To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. 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.
Bennett’s chapter against the legalization of drugs he speculates that the legalization of drugs would remove the criminal stigma that currently labels drug users. Bennett theorizes that a removal of this stigma would take with it the hesitation felt by the majority of people who see no positives in a life of crime. He is talking about every drug which one would agree that such a broad decriminalization would send our country into a downward spiral filled with addicted citizens barely able to function within society. The hard drugs that Bennett describes are in fact a danger to society such drugs like PCP, heroin or crack cocaine. However, he barely touches on the fact of marijuana alone.
Drug Abuse Reform One of the major issues of today is the reform of drugs. Some people believe that all types of illegal drugs should stay illegal for the good of the community. They point out the dangers of long term drug addiction and usage. Others believe that the use of drugs should be legalized. They argue that the dangers of drugs and can limited and controlled if drugs are made legal.
This shows drug trafficking was recognized as a large problem over a century ago. With a better plan and more harsh consequences, drug trafficking can be under better control than it is today. “The position maintained by the United States, a drug-consuming country, was that the trade in dangerous drugs had to be prohibited and that narcotic drug supply should be eliminated at its source” (Keefer & Loayza, (2010), p. 88). This is still the goal for the United States today. Customs officers are expected to do their job and put a stop to the drug trafficking but the temptation of making some extra money may be extremely strong.
Some individuals are for gun control and some think that gun control does not make a difference. These are some pros for gun control. Knowing that people who cannot easily obtain a firearm allows people to feel safer. Most violent crimes are committed with firearms and restricting gun ownership will most likely reduce a tremendous amount of crimes. Legalized gun ownership gives a greater chance of being in the wrong hands such as a child, giving it a better chance of resulting in a deadly accident.
They claim that drug use is a victimless crime and that people who use drugs are only hurting themselves and no one else. Other supporters believe that crime would actually decrease if drugs were made readily obtainable. They claim that because drugs are illegal it creates a subculture that wants to rebel in any shape or form necessary. A big fault lies in this theory. If drugs were legalized, a massive black market would continue to exist.
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.
Second, the author addresses the prohibitionist argument that illegal drugs cause harm to people around the user as well. Huemer agrees that drugs have the potential to ruin a user’s life whether it be laziness, poor communication with others, or not taking pride in one’s work. He states that drug use only has a chance of causing one to behave in these ways. There are people all over the world that voluntarily behave in these ways without the use of drugs. Should these people be arrested for being losers?
Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity. All these points are valid, but they are forgetting about the rights of people and what they stand for. I would think people would want defendants to be punished fairly and not have an opening, where they could possible get their case dropped because of something illegal done on the prosecution or law enforcement
Taylor Nordmeyer Prof. L Gertsma ENGL 1101 27 November 2012 Gang Control It’s no question that we have a major gang problem in the United States. More needs to be done to eliminate gangs, because they increase the drug flow, the crime rate, and intimidate citizens of their communities. Not all gangs are dangerous, but the ones that are, need to be contained because of their cruel behavior and their harsh crimes. Gangs become more powerful through these factors. Eliminating or controlling the drugs being distributed by gangs then their power will diminish.