to be true, due the subject, marijuana is a universal and cheap drug that can be used by anyone. In fact, there are laws that prevent the use of marijuana, so when the law tells society you can’t smoke marijuana, this only puts out a message of restriction and that doesn’t go well for listening. In conclusion, Blakeslee arriving on the conclusion that severe laws will only put more danger on those who use marijuana than
He dismisses this argument by listing other activities that could be harmful to an individual such as smoking tobacco, riding motorcycles, and having unprotected sex. This comparison makes the idea of prohibiting these activities because they are harmful to the individual participating in them seem rather ridiculous. Basically, illegal drugs CAN be harmful to a user; at the same time, smoking tobacco IS harmful to a user, yet smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal. I think Huemer’s argument effectively defeats the prohibitionists’ standpoint that drugs should be outlawed because they are harmful to the user. Second, the author addresses the prohibitionist argument that illegal drugs cause harm to people around the user as well.
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
Assess the view that crime and deviance are the products of labelling processes. Crime is an illegal act that is punishable by law such as stealing and deviance is an act which goes against society’s norms and values such as talking loudly in a library. Interactionists like Becker argue that Crime and Deviance is socially constructed and is therefore a product id labelling. However not al sociologists hold the same view. Becker argued that it is not a certain behaviour or act that is deviant but it is how we react to it that makes it deviant.
The reason for this, in my opinion, is the fact that the US Government wants the public to believe that marijuana is “bad” and should remain illegal. This “cover-up” began in the early 1900’s and still remains in effect today. Many Americans are suffering unjustly because of the illegalization of a drug that is safer than any legal drug on the market today. The hemp plant has many industrial uses and medicinal
In the definition above, being ethical or unethical is in the eyes of the country. If the country doesn’t view this as an issue then neither should Frank. However, in the United States, this bribery would be considered unethical because of the morals that the U.S. stands on. Even though this may be ethical in Latin, bribery is still considered to be illegal when it comes to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 2 - Are Frank’s two different payments legal under the Foreign
The argument that a person has the right to sell their body, for whatever means, and that prostitution should be legalized is not, in fact, very justifiable. The good of the people should come before the good of an individual, just as a drug dealer gets his own drugs legally and they are rightfully his, he cannot sell them to some halfwit kid on the street, the law is there to protect people and, in theory, deter them from doing the deplorable act in the first place. Prostitution is illegal to protect and deter others from risks such as, sexually transmitted diseases, being owned and possibly beaten by a pimp or “procuror of prostitutes”, the many drugs commonly found in that line of buisiness, unwanted pregnancys, and subsequently unwanted child support obligations. Those are the types of things that should not be looked at as “occupational hazard”, children should never be born into a world where they are unwanted and are forced to suffer for the decisions of their parents. Another strong argument is that legalized prostitution allows for more tax revenue, a “safer” environment for the
When someone is labelled an offender they are forced by society to live according to this label which could minimise their chances of being law abiding citizens and limit their chances of finding decent jobs. When deviants realise that society is defining them as thieves or offenders, they feel the need to act out on these labels. Deviants then try to adapt to their new profile by participating in various deviant (criminal)