• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Should We Legalise Drugs

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Should We Legalise Drugs? It is a powerful question. One that evokes all kinds of immediate, knee-jerk responses; from "yea, way to go dude!", to "oh my God no, it will destroy this country". But let's try to get past the immediate gut response and look at the situation calmly and coolly. The main fear, and argument against legalisation, is that the number of drug users will increase, perhaps doubling, tripling, or quadrupling; until we become a nation of drug crazed zombies - something approaching "Night of the Living Dead", but presumably without the cannibalism, but who knows. This fear, and much used argument, has no basis in fact or any scientific study. People who are inclined to use drugs are already using drugs. People who are not inclined to use drugs are not using drugs. That won't change once drugs are legal (or decriminalised). It is not as if the law is the only thing stopping drug users from using drugs. For young people, drugs are readily available in college and high school (and probably junior high as well). ...read more.

Middle

are illegal; there will always be that segment of youth that uses drugs; no matter what laws are on the books. What about adults; who can presumably make educated decisions about what or what not, to put into their bodies? Why should the government tell me what I can, or can't, smoke, drink, inhale, shoot-up or snort. What I put into my body is my own business; whether it is a joint, or a Big-Mac; and in fact, there could be some argument as to, which is worse for me. However, that is not the point. Even if a substance or food is horrible for me, I should be allowed to drink, smoke, snort, inject, or eat it. I am only harming myself; which is my divine right. I am not saying that these are smart, good or logical choices to make; I am just saying that they are an individual's choice to make, not the governments. The Constitution does not guarantee outcomes, it only guarantees the ground rules. ...read more.

Conclusion

That is my decision, and my body, not theirs. If I choose to not exercise, and have a diet of half & half, Cocoa Puffs, and canned frosting; drink a fifth of scotch and smoke four packs of cigarettes everyday, then that is my business and I am protected in my "lifestyle" under the law. However, if I eat right and exercise, don't smoke cigarettes or drink booze; but once in a while, smoke a little pot, I am a criminal - all in the name of protecting myself. Does that make sense to anyone out there? My body belongs to me, not to the United States government. Whatever I want to do with my body is my business. I am not asking for government handouts or entitlement to drugs. I am just asking to be left alone to do with my body what I may. It is my right and everyone's right; and fortunately we are a nation of fairly common sense individuals who will do what is best for themselves. Just what the founders envisioned. "Law, being a sign of Corruption in Man; many laws are signs of Corruption of a State." ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Police powers

    4 star(s)

    The court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him. It is necessary to look at the reliability of the confession and not necessarily the precise manner in which it is obtained. If it does not seem reliable then it should not be allowed as evidence

  2. Worlds Apart: Orientalism, Antifeminism, and Heresy in Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale

    to Europe in the early Middle Ages--the response on the whole is conservative and defensive. Islam is judged to be a fraudulent new version of some previous experience, in this case, Christianity. The threat is muted, familiar values impose themselves, and in the end the mind reduces the pressure upon

  1. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    It is neither a bill nor a note; but if attested, it can be sued on either as a bond or a promissory note. A Shah Jog Hundi differs from a bill in two respects, namely, (i) the acceptance of the drawee is not generally written across it but the particulars are entered in the drawer's book, and (ii)

  2. Why Marijuana Should Be Legalised

    Drug dealers and users seem to constantly be one step ahead of the authorities, anyway.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work