SHOULD WE FAVOR DRUG LEGALIZATION? In the article “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” William J. Bennett, chides intellectuals who believe drugs should be legalize. Bennett challenges his audience, by attacking intellectuals. However Bennett tries to win over his audience of intellectuals in two ways: by calling upon their talents and by attacking on the arguments of intellectuals who favor legalizing drugs… He shows an understanding of others’ viewpoints by addressing points of opposition several times during the article. Bennett demonstrates knowledge of the subject by supporting his points with examples and facts.
In his opening remarks, Bennett comes close to insulting his audience of intellectuals by referring to those he is attacking as ‘they’ (617).
Early in the speech, he diplomatically praises some intellectuals, especially in medicine and science, who are using their talents to combat the drug problem. Bennett makes clear that his speech will not be politically partisan. Bennett will be criticizing intellectuals, whether on the left or the right, who hold either or both of these views: that the drug problem can be solved by legalization and that the problem is so hopeless we should give up trying to fix it. Although some of Bennett’s counter arguments are stronger than others, on the whole they are a fair assessment of the views Bennett opposes.
The Term Paper on Drug Abuse 20
Drug use among teenagers seems to be on the rise. Marijuana is almost commonplace among kids my age. Many of my friends have tried, or are involved with drugs and I never could understand why. I chose this topic in order to try and get a sense of why people do it, or why it is on the rise among teens. Just like smoking cigarettes, it seems obvious that the effects of drugs are going to be bad and ...
Bennett’s least convincing arguments attempt to counter the claims that legalization would eliminate the drug dealers’ profit motive, that legalization would reduce the crime rate, and that drug laws restrict our liberty. Bennett barely discusses the liberty issue. As for the drug dealers’ profit motive, he suggests — oddly, I think — that most drug dealers aren’t making much of a profit right now (614).
He means that over a long time, they don’t profit; but we all know that in the short run many of them make very large profits. Bennett’s argument concerning the crime rate is not totally convincing. He refers vaguely to ‘research’s how ing that most drug criminals were doing crime before they ‘got into drugs’ and says that most addicts would continue to commit crimes if drugs were legal (615).
While this could be true, surely the extent and seriousness of the crimes would be reduced. Bennett makes one argument about crime, however, that is hard to refute: If drugs were legal for adults, many dealers would shift their market to teenagers, who would be restricted from buying drugs? One of Bennett’s strongest arguments challenges those who claim that legalization is a simple way to eliminate the drug problem. He rightly criticizes them for failing to describe the kind of world they are proposing, for failing to answer questions like these: Would crack be legal? How about PCP? Or heroin? Or ice? Would they all be stocked at the local convenience store, perhaps just a few blocks from an elementary school? And how much would they cost? (614) Bennett also argues convincingly that, contrary to the claims of legalization advocates, drug use would go up if drugs were legal. Citing the crack epidemic as an example of what happens when a drug becomes widely available. When cocaine was available only in expensive powder form, he says, it was not widely used; but when it became available in inexpensive vials of crack, cocaine use skyrocketed (614).
If drugs were legal, they would be easy to get, and they would be cheaper, therefore it will easier to get.
Legalization assumes that drug use hurts only the user. Bennett questions this assumption. Bennett points out that drugs ‘destroy families’ and ‘ruin friendships’ and ‘are a threat to the life of the mind’ (616) In his closing remarks, Bennett calls upon the talents of the intellectuals sitting in his audience. To intellectuals who claim that the war on drugs is a lost cause, Bennett counters with examples of cities and communities in which the war is being won, sometimes block by block People living in drug-plagued neighborhoods are the ‘real drug experts,’ he says, and they haven’t given up the fight: In city after city they are ‘reclaiming their neighborhoods, working with police, setting up community activities, getting addicts into treatment, saving their children’ (617).
The Essay on Drug Related Crime
Drug Related Crime According to the definition the drug related crime is consists of using, possessing, manufacturing, or distributing drugs classified as having a potential for abuse (such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and amphetamines). Drugs are also related to crime through the effects they have on the user's behavior and by generating violence and other illegal activity in connection with ...
Finally, Bennett addresses the issue of drug enforcement, which his opponents say doesn’t — and can’t — work. His evidence here is anecdotal and therefore only partly convincing…
In a final move, Bennett ends his speech with an invitation: ‘We are grappling with complicated, stubborn policy issues, and I encourage you to join us. [… ] I invite America’s deep thinkers to get with the program, or at the very least, to get in the game’ (618).
Bennett’s speech began with some tension — a conservative thinker facing a largely liberal audience of intellectuals.
Bennett overcomes this tension first through diplomacy, then through a series of largely solid arguments, and finally with a invitation, ‘We are grappling with complicated, stubborn policy issues, and I encourage you to join us. [… ] I invite America’s deep thinkers to get with the program, or at the very least, to get in the game’ (618).
A call for using the intellectuals’ collective intelligence to solve a problem that is not beyond hope,.
