In his essay "Drugs," Gore Vidal proposes that all illegal drugs in the US should be legalized. He supports his proposal with three main points. First, Vidal proposes that legalizing dru Enter away message text here.gs enables the people their constitutional right for the pursuit of happiness. Second, it will cure the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. Third, prohibition of drugs will be a failure just like the prohibition of alcohol in the past. Although Vidal's main points seem like the general key necessary to stop the drug problem in this country, his proposal is ultimately blunt, only ideal and not well thought of.
Vidal supports his proposal with three main points. First, he claims that the prohibition of these drugs is a violation of the constitutional right for the pursuit of happiness. "Drug prohibition protects addicts from themselves by exerting parental control over their behavior" (Cussen). The government should not have the right to take happiness away from anyone as long as they do not infringe anyone else's right to life or their property. Second, he observes that legalizing drugs will take away its title of being a "forbidden fruit." People always want what they can't have. Legalizing drugs enable people easier access to them, taking away the thrill of getting them. In the Philippines, alcohol is accessible to everyone but the hype of drinking it is nowhere as big as it is here in the US. Secondly, the "forbidden fruit" effect can yield the potency effect. Because drugs are illegal, manufacturers compete to create the best form of drugs for higher value. "It was in the best interests of the sellers to carry more potent forms" of drugs (Cussen). Third, he argues that the prohibition of drugs, like that of alcohol in the 1920's, will be a failure. The only thing the prohibition did was "launch the greatest crime wave in the country's history" (Gore). So why should the second time around any different? With better weapons and more organized criminals,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document