Both sides are fighting to be right and win. Whether drugs are legalized or stay illegal one or both sides of the argument will be unhappy, unless they come to a compromise. The recent legalization of medical marijuana in some states could be looked at as a compromise. With the compromise, marijuana is legal with the certain prescription, but still is illegal and has repercussions if used for the wrong reason. Another compromise is the decriminalization of marijuana; if someone is to be in possession of less than one ounce then it is just a misdemeanor.
Marcia Frederic Paul Cain Creative and Critical Thinking July 30, 2012 Should Drugs be legalized? “In society today there always seems to be debate on whether the legalization of drugs will be of public interest.”(1) It is said that the legalization of drugs will eliminate drug-related crimes and decrease social problems. However, individuals in our society must understand that if drugs were to be legal it will make the problem that we have now become uncontrollable. “Drugs have become part of a problem in society” (2) and if one studies the altercations behind drug legalization, it will become more obvious that it will not be approving to anyone because they will understand that there will be an excessive growth in crimes and the general well-being of individuals will decrease. The last thing we need is another set of rules making substances widely available to destroy humanity.
It seems many states have refused to pass bills related to this problem in America. Issue Statement How can we as Americans stop the epidemic of prescription drug abuse, yet ensure we as practitioners are continuing to provide quality patient care and optimal treatment for those in need of it?
Bayer's theory is that the smokeless ways are more cost efficient or will be once more Americans are accepting of medical marijuana. But even though both of these articles address topics on marijuana from a doctors point of view, their is noticeable difference in how they attempt to persuade their readers into accepting their stand point. The Harvard Mental Health Letter uses more statistics and studies, while Dr. Rick Bayer uses his own knowledge and theories. "Their are no studies showing cannabis smoking causes cancer or emphysema" as Dr. Rick Bayer quoted in his article. Bayer also stated that "Cannabis smoke contains measurable amounts of carcinogens."
Illicit drug users need more help than simply abstaining from the use of drugs to overcome their addiction. The use of federal money to pay for sterile syringes is still prohibited, but funds can now be used to pay for other aspects of NEPs, including personnel, vehicles, gas, rent, and other expenditures needed to keep NEPs operational (Weinmeyer, 2016). The war against drugs is the main reason why the use of NEPs and MAT programs are incredibly perplexing. The ideology of assisting an individual in maintaining the euphoric feeling of illicit drugs or providing hypodermic needles to successfully administer drugs contradicts the campaign of “just say no”. The use of drugs is illegal, yet the government provides assistance with drug use.
Reading Assessment for America’s Unjust Drug War by Michael Huemer In America’s Unjust Drug War, author Michael Huemer, a philosophy professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, expresses his opinion that illegal drug laws are seriously unjust because they violate a person’s natural right to control their own body. Huemer gives the viewpoint of both sides of this issue by examining the arguments that would be made by Prohibitionists and Legalizers. He focuses on three very prominent arguments in the debate for drug legalization. First, he brings forth the argument that drugs should be outlawed because they cause harm to the drug user. 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.
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.
“Medical Marijuana is an Insult to Our Intelligence” This opinion piece, written by Charles Lane, starts off with the author describing how the Justice Department is dealing with people who smoke or sell pot. The article not only has statistical points but also the authors own opinion and humor. The author believes that although marijuana is a blessing for terminally ill patients, it does not have the ability to calm oneself. He explains the testing drugs must go through to meet Drug Administration to get his point through. Reading this article, I also find defense cases about medical marijuana.
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.
Should soft drugs be legalised or is it a gate way to hard drugs The issue of drugs legalization is has two opposite view points. Both sides use the term “legalization of drugs” without its clear definition. How can we define what exactly “legalization” is? If the law recognize drug addiction as a diseases, is it “legalization”? If drugs are used in cancer care is it “legalization”?