According to Mill, liberty should not be enforced by law as any imposing would lead to breach of individual liberty. On the contrary, Devlin claimed that if society has the right to make judgments it can also use the law to enforce it. He said that society does have a right to use the law to preserve morality in order to safeguarding social morals. Further Devlin said that the law is not looking for true belief but what is commonly believed by individuals in a civil society as a whole. He said that the judgment of the “right minded person” will prevail and immorality would be something which the those people will consider immoral.
The central issue in the article is whether or not the government should be allowed to increase the tax on cigarettes. Contemporary liberal society is governed on the basis that autonomy, human rights, and liberties will be respected, but also that the government will care for its citizens. Upon careful analysis of addiction to nicotine, the effects this addiction will have on the population, and the obligations of the government, one will find that the government does not have the right to increase taxes on cigarettes. The government has the right to interfere in tobacco sales as long as the autonomy of the individual is impaired. In this case the government is allowed to interfere, because government is itself established in order to protect the interests of its citizens and be paternalistic.
Making mind constricting drugs illegal prevents people from using substances which can only lessen one's quality of life and inevitably, destroy ma... ... middle of paper ... ... leads to living a meaningful and precious life. Mind constricting drugs would only detract from this final goal whereas mind expanding drugs might help achieve this goal and if not, at least it would not divert the user's path. Bibliography 1. Arlacchi, Pino. "The Case Against Legalization."
In this paper I am going to defend why there should not be a drinking age, because I believe that it is essential to help solve the underage drinking problems we have in our nation. My argument is as follows: There a few different reasons why the drinking age should be dropped and why it would help the problem of alcohol abuse in younger people in America. Most of Europe has no drinking age and does not have the same types of problems that underage Americans do with alcohol. When limitations are set on adolescents and young adults they tend to rebel against rules and abuse the limitation that is set on them. Finally, there is a sense of rights that comes into play with this issue, at the age of 18 a person is considered to be an adult and is given many different responsibilities (basic ones being: charged as an adult and going to war for this country.)
They therefore would have no... ... middle of paper ... ...tead of helping them. If they choose to act criminally, then they’re consequences, but using in and of itself shouldn’t have a legal consequence solely on the basis of morality or that they may become an addict. And illegalization gives profits to those who conduct themselves immorally. Drug lords and gangs thrive and are facilitated and those in poorer neighborhoods become victim to the war on drugs more than those that are susceptible to the criminality of an addict. The war on drugs should be fought against those who directly benefit from drug use and there are little to no benefits for an addict (who will choose to use regardless of illegality, take the case of prescription drug abuse).
Liberator states that our primal desires should not be ignored or suppressed, but instead should be managed. If this is the case, then should our first instincts to lie, cheat, steal, and kill should also be managed? No. Managing these things, and not suppressing them, means that we are making it legal to rob stores, lie about it, and kill anyone who disagrees with our reasons as to why we?ve committed the crime. Not only that, but if we make prostitution legal, it is possible that there could be an overflow of prostitutes, that would create larger drug chains, which could ruin our countries credibility as a safe place to live.
He believes smokers could be doing something healthier for themselves if the FDA promoted smokeless tobacco. However, the FDA believes advertising smokeless tobacco as a less harmful substitute for cigarette smoking misleads people and encourage... ... middle of paper ... ...rth thinking about, it is in the best interest of the “population as a whole” that the Food and Drug Administration be given the rights to control the image that tobacco receives and exploit its negative aspects. Works Cited 1Up Health. Tobacco Use - Smoking and Smokeless Tobacco. 2003.
It’s not as easy as just looking at the pros and cons. Our government needs to determine if the prohibition of drugs is actually promoting greater health, safety, and productivity, as well as lowering violence and criminal justice costs. After reading this research paper and seeing the evidence, hopefully you will agree with me that the drug war we are fighting is not promoting greater health, safety, and productivity, nor is it lowering violence and criminal justice costs. Drug Prohibitionists want drugs to be illegal because they believe that it minimizes the damage drug use does to the people who use drugs and to the society around them, however, when drugs are illegal the drugs are actually more potent which hurt the users more. In order to hide drugs easier, the suppliers make the drugs smaller but stronger.
Above all we desire a meaning to life. We can find meaning by acting morally. Therefore, one is not obligated to obey a law that contradicts morality. After all, it would be morally wrong of the government to deny anyone meaning in life. Works Cited * Singer, Peter.
While most people can control their liquor, unfortunately others can’t. Legalizing alcohol was a big mistake, the many different tragedies that occurs because of alcohol is insane. The fact that imbeciles are allowed to drink is even worse. 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.