War on Drugs The war on drugs has been a persistent issue for scholars. There are many viewpoints, opinions, and sides to this issue. Some oppose the legalization and decriminalization of drugs completely, some believe it should all be legal, and others disagree with legalization, but support decriminalization. James Wilson and Douglas Husak have different viewpoints towards the war on drugs. Wilson, a legal moralist, believes that drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are a danger and harm to society as well as immoral, and their use should stay illegal. Where as, Husak is an advocator for the decriminalization of drugs, and tries to see the debate for a nonjudgmental viewpoint. In order to correctly discuss both sides of the debate the terms …show more content…
Wilson’s view is that drugs such as heroine and cocaine are detrimental to society as well as to the user, due to the addictive affects. He thinks that legalization and or decriminalization of drugs would drastically increase the use, which would in turn increase the harm. He goes on with his argument by making his opinion clear that drug use is not a victimless crime. In doing so, he states the harms that drugs prevail, like fetal drug syndrome, laziness at work, and neglect of children and or family, among others. He believes that although society cannot compel people to act a certain way, it should have basic norms, that people are held to. Wilson goes on to acknowledge that there is no way to know exactly what will happen if drugs become readily available, but if the outcome is negative, a monster was created and it is harder to come back from …show more content…
He states that he believes it is right for the government to prevent harm, but if harm is not done then enforcing criminal laws is wrong. He then mentions the argument over different kinds of harm, and explains that the type of harm deals with the different reasons behind the said laws. Husak then questions other views from drug prohibitionists. He agrees that criminal law should maintain a minimum satisfactory behavior for all, but people should not be deemed as criminals just because their behavior does not meet others standards. Husak’s argument is ended with him clearing up some misunderstandings. He explains that his support for the idea that adults have a moral right to choose for themselves whether or not they want to use drugs does not mean that he promotes drug use. However, having the moral right to choose does not mean the said act is above disapproval. Lastly, he suggests that instead of trying to prevent drug use, discouraging it might be more successful, and would preserve moral rights of
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.
Drug addiction is on the largest contributing factors for the deaths of millions of people throughout out the ages. Todays day in age drugs have become more dangerously more potent than they were a decade back. The majority of the population believe that the reason addicts become hooked on drugs because the the chemical triggers found in the drug. This has caused many society as a whole to look down on drug addicts and treat them with less respect than anyone who is not a drug addict. Johann Hari is an english author and journalist who was published articles in newspapers like the New York times, Huffington post and the Guardian, Hari has published his own book Chasing the Scream were he goes into a three year journey on the war on drugs.
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.
Douglas N. Husak's A Moral Right to Use Drugs In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
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
The War on Drugs is believed to help with many problems in today’s society such as realizing the rise of crime rates and the uprooting of violent offenders and drug kingpin. Michelle Alexander explains that the War on Drugs is a new way to control society much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. There are many misconceptions about the War on Drugs; commonly people believe that it’s helping society with getting rid of those who are dangerous to the general public. The War on Drugs is similar to Jim Crow by hiding the real intention behind Mass Incarceration of people of color. The War on Drugs is used to take away rights of those who get incarcerated. When they plead guilty, they will lose their right to vote and have to check application
“[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.
Kids start being introduced to drugs at a very young age because the first interaction with them is being told not to do any of them. Most kids have no idea what drugs are until this program is introduced in elementary schools telling kids not to do drugs. In “There’s No Justice in the War on Drugs”, Milton Friedman talks about the injustice of drugs and the harsh reality of being addicted to drugs, and the causes or side effects that come along with them. The author clearly argues the “war on drugs” and uses analysis and data to prove his argument. The author agrees that the use of government to keep kids away from drugs should be enforced, but the use of government to keep adults away from drugs, should not be enforced. The author has a clear side of his argument and the audience can clearly see that. He argues against the “war on drugs” claim that President Richard M. Nixon made twenty-five years ago, he adds ethos, logos, and pathos to defend his argument, and uses a toulmin
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
Many factors contribute to the reasons why drug use still exists in America today. It provides needed job titles, it is an on going process for medical research, and acts as a contribution to help certain people in their own personal ways. Drugs have been around for nearly two decades and as the years progress, the war on drugs seems as if it has no intensions of slowing down. This problem will only continue to intensify in an inferior situation. In using both the functionalist and interactionist perspectives, several imperfections such as addiction and the fact that people use drugs in illegal ways are identified. Ultimately, it is only us as a society as a whole who can take the responsibility and can change this issue … for better or for worse.
Michelle Alexander starts her book by taking us on a trip back in time to the start of it all: the Civil War. Now, we all learned about the Civil War in middle school and high school and how the great Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery and freed all the African Americans with the Emancipation Proclamation. In chapter 1, she really touches on this and on history, the beginning and end of slavery and the beginning and end of the Jim Crow Laws.
Drug use has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. The use of drugs has been the topic of many political controversies throughout many years. There has been arguments that are for legalizing drugs and the benefits associated with legalization. Also, there are some who are opposed to legalizing drugs and fear that it will create more problems than solve them. Conservatives and liberals often have different opinions for controversial topics such as “the war on drugs,” but it is necessary to analyze both sides in order to gain a full understanding of their beliefs and to decide in a change in policy is in order.
The debate between prohibitionists and citizens who believe in the legalization of illegal drugs provide many arguments. Since there are many drugs that are illegal there are many different arguments on what should be legal and what shouldn’t. The biggest debate, and the argument that I will mostly focus on, is the reform of marijuana. Prohibitionists argue that marijuana has adverse health, safety, social, academic, economic, and behavioral consequences (Goldberg 183). Not only do they claim that it causes all of those consequences but it also can cause harm to others including family and friends (Rachels 228). The obvious argument in harming others is driving under the influence of the drug but proh...
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.
In the early 1980s, policymakers and law enforcement officials stepped up efforts to combat the trafficking and use of illicit drugs. This was the popular “war on drugs,” hailed by conservatives and liberals alike as a means to restore order and hope to communities and families plagued by anti-social or self-destructive pathologies. By reducing illicit drug use, many claimed, the drug war would significantly reduce the rate of serious nondrug crimes - robbery, assault, rape, homicide and the like. Has the drug war succeeded in doing so?