There are also problems with people who use marijuana and drive. Marijuana should remain illegal in the United States, and states that have passed laws to make it legal should reverse those laws. Marijuana is addictive and a gateway drug. Legalizing marijuana will make it generally more available to the public, which will also make it more likely to be used by young adults and children that are not old enough to make smart decisions regarding drug
It was made illegal in the 1930’s for the same reasons as alcohol, because it was believed that it was going to do harm to society. As years have gone by, it is obvious that a mistake was made. The fact that marijuana was made illegal has created numerous problems for the United States that on the long run could have been easily avoided. Countries in different parts of the world and some states within the United States have already legalized marijuana and they have all shown positive outcomes out of their decisions. Although marijuana is illegal in majority of the states, legalizing marijuana for recreational use would bring about social and economical reforms that would help deter crime in the country, increase the amount of money the government makes, and also help people that are medically in need of the drug.
Like I mentioned before the 1960’s use of LSD gave way to a culture and generation which opposed any government action. This was a generation that really started questioning the government’s purpose and control. The use of LSD only heightened this need for revolution and freedom. This is exactly what the government does not want from its people. Another reason as to why the government may not want to legalize such substances because they are probably fixated on the small number of people who use these substances and have bad trips or accidents.
The question of whether to legalize marijuana or not is a very controversial and important issue. Many people especially teenagers are thrilled that the law enforcement is legalizing marijuana as they will not have to buy it illegally. Legalizing marijuana will allow people to think it is acceptable for us to smoke every day, at any time, which increases the drug use. What people are unaware of are the negative effects it will have on their lives. Adolescences will be more prone to buy marijuana, which will not let them focus on their studies.
The movement for marijuana legalization cannot afford to be ignored because masses of people pushing for its legalization have acquired a massive amount of leverage in technology. Previously, it was possible to ignore marijuana protagonists by giving them media blackout or ignoring calls for legalization in different parts of the country (BOSCHERT, 2010). Today, marijuana legalization debate is all over the social media and information regarding its safety is not a preserve of the few as has been the case before. In the background of that, the federal government and the anti-marijuana campaigners have a responsibility to explain to the population with facts as to why marijuana should or should not remain illegal or in some cases why it is not decriminalized (legalization of possession not exceeding specified amounts). With many in the United States looking at Vermont, California, Colorado, and Washington, the marijuana debate should now take the forefront in government legislation and the true picture established based on survey and scientific
On the other hand, if it is assumed that the govern-ment has the authority to prohibit drugs,it is not enough to say that cer-tain drugs should be illegal because they're dangerous to individuals or society.It must be shown that they are dangerous. On the other hand government has to provide the maximum freedom it can with re-gards to health. And the health part may be handled with edu-cation and regulations. One free of choosing the drugs from a le-gal place without any fear of arrest will be able to try some drugs and find a path to his\her self. This may seem spiritual but thin-king about many
To ban speech for this reason, i.e.,for the good of the speaker, tends to undermine the basic right to free speech in the first place. If we turn to the local community who were on the wrong end of hate speech we might want to claim that they could be psychologically harmed, but this is more difficult to demonstrate than harm to a person 's legal rights. It seems, therefore, that Mill 's argument does not allow for state intervention in this case. If we base our defense of speech on the harm principle we are going to have very few sanctions imposed on the spoken and written word. It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction.
Though it is true that not all who are selected for random drug test will be guilty of substance abuse, there is no other fair way of doing it. In addition, it should be up to the government to allow jurisdiction that regulates this dangerous habit. Perhaps random searches are unconstitutional, but that is not the point being argued. The fact is that random drug testing is morally permissible even if it is not completely cohesive with the amendments. When have high morals and the government ever completely coincided?
When sexual violence comes into play, it is a violation of Farley’s claim that free consent is body integrity. It means that a lack of consent would be do not touch, invade, or use one’s body (Farley 218). The ethical norm of free consent is probably the most controversial because it can be argued as both ethical and unethical based on the situation. In the case of human trafficking and pimping, where prostitutes have no say in the sexual violence enacted on them, prostitution can be argued as unethical. But on the other hand, if a prostitute has chosen this lifestyle willingly, it can be argued as ethical.
Over the world, an ever increasing number of individuals are asking, Why is cannabis illicit? Why are there individuals still sent to jail for utilising or offering it? The vast majority of us accept this is on account of somebody, some place sat down with the logical proof, and made sense of that cannabis is more hurtful than different medications we utilise all the time like liquor and cigarettes. It's related with unfashionable ways of life Marijuana is regularly thought of as a medication for flower children and failures. Since it's difficult to feel eager about the possibilities of empowering individuals to wind up hipsters and washouts, forcing criminal approvals for cannabis ownership works as a type of collective "intense love".
Reinforced by research evidence, reasonable arguments for supporting the current law on illegal drugs are rarely offered. The clearest arguments are religiously based or moral views that the use of particular drugs is immoral; that people who use those drugs are corrupt and consequently, drugs should be banned and manufacturers, suppliers and users should be treated as criminals. Adjustment to drug laws has been advocated by a number of individuals and reform groups, however opponents announce that such reduction of laws, involving decriminalization and legalization, will eliminate the preventive effect and increase drug use and release much larger drug-related concerns into the community. A reasoning for legalization is that it would significantly reduce or even abolish drug trade inside the black market and criminal networks. Other arguments involve focusing responses within health instead of the police and the criminal justice system.
According to business insider, fifty five percent of republicans oppose it, as compared to the sixty six percent of democrats who want it legalized. Many republicans oppose it because they are afraid that kids will have easier access to drugs, and then will use marijuana as a “gateway drug” to other harder drugs. Democrats support the legalization because when states legalize it, it gives the states more