Severe laws against marijuana do not discourage use of marijuana, but rather breed this contempt not only for drug laws, but for laws in general. Therefore sever laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” (p.45). The first premiss would have to be “Encouragement of contempt for laws is more dangerous to society than occasional use of marijuana. “ This certain premiss is important because it makes one of the claims for the argument. Another premiss is “Severe laws against marijuana do not discourage use of marijuana, but rather breed this contempt not only for drug laws but for laws in general.” This ties in with the first premiss, but can stand alone as its’ own as well.
While some do not believe the theory that drugs are used for the risk, it is an interesting way to look at the reason people do drugs. People who are pro drugs promote that drugs, such as marijuana, are used for medical use as well as recreational use, because they enjoy the effect drugs have on them. Prohibitionists state that if drugs were legalized they would be only consumed for recreational use or to escape from reality instead of dealing with issues (Marijuana Abuse, 2012). Some prohibitionists do not even believe that drugs help in medical ways. This controversial topic is one of the reasons the drug reform is such a debated movement of today.
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?
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.
They should spread the word and tell people taking drugs is against the law or that drugs are bad for your health or even that drugs can make you go bankrupt. If people know the damage that drugs can do then they will not want to take them. The police can also eliminate drugs by sending in more undercover police officers and having them pretend to be
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.
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.
Let’s take, for example, the drug OxyContin, lets’ examine what happened to this medication. Just like Marijuana, It was created to help people from pain, but turned out to be a menace to society. Prescriptions being altered, doctors giving excessive amounts of money, addicts breaking into pharmacies and hurting people. The legalization of marijuana will bring more criminal activity because of the lack of impaired judgment associated with the drug. An individual will have impaired judgment and altered decision making if found to be under the influence of
Proponents of government bans argue that they help in: Improving moral values and standards in the society, reducing crime rate, improving health and also reducing crime rate. On the other hand, critics of government bans argue that government bans create favorable conditions for black markets for illegal goods and products, increase levels of corruption among politicians and police plus also
Do Stricter Gun-Control Laws Help Prevent Gun-Related Injuries/Deaths? Gun control arguments are a hot topic in America and around the world; it is a topic not likely to go away anytime soon. Arguments for and against carry their own merit and can be lengthy and broad by nature, but our intent is to debate the effect of gun-control laws and the effect they have on gun-related injuries/deaths. The argument presented here will get to the crux of why laws should or should not be enacted to prevent social ills. Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution.