...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
...The argument which I am focusing on is titled “No One Knowingly Does Evil” and is written by Socrates. This argument concludes that those who do evil things do them involuntarily. According to Socrates it is not in human nature to choose to act in a way what one believes to be harmful, instead of a way that is good. He claimed that all wrong, or evil, is only done out of ignorance and not from the intention to do evil. This view appears controversial because people are known to occasionally commit deeds that are apparently evil either out of self-interest or acting on impulse, against their better judgment. It is at this point that we come to an important clarification. Socrates did not state that doing wrong to others is ever right, but that the motivation for such actions determines the character of the will involve. Socrates maintained that people are never motivated to bring harm to themselves. Since Socrates believed that wrongdoing always harmed the wrongdoer, he saw all wrongdoing as a mistake in judgment or an expression of ignorance. This is especially true in cases where a life full of wrongdoing never physically harms the wrongdoer. Socrates believed that the most pitiable of humans were those who lived under the delusion that their wrongdoing benefited them. Socrates saw no conflict between self-interest and morality. On the contrary, he saw virtue as the greatest benefit and maintained that immoral actions actually harmed the agent and could therefore only be committed...
Words: 1254 - Pages: 6
...will argue that during “The trial and Death of Socrates”, Socrates could have given better arguments for his defense. First it will outline the prejudices or accusations Socrates has to face during his trial. It will then show how Socrates acted as tough he wanted to lose the case and finally it will conclude explaining the arguments Socrates could have given in order to be acquitted. During the first speech (18a-19b) Socrates has to overcome two different types of prejudices: the old prejudice against Socrates set by the plays of Aristophanes and the new prejudices that included impiety charged by Meletus as well as the corruption of the youth. In fact more than once is Socrates confused for someone else. Aristophanes is responsible for latter but it is reconstructed by Meletus as including both impiety and corruption and Socrates is portrayed as a corrupt teacher .the first charge of impiety also originates with Aristophanes but Meletus confuses Socrates with the atheistic Anaxagoras when he describes Socrates as seeking to study the heavens (18a) the second charge of corruption is also in Aristophanes' Clouds but confuses Socrates with Protagoras. This led to confusion (18e) of Socrates with other sophists like Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias. The new prejudice against Socrates really is because of the Socratic paradox (20c-21a): “he knows nothing and only in this he claims to be wise “ this paradox aroused hatred against him (21b, 23ab), even though he explains that...
Words: 839 - Pages: 4
...In this paper I will recapitulate and analyze the arguments made in Crito by Socrates, Crito, and the Laws of Athens in order to determine which is the most successful. I will also provide my own objection to the some of the arguments to provide insight into possible errors in the given standpoints. In Crito, Socrates is being kept in jail in anticipation of his execution for crimes he did not commit. His friend Crito visits Socrates and explains he should take the chance to escape while it is still available. Crito’s primary argument is that Socrates will be dead in a few days if he does not escape, and living at all is better than being dead. The strongest reasoning against Socrates escaping is provided by Socrates with respect to the laws...
Words: 1040 - Pages: 5
...In 399 BC, a philosopher, named Socrates, is put to trial for multiple reasons. He was accused of corrupting the youth and impiety. They wanted the death penalty, but the importance of this trial were the arguments made by Socrates. One of the arguments made in The Apology that will be focused on is the corruption argument. Socrates made many arguments such as the horse trainer argument, the God argument, and also the death argument, but the argument that was most interesting was the corruption argument. The corruption argument, made by Socrates, is what set the tone and what allowed the rest of his arguments to have a place in his defense. In The Apology, by Plato, he talked about the defense that Socrates had in his trial against the...
Words: 561 - Pages: 3
...Law In The Trial and Death of Socrates, there are multiple places in the text where Socrates could be seen as being contradicting in what he is saying. This happens particularly in the Apology where Socrates discusses how important it is to do as the gods say. This is the reason why he continued studying philosophy despite being commanded otherwise by the laws. Then in Crito, he states that it is important to follow the laws of Athens no matter what they tell you to do. This contradicts his previous statements because by following his philosophical mission, Socrates is breaking the law. During his trial in the Apology, Socrates states to the jury how much he believes in doing as the gods say which is his reasoning for being on this philosophical mission. As Socrates is speaking to the jury he tells them that if given the choice between freedom and continuing his philosophical mission he would always choose the mission. "If you said to me in this regard: 'Socrates, we do not believe Anytus now ; we acquit you, but only on the condition that you spend no more time on this investigation and do not practice philosophy, and if you are caught doing so you will die , if , as I say , you were to acquit me on those terms, I would say to you : "Gentlemen of the jury , I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy" (29c-d, Apology) Socrates clearly states in the above text...
Words: 825 - Pages: 4
...Socrates is accused of being “an investigator of all things below the earth” (Apology, pg. 47, 18b). This means that he studies the science behind everything. Socrates is accused of “not acknowledging the gods” (Apology, pg.50, 23d). The people of Athens things that Socrates does not believe in the gods, that he studies the science of everything around him. Socrates went to Piraeus for a festival. When he was there, he said a prayer and watched the procession. Then Socrates “hurry[ed]” back to his own town (Republic, bk.1, pg. 75, 327b). When Socrates hurried back it seemed like he did not care for the god, Bendis, in which the city was acknowledging as a god (Mark, lecture of 2/2/17). He seems like he is doing it to show that he does acknowledge Bendis but inside he does not believe in him. Socrates does not think the gods are helpful in trying to find what justice is. He says that he “won’t accept from Homer… the foolish mistakes he makes about the gods” (Republic, bk.2, pg.107, 379c). Since the Odyssey was like the Bible, in where Odysseus is like the god of the story, Socrates is saying let’s not praise them because they are the ones who make good and bad people. When people do good or bad things,...
Words: 767 - Pages: 4
...cause injury or damage. In Plato’s writing, “Apology”, his friend and teacher, Socrates, is accused by Meletus, among others, of causing harm to Athens and Athenians by “corrupting the young and of not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other new spiritual things”.(27) Over the course of the trial arguments for both sides are presented, though Socrates’ own defense or “apology”, resonates with enough reason and logic to make his case believable while Meletus is unable to reasonably present an argument proving harm or counter Socrates ’self-defense. Socrates responds to Meletus’ charge of harming or corrupting Athen’s youth by building a series of arguments in his own defense. The first step requires discrediting Meletus by having Meletus agree with him that it is important to ensure “that our young men be as good as possible”.(27) From there he maneuvers Meletus into admitting that as it is the responsibility of all Athenians to educate and improve the young, no one person, such as Socrates, could possibly be responsible for corrupting them. He continues to reason with Meletus while questioning whether a crime was actually committed. Asking “whether it is better for a man to live among good or wicked fellow citizens”(28), Socrates creates the argument that no one would willingly want to live among bad persons because they would bring harm to those around them. Socrates then compels Meletus into agreeing with him that no one would willingly wish to...
Words: 747 - Pages: 3
...Latonya Williams Ethics/Professor Benjamin Buckley Writing Assignment 1/ Plato, Critio August 25, 2015 Socrates is sentenced to execution for going against the Athenians’ Law. The setting of this conversation is in Socrates’ prison cell. While waiting for the day of his execution, he is visited by his friend Crito. Crito’s motive is to convince Socrates to escape prison by presenting arguments of why Socrates should go against his sentence. His argument on a real-world level is more geared towards the opinions of what others would think of Socrates and his friends if he was executed. Crito also presents in his argument that if Socrates did not escape and decides to face his sentence, he would be in agreements with the Athenians sentencing him unfairly and this would be consider as him acting unfairly to himself. On the other hand, Socrates’ point of view is that by escaping he would be going against the Athenian’s Law and if he escapes, it would cause extension harm to him and the others. In this argument, Socrates stated “one shouldn’t return injustice or ill-treatment to any human being, no matter how one may be treated by that person.” (PG 38) In this statement he is stating that just because an individual treats you badly or do you wrong, you do not have to return the same treatment or take revenge. I agree with what Socrates is stating here. I am one to believe that Jesus fights ALL your battles. I have had many situations in my life where someone has treated me...
Words: 514 - Pages: 3
...the Apology and the Crito of Plato, one inevitably comes upon a seeming fundamental contradiction between the two dialogues. The Apology presents readers with a defiant Socrates who declares in his trial that, if acquitted on the condition that he never philosophize again, he would continue to practice philosophy in spite of the jury’s order to the contrary: . . . if you said to me in this regard: “Socrates, we do not believe Anytus now; we acquit you, but only on condition that you spend no more time on this investigation and do not practice philosophy, and if you are caught doing so you will die”; if, as I say, you were to acquit me on those terms, I would say to you: “Men of Athens, I am grateful and I am your friend, but I will obey the god rather than you, and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy . . . (29c-d).1 The passage from the Apology seems to present a defiant argument for civil disobedience in the face of injustice. In the Crito, however, when given a chance to escape prison and his upcoming execution, Socrates reasons that such an action would be unjust because it would defy the laws 1Plato, Apology. Trans. G. M. A. Grabe (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000), 32. Blanks 1  of the city. Near the end of the dialogue Plato presents Socrates as speaking for a hypothetical anthropomorphized “voice of the laws”: Is your wisdom such as not to realize that your country is to be honored more than your mother, your...
Words: 1804 - Pages: 8
...Socrates, seen to be the father of Greek Philosophy, and his unjust death have influenced Western Philosophy greatly, allowing him to appear as something resembling a hero today. Socrates was put on trial in 399BC in Athens, Greece for impiety (asebeia) and for corrupting the youth. Some suppose Socrates’ death, at age 70, was politically motivated as Athens was trying to disassociate itself with those involved with the Thirty Tyrants, led by Critias who was a student of Socrates. Also, before being put on trial Socrates had aggravated many powerful politicians by exposing their ignorance, so his death may be seen as revenge. Socrates’ friend, Chaerephon, asked the omniscient Oracle of Delphi if there was any man wiser than Socrates and when the priestess replied that there wasn’t, Socrates made it his mission to prove the Oracle wrong. Socrates was puzzled as to why the Oracle had said he was the wisest man as he knew that she could not lie, but according to...
Words: 1011 - Pages: 5
