For instance, it only makes sense that welfare recipients should have to take a drug test in order to qualify for benefits. People say that this is unfair by singling out the poor people, or that it invades their privacy. This simply isn’t true. Some companies have people submit to a drug test even before they go through the interview process when applying for a job. This is because the companies have realized the benefits that can come from a drug-free workplace.
Its medical use must be approved before scientists can gain research to make a decision. “The science on medical marijuana remains unacceptably thin, largely because a drug-war mind-set has kept the U.S. government from commissioning research that could give insight into its efficacy” (“To Clear”). Even California rejected the proposition of recreational marijuana because of the uncertainty behind it. In addition, once medical marijuana gains approval, the cause for recreational legalization lacks victims for which people have sympathy. Society feels compassion towards those with illnesses that need the drug, but they will not feel remorseful towards people seeking a high.
Nadelman wrote an excerpt indicating his own opinion about the current drug legislation. He gives three reasons for why we need a change in legislation. The first is because “the current drug policies have failed, are failing and will continue to fail, because they are flawed.” (Not failed done a fantastic job by not allowing more of the population to be hooked.. Give support from WILSON “HAVE WE LOST in methodology Prgrf) The second reason focuses on the costs of the drug control efforts, and the third addresses the idea that repealing drug laws would not lead to a dramatic rise in drug abuse. Nadelman says the price of drugs if they remained illegal would be greater than if they were not. The drugs would also be more potent and less contaminated.
Describe briefly our society's underlying motivations for the establishment of governmentalregulation and the control of drugs and drug use, differentiating between regulating drug use andtaking a laissez-faire approach. 2a. Some of the underlying motivations for establishing government regulations were that the toxicity of drugs became a concern. The sellers of certain drugs were considered to be endangering the health of the public. There were no regulations that were in place that made the sellers tell how much and what particular ingredients were in the drugs that were being sold.
The FDA had now relaxed it restrictions on the advertisements of pharmaceutical companies. This now allows them to advertise directly at consumers rather than the physicians. With the companies new aim toward the consumers; the consumers may be misled by the ads and therefore demand the drugs they think is necessary. Doctors who prescribe the medication demanded could put their patient in danger by prescribing medication that is not necessary. Patients although should be aware of the drugs that are out there should not be self-diagnosing, for that should be left up to the doctor.
The government was worried that the seller was not properly identifying the chemical substance by labeling the item and stating what was in the substance. They were also worried that the purchaser was not aware of all the possible side effects that could happen when taking the substance. The U.S. was trying to stop the use of drugs to help prevent criminal acts that could possibly happen while under the influence. 2b) The DAWN program is that
Nadelman wrote an excerpt indicating his own opinion about the current drug legislation. He gives three reasons for why we need a change in legislation. The first is because “the current drug policies have failed, are failing and will continue to fail, because they are flawed.” (Not failed done a fantastic job by not allowing more of the population to be hooked.. Give support from WILSON “HAVE WE LOST in methodology Prgrf) The second reason focuses on the costs of the drug control efforts, and the third addresses the idea that repealing drug laws would not lead to a dramatic rise in drug abuse. Nadelman says the price of drugs if they remained illegal would be greater than if they were not. The drugs would also be more potent and less contaminated.
As a society we do not consider things such as Tylenol or Aspirin a drug, but if you take too many it might just be your last headache. So I believe that if misused Cognitive Enhancers can be considered drugs. Is the use of these drugs cheating? Any good set of rules would need to distinguish today’s allowed cognitive enhancements, if they are to be banned. Before we as a society ban such drugs we would need to develop a set of rules and regulations regarding their
The idea to tax it and make a profit will not work the way it is suppose to because of how easy it is to produce this drug yourself (unlike tobacco, and alcohol),and with people producing their own marijuana they will also be selling it cheaper than the government as well. Therefore taxing marijuana will not have a great profit. In the article “Exposing the myth of Medical Marijuana,” by The US Drug Administration website, it is said that the drug causes more health problems then it relieves, and also of it is really necessary you can ask your doctor, and get a
(Henney FDA-1) So it seems that these organizations that are made to protect us are doing their part in helping the cause of illegal drug prescriptions, yet they are not ceasing because of the lack of finding the practitioner that gives the prescription. The FDA says that in their efforts to stop these abuses, one must see a licensed doctor in order to be examined and offered the medicine. This being said, it still doesn’t target the doctor on its own. They might be able to make the process tighter, but if a doctor is crooked, there is really no way of stopping them from writing the prescription. That is why I fight that without making the process of obtaining a license to distribute prescriptions more detailed and strict, there will be no stoppage of the flow