It has become a fashionable trending topic in the world today pertaining to the legalization of drugs weather they should be legal or not. The government came up with the solution “The U.S drug policy” to prevent the rapid increase of drugs these past decades. But I personally feel that the government should not focus on trying to band and get rid of drugs and focus more on the people that use them. Also if the government is going to restrict drugs they should restrict all of them . Another thing is drugs have both positive and negative affects to them .
There may be a few reasons why prohibition of oxycontin would be bad but I feel as though the main reason is because if that occurs, it is going to cause people to resort to harder drugs, such as heroin. People compare oxycontin to heroin and say that it has similar effects; therefore, if the oxy is no longer available, naturally they will go to the next option that’s comparable; heroin. On a local drug forum, called “Topix”, username ang81 tells us, “heroin and oxys have around the same 1/2 life, well actually heroin should metabolize quicker being an accelerated form of morph, so the stoned feeling after the euphoria may last longer, but only because oxys are also a stimulant which counter acts that groggy, stoned feeling you get from morphine”. Another reason why we shouldn’t prohibit the use is because Oxycontin is much safer than many other drugs out there. Oxycontin contains a large amount of oxycodone which means oxycontin is way more pure and known simply because it is a prescribed controlled substance you get right over the counter at your nearest pharmacy (Prescription Drugs).
Consequently, those who felt drugs should be legalized believe that by looking at other countries, such as Portugal and New Zealand who have legalized drugs, crime would decrease. These individuals feel that by collecting tax revenues from drug sales, taxes would go down, and it would reduce police corruption (Hughes, C. & Stevens, A., 2010) (McCaffrey,
Abstract In this paper I will discuss anti-trust law as it relates to pharmaceuticals. The company in question is being investigated on the grounds that they are intentionally delaying the release of generic versions of its best selling anti-depressant. I will discuss why the company would want to delay this release, the legal barriers for other companies to enter this market, and the ethical dilemmas apparent in this situation. I will be specifically discussing the anti-trust lawsuit which involved Bayer and its drug Cipro and another similar suit involving Hoescht Marion Roussel, Inc and its drug Cardizem CD. Antitrust Law and the Ethical Ramifications of Generic versus Brand Name Drugs Antitrust laws are on the books in the U.S. to prevent companies from cornering the market on a specific product, ensuring fair competition and lower prices for consumers.
Weak gun law states have not seen the same decline.” It’s obvious that the strong gun law states are doing something right if they see a decline in violence, they must be enforcing gun laws and controlling the gun distribution in their states. Weak gun law states on the other hand need to step up their gun enforcement laws and start enforcing them if they want to see declines in violence like the other states. As a result of the strong law
Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Intro: One goal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was to reduce the amount of assault weapons used to commit crimes. Renewing this ban will most likely lessen the accessibility of assault weapons and in turn, lower the violence rate. 1st:The less amount of access, the more difficult to attain- Assault Weapons were not intended for citizens to use as it posed a risky potential for violence, therefore decreasing the amount of citizens with access to assault weapons introduces another goal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. One might argue that because these weapons can still be modified, sold, and bought on the black market by criminals and other mentally unhinged persons, it can instigate a threat among other law abiding citizens, thus prompting them to purchase them as well. With this I must bring up the case that it is not a legitimate reason for negating the resolution just because criminals will always have access to assault weapons.
What background information do you need to provide for your audience? - Examples of what drugs do to people’s bodies. c.
The correct use of mind expanding drugs can only lead to a better fulfillment of the human identity and a greater understanding of reality. Mind expanding drugs must become legal. One argument against drug use is that the addiction and desperation that occurs along with it. Many users lose themselves to their weakness of will and emotionally and physically depend on the drug. Addiction becomes so overwhelming that one
Legalizing Marijuana Pamela Horton SOC 120 Introductions to Ethics & Social Responsibility George Greaves October 29, 2012 Some people believe that marijuana is not a drug it is a plant. Many my agree that it is a natural herb planted to help cope with stress of everyday hectic lives. Anything that alters your state of being, or have you doing things out of the norms is a drug. The pro-legalization argument was that if we legalize marijuana it could not be controlled and the efforts to try to control marijuana uses causes more problems than they solve. I feel that if we legalize marijuana we would have a bunch of fried brain lunatics running around committing all kinds of crimes.
However, today drugs are more readily available and in a purer form, yet seem to be more cost effective to those who use (EugeneJarecki, 2013). This documentary looked at the perspective of how the war on drugs seemed to cause more harm than good to today’s society. How such harsh drug penalties seem to be doing less and less of what it was originally designed to achieve. Richard Nixon was the first president to declare war on drugs; he stated that public enemy number one was drug abuse.