Giving people freedom to do what they want but not promoting the use of possible harmful drugs. “Decriminalization may be a useful first step towards a saner approach to drugs”. (The Economist.“The difference between legalization and decriminalization”). In this day and age people are going to do illegal substances regardless of what their government deems proper. While legalization indicates a free for all on drugs, decriminalization limits and restricts while giving citizens the freedom of choice we all have as a human…
In the article entitled “Would Legalized Drugs Produce a Zombie Nation?”(Cederblorn and Paulsen, 332 - 334) written by Stephen Chapman. The author (Stephen Chapman) provides a clear details and analogy of the drug use and abuse in the American society. The article gave a picture of a theoretical view where the use of banned drugs is legitimized by the United States government. The unbelievable situation of having a legitimate way of circulating the proscribed drugs would create a lot of chaos in the communities and society in general.…
When it comes to importance of public liberty and privacy it must be easily said that they are right that using drugs have relations our desires and human…
Sullum, Jacob "Hep-Cats, Narcs, and Pipe Dreams: A History of America 's Romance with Illegal…
The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs, he takes a different approach to regarding the War on Drugs. While he feels that current drug policies have failed, his book focuses on the injustice of punitive drug laws and believes we should stop punishing people for using illicit drugs. “A law whose purpose is deterrence must always be backed by a demonstration that the law is just.” (ix) His book is presented in three chapters. Chapter one describes our present drug policies and laws and raises questions to answer whether these are just or unjust and offers his position of decriminalization as a more ethical approach to drug use. Chapter two reviews the most frequent arguments used in favor of punishing drug users and Husak believes that none of these are convincing enough to warrant enacting laws on a person’s behavior. Chapter three declares that punishing drug users is counterproductive and damaging to us…
my first instinct about decriminalizing drugs is absolutely not, but if you really think about it, it could work. You know when your parents take your phone away, you just really want it? Or in general, you can’t get something you really want. It’s a struggle. But when you do have it, it’s not as much of a priority anymore in your head. It becomes less relevant. I believe that by decriminalizing drugs, it would create a similar reaction. We would work to make these drugs less potent. The drugs wouldn’t be promoted worldwide, instead, be filled with warnings. Then you find the drugs that are more potent, and you take caution with them. Doctors would oversee the dosage and use, while also looking to the addicts. Legalizing these drugs draws out…
9. Argument about it helping the economy can be counter argued by the fact that drug dealers will just under cut the retail price of…
So far this is good. However, Wilson also claims that keeping heroin and cocaine illegal contains the number of users, and so prevents a great number of harm. This is where I disagree. In Douglas Husak's, "Why we should decriminalize drug use", he argues against Wilson's claims. If frequency of drug use is a function of cost, then use will go up when as the cost goes down. and it is also true that economic models claim that cost will drop after decriminalization and would have an increase in use. But the predictions of cost and use after decriminalization assume that nothing else will change. However, many other things will change that could raise the price, reduce the use, and reduce the amount of harm that results from use. Therefore, the prediction of soaring use and harm is unsupported.…
Legalizing does not mean giving up on the problem; it rather means regulation and control over the situation. Contrasting the problem, criminalization means prohibition. The U.S cannot regulate what it prohibits, and drugs are too dangerous to remain unregulated. Prohibition will not help anyone, just like the U.S prohibited alcohol during the 20’s and 30’s, and it did not work. It is happening exactly like it with the drugs. U.S News & World Report writer Peter Moskos says, “ Illegal drug dealers sell to anyone. Legal Ones are licensed and help keep drugs such as beer, cigarettes, and pharmaceuticals away from minors. Illegal dealers settle disputes with guns, when on the other hand; legal ones solve theirs in court. Illegal dealers fear police, and legal ones fear IRS” (8). What Moskos is trying to explain is that by regulating the drugs things are kept under control. Usually people fall for drugs in a high percentage because it is “illegal”, and usually what we can have is what we want. By legalizing the U.S will be hitting hard the drug dealer’s economy and devastating their dirty, corrupt cartels. It is or choice to legalize drugs or pass through a second century of failed prohibition. Government regulation might not sound as powerful as “war on drugs” but it will do its job. (Moskos…
In William J. Bennett’s argument, Drugs: Should their Sale and Use Be Legalized, he tries to persuade the readers that drugs should not be legalized. He goes on to explain the national drug policy and the intellectuals that by and large are against it but have little to contribute to the matter. The argument like he says is a little one sided, there is a whole lot to say about the national drug policy and very little to say about the intellectuals.…
There is a large majority of people arguing good points on either side of this drug war, in which they are opposed with one another, in which one side says, “Drug enforcement is engaged in controlling the spread and remedying the effects of drug abuse.” There are also those that state that these laws and programs are designed to help decrease America’s dependence on illicit substances. The people from the another side of this argument begs to differ, as they claim that the drug war is an utter failure, ex-presidential candidate Ron Paul explains, “This war on drugs has been a detriment to personal liberty and it 's been a real abuse of liberty." In another section Ron mentions that, “Our prisons are full with people who have used drugs who should be treated as patients -- and they 're non-violent. Someday we 're going to awaken and find out that the prohibition we are following right now with drugs is no more successful, maybe a lot less successful, than…
In “Against the Legalization of Drugs,” by Peter de Marneffe, the argument that the use and possession of drugs needs to be decriminalized is made, because of the belief that the criminalization of drug use and possession violates the rights of citizens. In this paper, I will defend de Marneffe’s position by refuting a possible objection. Contrarians may claim that decriminalizing drugs will inevitably lead individuals to try harder and more dangerous drugs.…
One of the arguments against legalization of drugs is what we have all grown up hearing which is “drugs are bad”. This reason has been said throughout most of our life and is what we learn in schools. However, legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco have caused more harm than illegal drugs. Another argument against legalization is that it would send mix signals to children. Drugs are bad and “just say no” have been sayings we have all learned growing up. However, if drugs were suddenly legal children would be confused. The rates of use can fluctuate in high school students with their confusion about drugs. Another argument against legalizing drugs is that the drug epidemic for late 1800s to 1900s ended because of society’s shift in attitude…
He clearly notes that decriminalization does not mean legalization. Decriminalization refers only to allowing drugs possession for personal use that should be medically supervised when necessary (Mate 320). I agree with him on his idea of harm reduction for this reason: since drugs are illegal, the price of drugs rises due to scarcity. As a result, addicts will find ways to afford the drugs, even by buying impure drugs off the streets or sharing needles to save money. Certain drugs are not harmful when it is consumed with supervision. Legalizing the use of the certain drugs for medical treatment with supervision will not only reduce the risk of overdose and chemical impurities, but make it safer for them to consume their…
As Rolles so accurately points out, "the criminalisation of drugs has historically been presented as an emergency response to an imminent threat, rather than an evidence based health or social policy intervention". What the criminal justice system fails to take into account is that by enforcing punitive drug policies the issue at hand is merely subdued. This high level policy environment routinely ignores critical scientific engagement and is uniquely divorced from most public health and social policy norms, such as interventions using established indicators of health and wellbeing. Porter reminds us that the notion of 'drugs' as we understand it today is a relatively new invention, therefore classifying drugs as 'illegal' and punishing those…