More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on why drugs should stay criminalized
Argumentative essay on decriminalizing drugs
Modes and forms of punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on why drugs should stay criminalized
In Douglas Husak’s essay titled “Three Points About Drug Decriminalization”, Husak argues that use of drugs should not be considered a criminal offense. He says that there is a plausible explanation to why it should not be criminalized. By “decriminalization” the author means that the use of a given drug should not be a criminal offense. He emphasizes on how the meaning of decriminalizing can differ and how he is looking for alternatives to punishment and not just different mode of punishments. His claim is that if the production and selling of drugs is banned and not possession or using, then it would be decriminalization of drugs. Then he claims that there are no good reasons to criminalize drug use. His arguments for this claim are that
In William J. Bennett’s address entitled “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” Bennett maintains that the drug problem in America can be ultimately solved. In my opinion, the drug problem in America is one that cannot be completely resolved to the point where drug use no longer exists in America, but drug abuse can be alleviated. One effective way to do this would be to legalize the personal use of drugs that are more common and less potent (like marijuana), and to stop wasting time and tax dollars punishing minor offenders.
In the article “The Legalization of Drugs” by Douglas Husak and Peter de Marneffe, both philosophers have a debate as to whether to criminalize drug users or not. Husak argues for legalization of drugs. While Marneffe argues against the legalization of drugs. The article states “Since alcohol is currently legal, this condition is not likely to change soon. It is necessary to defend the prohibition of any drug against the background of legalized alcohol.
We live in a “recreational drug culture”, with the current criminalization of illicit drugs being driven by the common but not entirely universally accepted assumption that negative externalities will instead be placed in on society. Addressing the seemingly ever-infinite "war on drugs", in "Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use", Douglas Husak argues in favour of the decriminalization of drugs in terms of not criminalizing the use of such recreational drugs. In this paper, I will dispute that Kusak 's argument succeeds because of the lack of justification for prohibition, and the counterproductiveness and how numerically evident the ineffectiveness of these contemporary punitive policies are.
Husak attempts to discuss drug use legality aside in order to prove his argument. He looks at drug use in a three fold manner exploring; the reasons Americans use drugs, the justifications behind the war on drugs, and a discussion on which drugs, if any, should be affected by the law. In understanding Husak’s beliefs on the reasons for drug use it is first important to look at his definition for recreational use verses drug abuse. Husak defines recreational use as either consumption for enhancement of an experience, such as at a concert, or for alleviation from boredom, like while doing household chores.
Chapman’s supports his argument by trying to prove that people will not be tempted to try illicit drugs just because they are legal, but fails to make his argument clear regarding what kind of drugs he is speaking about. Chapman’s passage focuses only on a few drugs like cocaine and marijuana, but his implicit conclusion sounds like he wants all drugs to be legalized. Not only is his argument unclear, Chapman fails to provide unbiased evidence, statistics and information that would convince us that it really would be best for society if drugs were made legal. Overall, the argument presented in this passage fails to illustrate both sides of the argument, and convince readers that drugs should be
...ke of argument - that marijuana has no medical value whatsoever, despite the fact that it has a several thousand year history of medical use and that a prescription drug is made from its primary active ingredient. Let's assume - for the sake of argument - that all these medical marijuana patients are just fooling themselves. Even in that case, what would we stand to gain as a society by punishing sick people and putting them through an already overloaded criminal justice system? Even if they are deluding themselves- what benefit is there to prosecuting sick people?"
“[The war on drugs] has created a multibillion-dollar black market, enriched organized crime groups and promoted the corruption of government officials throughout the world,” noted Eric Schlosser in his essay, “A People’s Democratic Platform”, which presents a case for decriminalizing controlled substances. Government policies regarding drugs are more focused towards illegalization rather than revitalization. Schlosser identifies a few of the crippling side effects of the current drug policy put in place by the Richard Nixon administration in the 1970s to prohibit drug use and the violence and destruction that ensue from it (Schlosser 3). Ironically, not only is drug use as prevalent as ever, drug-related crime has also become a staple of our society. In fact, the policy of the criminalization of drugs has fostered a steady increase in crime over the past several decades. This research will aim to critically analyze the impact of government statutes regarding drugs on the society as a whole.
A “drug-free society” has never existed, and probably will never exist, regardless of the many drug laws in place. Over the past 100 years, the government has made numerous efforts to control access to certain drugs that are too dangerous or too likely to produce dependence. Many refer to the development of drug laws as a “war on drugs,” because of the vast growth of expenditures and wide range of drugs now controlled. The concept of a “war on drugs” reflects the perspective that some drugs are evil and war must be conducted against the substances
People consider legalization unnecessary. They feel that it will increase the amount of drug use throughout the world. They state that in many cases, drug users who have quit quit because of trouble with the law. Legalization would eliminate the legal forces that discourage the users from using or selling drugs. They also say that by making drugs legal, the people who have never tried drugs for fear of getting caught by the law will have no reason to be afraid anymore and will become users (Potter 1998).
One fallacy committed in Michael Huemer’s article “The Drug Laws Don’t Work” is when he states that “most would consider legal sanctions for smoking, alcohol consumption, and overeating to be taking things too far”. This is a fallacy because it ignores the fact that there are in fact legal sanctions on smoking and the consumption of alcohol (such as age restrictions, license to sell, bans against indoor/public smoking, drunk driving laws etc.) in order to further his point, which is that smoking, alcohol and overeating are much more damaging to an individual's health than the use of other illegal substances, but are not considered as such according to the law. I couldn’t find any particular fallacy listed in the text that covers the omission
Furthermore, upon asking “police and prosecutors, judges and politicians” how they feel about the criminalization of marijuana, he found that most disagreed for the penalties. He then shifts the argument towards the medical uses of marijuana, stating “every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved….”, even though federal law still prohibits this. Lastly, he cites the “coffee shops” in Netherlands as an example of successful regulation. I generally agree with his argument, especially the aspect of fining rather just complete liberation. This makes it more responsible than the typical “consenting adult can do
has their own opinion on drug legalization. There are many different pros and cons to the
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior by criminalizing drug use does not work still leaves us looking for a solution, so what other options exist? This paper will discuss the pros and cons about one option: decriminalizing drugs.
Drugs Should Not Be Legalized. " Greenhaven Press. 65-92 Riga, Peter J. " " Legalization Would Help Solve The Nation's Drug Problems.
It is important to be informed of what we are defending, and in this case it is to not legalize drugs. One may ask, what are drugs? Drugs are chemicals, that may affect your body in many different ways, whether it be good or bad. However, most of the time, it 's not always a positive outcome. Some drugs even leave lifetime damage to your brain and body. Although, there are many different ways to take drugs, some of the most common ways are; inhalation, ingestion, and injection. All three ways, however affect the body differently. You don 't always know what you are ingesting or injecting and even inhaling. Most of the time, because drugs are illegal, they are sold through drug dealers