One of the things we can learn is that people either hated or loved Al Capone. We can also learn that Al Capone, who was one of the greatest alcohol smugglers in America, wasn’t afraid to get his face out to the government as he knew they couldn’t catch him. On one hand, this source is partly useful in finding out some of the views of prohibition in many ways whether their positive or if their negative. One of the ways this tells us about the views of prohibition
The question arising if it really worked was put into inquisition because while prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it stimulated the proliferation of rampant underground, organized and widespread criminal activity. Basic Argument The basic argument of this article presented by the author is the stringent
Gangs would be trying to supply liquor competitively with other local gangsters. Soon they found that it was easier to join forces and work together to make bootlegging bigger and easier. People would bump off anyone who would get in their way who was mainly patrols on the great lakes trying to prevent bootlegging and smuggling of alcohol. Gangsters were very easily avoiding dicks and able to supply their local joints. Soon there was a huge clash of other gangs that didn’t need the help or wanted anyone else involved in their bootlegging and crime.
When Marijuana is illegal, you have to find a drug dealer or someone who sells it. This can indeed be dangerous; but that also helps keep some people away from perusing it. If you were able to have a friend or someone you know buy it for you over the counter, yes it would definitely be safer; but it will be pretty much in the hands of anyone who wants it now. And having a increased population of people smoking pot will not benefit in anyway. It will only make the people become even more lazy then what we already are.
Their efforts are primarily unproductive. While they do try to get more of the suppliers off of the streets, it simply raises the price of the product. Hence, more suppliers are encouraged to enter the market because they believe the rewards outweigh the risks. Chapter two of Super Freakonomics begins with yet another comical title that reads, “Why Should Suicide Bombers Buy Life Insurance?” This chapter draws in the readers with compelling aspects why terrorism is so cheap and easy, and of both birth and death. I will begin with the talk of terrorism.
RED-LIGHT THE RED-LIGHT CAMERA The newest wave in crime fighting is the red light camera. These red light cameras have the potential for good, but as of now they are causing more harm than good. One problem is that the cameras are impartial. The cameras are also a liability because they are costing the city more in litigation than the tickets from the lights are bringing in, and while the cameras are preventing accidents they are also causing accidents also. Like every other type of authority it has the need to be regulated.
I feel that prohibition was unnecessary and did more bad than good. Prohibition actually increased the amount of alcohol in some places. It also led to more substance related deaths. Another downside to prohibition was that law enforcement officers became so worried about alcohol consumption that much unneeded time and money was spent on the issue. Since the officers were focusing mainly on the alcohol issue the crime rate increased.
With criminals buying guns nearly exclusively from the black market, stricter gun control policies might, in fact, encourage crime. Citizens legally having guns for defensive purposes discourage criminals from committing violent crimes; and with this right to gun ownership taken away, criminals will be more violent and reckless. Citizens having guns and using them for self-defense keeps down the death rate because 98% of the time all that is needed to scare off an attacker is the presence of a gun. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms is enumerated in The Constitution and should not be infringed by any governing body. The second amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (greenhouse1).
Lowering the Drinking age In today’s world teenagers have built up a rebellious tendency, they always want to do things they are told not to do. The same comes with alcohol; laws that were created to avoid reckless driving and take the death rate in traffic accidents down have made drinking a bigger problem. For example in anarticle by Melissa Giamo a chief of police from Boulder Colorado named Mark Beckner is interviewed about this topic and makes some of the same points. He says “We're not in a situation where we can stop it. The best we can do is try to contain it.”(Giamo 1) Giamo then asks Beckner if they enforce it and Beckner replies "Well, we do enforce it, but what we're seeing is it's not being effective.
College students should take into account of their lives as they are tossing back indigenous amounts of liquor. A heavy amount of liquor consumed in a short period is not good on the body or the mind. It is highly unlikely that college students are able to quit binge drinking at the sight of more people around them doing the same things. Prevention of this horrific trend should have been laid to rest ages ago but yet colleges have let it grow substantially to where it is almost impossible to stop or control. As adults and parents, we need to put an end to the constant self destructive ways of our youth and future