...legalizing it and therefore taking away the drug cartels number one source of income. The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy ... says that more than 60 percent of the profits reaped by Mexican drug lords are derived from the exportation and sale of cannabis to the American market (Armentano2). It is ridiculous to think that the United States can put out a statistic like this and ignore the fact that if they legalized the drug there would be less violence because there would be no point for Mexican drug cartels to try and smuggle the drug into the U.S. In the article “Blame Prohibition, Not Pot Smokers for Violence in Mexico”, published by AlterNet.org, Tony Newman tells us how the people who run the “Just Say No” campaign against drugs have a new scheme in which they plan to blame people who smoke pot for the violence in Mexico. They are hoping to stop younger people from smoking marijuana if they associate it with the murder of people by the drug cartels in Mexico. There are a few problems with these campaigns: They are inaccurate in some cases, and downright dishonest in others.Office of National Drug Control Policy It is disingenuous to connect the average American's marijuana consumption to the horrific violence of Mexico's drug war. The average pot smoker's growing and purchasing of marijuana has no relationship to the violence along the border that is the result of large-scale drug trafficking. It isn’t hard to understand that the legalization of marijuana...
Words: 1068 - Pages: 5
...Position Paper Khadijah Shabazz CNSL 5203 Dr. Sampson Prairie View A&M University 9/20/2015 The legalization of drugs is one of the most controversial and debated topics of the 21st century. There are both negative and positive reasons to legalize them as well as negative and positive reasons to keep them prohibited. According to LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply ("Why Legalize Drugs? | LEAP").LEAP goes on to say that criminal gangs are driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children and as such their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control ("Why Legalize Drugs? | LEAP"). It is LEAP’s belief that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer ("Why Legalize Drugs? | LEAP"). Another positive aspect of the legalization of drugs is financial gains. According to the International Business Times in a study for the Cato Institute, Jeffrey A. Miron, senior lecturer on economics at Harvard University and a senior...
Words: 1233 - Pages: 5
... But there have always been varying ulterior motives. According to Baylor University Professor of Sociology, Dr. Diana Kendall, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed solely to criminalize marijuana by taxing it; this would dissuade migrant Mexican workers who smoked marijuana to seek employment elsewhere and not take jobs from U.S. citizens as the country struggled during the Great Depression (Kendall, 2010). Last year, voters in Colorado and Washington State approved legislation that supported the commercial growth, sale, possession and use of recreational marijuana. In response, United States Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, promulgated policy that established the posture for enforcing marijuana laws against people or organizations to that: Distribution of marijuana to minors; revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels; the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some...
Words: 1535 - Pages: 7
...Global Politics: The feasibility of universal drug liberalization as an emerging phenomenon RWaterhouse Globalization & The War on Drugs: Assessing alternatives to criminalization The purpose of this paper is to address universal drug liberalization as a feasible alternative to the current drug control regime specifically in North America and potentially applicable elsewhere. With an in depth analysis of the historical regulation, implementation of law, and resulting consequences we will be able to see how nations are effected by complex drug politics and why there has been a global paradigm shift in looking spiritedly at the ideal of decriminalization. I argue in favor of liberalization by bringing to attention the violence associated with the commodification of illegal drugs, what the re-directed costs of control could mean for domestic investment into proactive drug awareness education, and finally recognizing Portugal’s success and weaknesses in the adoption of a compete legalization agenda. Following will be a discussion of concluding thoughts centered on the efficacy and feasibility of universal liberalization in today’s globalized world. Historical Context Libertarianism has almost always had position in political discourse but has been majorly popularized through public attention within the era of globalization. (article) Control of drug consumption has always been a contemporary ingredient in the political reform of Canada and the America’s and...
Words: 404 - Pages: 2
...The so-called “War on Drugs,” as declared by the Nixon administration in the signing of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, marked the beginning of the current era of mandatory minimum sentencing, racism, privatized prisons, and a powerful constituency that profits as a result of the prohibition of drugs. Psychoactive substances have been apart of the human experience as long as humans have walked the earth. There is little hope that drug production will ever be curtailed, so long as there is a demand; a demand that has remained steady even though it has been forty years since the beginning of said war. As Judge James P. Gray from the Superior Court of Orange County has so plainly put it: “Where did this policy come from? Unfortunately I have conducted an inquiry into this and I have determined that drug prohibition laws came for reasons of racism, empire building, and ignorance.”(Booth) The War on Drugs is politically motivated as a means of profiting. One may ask them self how government can financially benefit from such policies. In fact, they benefit in a myriad of ways. The government spends an exorbitant amount of money in an attempt to combat drug production and drug usage. The U.S. government has spent over a trillion—that’s right a trillion—dollars in its attempt to eradicate the drug problem. With so much time, effort and money there should be something to show, right? Wrong. Today drugs are more prevalent, more potent and cheaper than...
Words: 1759 - Pages: 8
...Study Questions Hobbes 1. When Hobbes stated that humans live in a state of war of everybody against everybody, and there is neither justice nor injustice he means that everybody fended for themselves and did what was right for them and that nothing could be considered just or unjust because those terms had no meaning. The event that created justice and injustice according to Hobbes was the creation of society. 2. Glaucons idea of justice is that it is a matter of practicality. According to him a person is only just because it tends to make others think that they are just. In his example of the invisibility ring Glaucon argues that anybody would be unjust if they knew they would not get caught and no one would find out. We are only just to impress others. Hobbes, on the other hand, is a realist; he knows that justice is needed for people to live together civilly. That is why some type of power or government is needed; people need to be kept just or else life would be chaotic. 3. Looking at Hobbes view, selfishness in itself is not a bad thing because right and wrong doesn’t exist so it can be “bad” for someone to be selfish. A person could act however they wanted to act and it could not be considered good or bad or right or wrong because there were no such things. Rand 1. I do not think Rand is correct in saying that if you accept altruism, then you end up with a lack of self-esteem and a lack of respect for others. Just because altruists believe they...
Words: 888 - Pages: 4
...self-interest.” (Pojman & Fieser page87) It is contrasted with altruism, “an unselfish regard of concern for others”. This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. It will also discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critique of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism. Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority than others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness). For someone who believes in psychological egoism, it is difficult to find an action that would be acknowledged as purely altruistic. In practice, altruism is the performance of duties to others with no view to any...
Words: 2300 - Pages: 10
...1. Is Rand correct in saying that if you accept altruism, then you end up with lack of self-esteem and a lack of respect for others? I opined that Rand is incorrect in saying this. Altruism, according to Rand, is “willing to sacrifice your life for others.” This is consistent with the dictionary definitions of altruism such as “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.” By accepting altruism, a person showed that he has respect for the value of life. On the contrary, studies have shown that practicing altruism enhances personal well – being and affects the community positively as a whole. And because when we give, without expecting return is true charity. To some extend; due to vested interest, people are more willing to go the extra mile to help their family and friends as they are likely to suffer if their friends and family is at risk. However, it has nothing to do with neither lack of self-esteem nor lack of respect for others. 2. Is Rand criticizing ideal or reciprocal altruism? Do you think that she would differentiate between the two? Would you? It seemed that Rand is criticizing reciprocal altruism. It refers to the human social idea and expectation that if a person performs an altruistic act, other people will perform altruistic acts in return. She argues that to sacrifice oneself for another person will result in a threat to one’s existence and helping other is not a moral duty or obligation. However, I disagree, as I know that, “no man is...
Words: 1123 - Pages: 5
...The “Samaritan’s dilemma,” is the conflict we feel when we want to be altruistic, but fear being taken advantage of. It’s an argument against charity, a dilemma faced by the “soft-hearted” who want to help their neighbor but don’t want to be exploited. Stone compares the feeling to when one person in a struggling family comes into fortune and finds themselves bombarded by relatives asking for help. We can’t help everybody, because if we did we would be spread too thin. Most of us want to help the needy, but how do we accomplish this successfully? Moreover, is it in our best interest as a society to give people handouts— and is it in their interests to become reliant on help from others? We don’t want to encourage “learned helplessness,” but...
Words: 675 - Pages: 3
...psychological egoism, how arguments can be justifiably presented and why this theory is commonly appealing to philosophers. Often supporters of psychological egoism will present arguments through theories such as Darwinism and Desire Satisfaction. This essay essentially aims to critically assess the substantiality of these arguments. In order to correctly assess the arguments in favour of psychological egoism, firstly it must be stated what is implied by these arguments. Psychological egoism has many differences to other egoist theories such as ethical egoism, which state we should be selfish. Psychological egoism however states that all human actions are uncontrollably selfish, and that this is part of our human nature. It should be noted before continuing that this essay will be assessing this more radical form of psychological egoism , which identifies that ‘selfishness is’ the only way one can possibly performs actions, disregarding any consideration of others unless this aids their selfish action in some way. Psychological egoism can seem plausible to its supporters for a variety of reasons. Some of the most common include the concept that desires are entirely our own and therefore pursuing any desire or action is selfish, which supports the idea that we pursue desires for our own satisfaction. A state of self- deception of our motives is also recognized as a major appeal of egoism. Finally the concept of morality is also used within psychological egoism arguments, maintaining that...
Words: 2289 - Pages: 10
...shadows of suspicion and the common moral intuitions. Both are problematic because of “altruism,” or in other words, selflessness. There are two types of altruism. First, the altruistic theory of “kin selection” — doing self-sacrificing acts towards their family members. The second, reciprocal altruism, is the moral sense that prompts human beings to engage in self-sacrificing acts towards non-relatives. Ruse and Wilson might argue that humans evolved with an attitude against murder for convenience. It is not difficult to see how this might be true. A person who kills others...
Words: 901 - Pages: 4
...others: is selflessness really possible? Or is "altruism" merely doing things for others in order to feel good about ourselves? If human altruism exists, how does our neural system deal with it? The issue of altruism is complicated by the lack of agreement about many aspects of it, including its very definition. The word altruism, which comes from the Italian altrui, was coined in 1851 by August Comte to refer to benevolence (2). Although not everyone agrees today on what precisely altruism entails, the most basic definition is seeking the welfare of others (1). This definition is often extended, however, to include the necessity of some personal sacrifice on the part of the altruist; Edward O. Wilson defined altruism as "self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others" (1), (3). There is also an idea of reciprocal altruism, which is self-sacrificing behavior with the expectation that the favor will be returned eventually (4). If this behavior is motivated by the desire for future reward, it does not really fit the generally accepted definitions of altruism. In nonhuman animals, altruism is mainly seen in the form of one animal sacrificing or risking its life to save another. Studies of animals by researchers such as Hamilton, who worked with bees who sacrifice themselves to allow the queen to produce offspring with their genetic makeup, have led to an evolutionary explanation of altruism (4). One account of altruism in the animal kingdom is kin selection-that an...
Words: 1553 - Pages: 7
...Philosophy Exam * When is a deductive argument conclusive? All the premises are true, No fallacies are committed, and it is valid. Which of the following is one of the criteria a deductive argument must meet in order to be conclusive (good)? -the argument must be valid * What are the 3 criteria that must be met for an appeal to experts to be legitimate? 1. Must be an expert in the relevant field, expertise on the issue 2. Consensus of experts in the field must agree. 3.Expert must be liable and agreeable, reliable and credible Suppose you decide to appeal to experts to answer a question. Which of the following is NOT one of the three criteria discussed in class that must be met for your appeal to authority to be likely to get you the truth? -the expert appealed to must have published work in the field. * What are the ways discussed in class to determine what the consensus of experts believe about an issue? Professional Journals * Why is it important to rely on a consensus rather than individual experts views? Some experts just start drama, past experts have been wrong. Why is it important to rely on consensus rather than individual experts views? -a consensus is more likely to be correct * How is truth defined in class? As defined in class, a statement is true and only true if it matches up with the way things are. * What are the main points of each of the Quickie Arguments? Morality does not equal legality, tradition...
Words: 2864 - Pages: 12
...The Purchase of Moral Satisfaction ( Richard O. Zerbe Jr. Abstract The debate over whether moral sentiments should be included in normative economic analysis offers the arguments that inclusion is unnecessary as results are the same, that inclusion can result in double counting and will result in acceptance of projects that fail to pass a potential compensation test. I show that these arguments are unpersuasive or incorrect. Instead the inclusion of moral sentiments has potential to improve normative analysis. This is illustrated by comparing the standard criteria for benefit cost analysis (Kaldor-Hicks) that does not include moral sentiments with a modification (KHZ) that does. KHZ dominates KH even by the principles of KH itself. JEL Codes: Q20, D6, D63, D64 I. Introduction The practical criteria for economic efficiency, the Kaldor-Hicks (KH) criteria, have existed for over sixty years, without the profession fully facing the issue of whether or not moral sentiments should be included in normative economic analysis. In part this is due to historical reasons, in part to normal inertia associated with any academic discipline, in part because of the recent interest in moral sentiments in the form of existence values and in part because of objections raised to inclusion of moral sentiments. This paper concerns two issues. The first is whether or not it is desirable to include moral sentiments in welfare analysis. The answer to this question...
Words: 11004 - Pages: 45
...this year – appears to be in substantiation of Xunzi’s notion that human nature is bad. Nonetheless, there is no lack of incidents shedding light on the empathy, selflessness and righteousness of humans in such cases as the engineers on RMS Titanic discharging their duties till the very last moment of their lives or the three men succumbing to massive doses of radiation to save millions of others in Chernobyl. Human nature defined as our intuitive and automatic impulses as opposed to rational reflection based on conscious thoughts, our tendencies towards altruism point to the goodness of human nature, coupled with the external influence contributing to the bad behavior, thus refuting the statement that human nature is bad. To commence with, the altruistic deeds performed for people in distress serve as corroboration of human nature being good. Despite the contention ventured by believers of the evil nature of human that altruism is disguised self-interest, such a claim is repudiated by innumerable and consistent instances of people helping others in jeopardy. The promptness exhibited in such decisions precludes the materialization of conscious weighing of costs and benefits, which would have otherwise forestalled the assistance rendered in traumatic events like the September 11 attacks. Instead of people trampling over one another for the earliest evacuation from the World Trade Center at others’ expense, what they did was give priority and care to the vulnerable ones – the pregnant...
Words: 1171 - Pages: 5
