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).
The say that what is a good idea is not the blanket ban of guns, which is unconstitutional because of new meaning of the second amendment, but rather a continuation of the current limits of guns and gun owners. It may not be “constitutional” for the government to put a complete ban on weapons, but it is proper for it to enact stronger restrictions to keep the rather terrifying weapons away from the people who cannot be trusted with a knife, much less than that of a
The pros definitely outweigh the cons in every which way possible. Alcohol is obviously a way worse drug than marijuana and it’s legal! People should have the right to use marijuana if they please.This is the United States of America. A place where dreams come true and happiness is made. We have strived on giving people freedoms but with limitations.
They also infer that strict gun laws will not hinder criminals from obtaining firearms, if they don’t intend to abide by the law. Thus, the only people affected by gun laws are law-abiding citizens. The world is not perfect, and it is therefore too late for gun control. This argument centers on the view that there are already many guns in the United States; hence attempting to impose strict gun laws will not have an impact. The gun owners would fight back or hide them and claim they possess none.
He defends this claim against a variety of objections, including the claims: that marijuana is unsafe, that marijuana cannot be adequately tested or produced as a drug, that the availability of synthetic THC makes marijuana superfluous, and especially that legalizing medical marijuana will increase recreational use by 'sending the wrong message.' He then goes on to argue that given the intransigent position of the federal government on this issue; state governments are justified in unilaterally legalizing medical marijuana as an act of civil
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
The proponents for banning guns, and the defensive use of a gun, cannot show any proof of taking banning guns will slow the crime rate with tighter gun laws. I’m all for strict and tough enforcement of gun laws that prohibit criminals from using them in the commission of a crime (cite, Blanks 1990) Because if they (criminals) feel they can take advantage of individuals or families who are consider unarmed. These are individual and families are easy prey for them. The criminals will not hesitate to harm or
Requiring "heroic honesty" on the part of the government, this will take enormous effort to admit that marijuana is neither addictive nor dangerous, unlike speed, which kills most unpleasantly, or heroin, which is addictive and difficult to kick. Vidal's direct and straightforward proposal can be very daunting but the idea of legalizing drugs is not a new concept. In some countries marijuana can be purchased over the country. These are also sold for its medicinal properties. Vidal's essay , admittedly is a good piece of writing but it does not provide for the reader a clear outline of why drugs should be legalized, aside from the notion that people's right to choice whether to be addicts or not.
For instance in this topic, there is no evidence to support the assertion that legalizing pot will stop the illegal sale of the substance, and help regulate marijuana use. There is also no guarantee that by no longer imprisoning marijuana users they will not use more dangerous substances and move on to other criminal behavior. The side of the controversy that is best is decided by the individual, how it is viewed in their culture and morals he or she may have. Lastly, the decision of legalization rests in the hands of our government and what they believe is best for the protection of our country and its people. Even if the proposition is passed by the citizens the government can impeach it or the president can veto
One one side people attest bigotry, racism, and even the financial interests of big corporations as reasons, whereas the other side cites the fact that marijuana is, in fact, a drug and inherently harmful to both individuals and society. Opponents also point out that legalizing recreational marijuana is a violation of international law, specifically the United Nations Single Convention of Narcotics Drugs of 1961 (www.UN.org). There can be no doubt the effectiveness of the CSA concerning marijuana is less than stellar. To be effective one would have to say that people, first off, would agree overwhelmingly that use or possession of marijuana should be a crime in the first place. Even using the words 'legalization' and Federalism and Marijuana 'decriminalization' invite debate as one would suggest that the illegalization was right and proper and the other suggests the criminalization was the wrong thing to do in the first place, thereby creating a culture of criminals where there should never have been.