What Are The Pros And Cons Of Legalizing Drugs

Being linked to other narcotics makes its legalization inappropriate as it will give room for other drugs to circulate in the market with ease. Again, marijuana is linked with unfashionable lifestyles like crime which affects the well-being of the society. The use of marijuana was at one point linked with oppressed ethnic groups. The use of the drug was initially closely linked to groups that appeared oppressed, thus discouraging any other person from a different social group from using it (Esther et al.165). Finally, all the purported medicinal use of the drug has not been scientifically proved, thus making it illegal to use the product for any medicinal purpose.

Something that wasn 't accounted for before inacting prohibtion however was human nature, just because a law was created didn 't change the beliefs that a person had nor did it change how the individual acted. All that changed following a new law was the concequence for an action, but depending on the action which in this case was the consumption of liquor people are more willing to break laws if it gives them access to something they have a dependency towards. For many people during that period alcohol was not only a way to relax but it was an escape from the hardships of

Sixth, just by having a firearm makes a crime more dangerous. Seventh, if the freedom of

Racial profiling suspicious people of specific ethnicities will create a safer place because if the police were to arrest these people then the crime rates will drop, creating a safer place. " Modifying airport profiling procedures to include scrutiny of race, gender, and age has the potential to impact fundamental consultation rights" (MacDonald). If the police were to use racial profiling as a major part to justify if a person was guilty of a crime, that would create a safer environment. Racial profiling should be allowed for the police to use because it is easier for them to track down criminals.

Those statistics have to just be too good to be true. Plus that infringes on our rights as American citizens to bear arms.

The United States economy is in trouble and the economy statewide is not doing any better. In rough times like these those elected into public office are put under extreme pressure to try and alleviate the problems. Different people have different ideas of ways to fix the economy, and drug testing before receiving welfare is one of them that is still not agreed upon. Welfare drug testing has been a highly debated topic in the U.S. for quite some time now. There are plenty of opinions that agree and disagree with the drug tests, but real statistics uncover the hard truth about the success of welfare drug testing.

By having gun control in the states, suicides, homicides, and overall violence could decrease drastically. Citizens would no longer have to fear walking the streets alone at night or anything of that sort, or unarmed citizens getting shot by other citizens. The people of the States, tourists, and visitors will feel safer and more secure going about their days knowing there is a gun control act in place and although this will not stop all gun-related violence, this will decrease it. The safety of the People is more important than the violent and life-threatening American tradition. To ensure that guns don 't fall into the wrong hands, background and photo I.D checks along with gun safety tests could decrease the amount of gun crime in the United

The drug issue is a major problem in the United States and combating that problem has fallen on the shoulders of law enforcement. Drug dealer are living that life of luxury and when caught they sometime escape prosecution because of there financial status. This growing problem puts law enforcement in the position of handling large amount of drugs and money. This temptation has proven to be too much for some law enforcement officers and they become susceptible to the impulse of easy money. Legalizing drugs may lesson the corruption within law enforcement; If drugs are legalized the availability of the cash and the temptation will decrease.

The law pushed states to raise their individual drinking ages to 21 within two years and threatened to decrease highway funding provided by the Federal Highway Aid Act if they did not (Kadlec, 1986, p. 1). The common belief that there is a national drinking age is incorrect, since states still possess the ability to increase or decrease their individual drinking ages, they will just lose a portion of federal highway funding if they do so. When the law was passed, it required the Secretary of Transportation to withhold ten percent of funding, however the law was revised to hold back eight percent after 2012 (23 U.S.C § 158). This law holds state governments hostage, using money to force them into changing something that should be in their individual control.

The “War on Drugs” campaign has been unsuccessful in preventing the illegal drug trade. As a result, the campaign has managed to marginalize and impoverish the participating societies, causing social and economic harm. By pointing out the failures of this campaign this paper will explain how alternatives can lead to a more successful outcome. The “War on Drugs” is more of a failure that places restrictions and prohibitions on drug offenders and has not necessarily shown a sense of equal stability; thus, leading to faulty sentences, misinterpretations of the real purpose of this initiative, and an overpopulation of prisons. These sentencing strategies are more disproportionate when it comes to different drugs.

Because of the physiological effects many drugs are illegal and so are a form of formal disobedience. 2. “Now I agreed with alacrity. I was on a ketamine roll” (pg. 4). The eagerness to try ketamine again could point toward how addictive the substance is, or it may just be because he is already familiar with the drug.

Some readers may feel that this editorial actually is not persuasive because meth is a terrible drug that should be kept illegal and more people would try meth if it becomes legal. But in reality, legalizing meth reveals that the editorial is effective because if we kept the drug illegal that still would not stop a person from desiring and acquiring meth and more people would not try meth because if a person wanted to try meth they would have done it before it became

Marijuana is a "gateway drug," which means that it leads users to other, more dangerous drugs. Marijuana should not be legalized! Talk to your local mayor or senator to learn more about what you can do to help stop marijuana from being legalized, or visit http://mcwell.nd.edu/your-well-being/physical-well-being/drugs/marijuana-or-cannabis-sativa/quitting-marijuana-a-30-day-self-help-guide/day-1/ to help yourself or people you know who are addicted to marijuana. You can also visit https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuanahttps://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana for more information on

Finally, the article asks “Should opioids be used to treat addiction?” That is definitely not the way to go about it. If a person had an addiction to smoking, would one treat it by telling them to just go smoke a different type of cigarette? No, that’s why doctors should treat opioid addiction by other therapy that is not addictive

The number just isn’t enough to build a bias. Alcohol or prescription pills aren’t included in those findings, and alcohol and prescription drugs are very much something that can be abused…heavily. It is unfortunately very common for those addicted, to exchange groceries for a smaller amount of cash and use it to buy drugs, alcohol, cigarettes. I could explain for hours the ins and outs of the TANF program but in short summary, it is very political and contradicting. If I could’ve know anything prior to hearing the sides of Larry and Russell, I’d like to have read the aspe article from the U.S. Department of Human and Health Services.