...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
...Is Wikipedia Really A Reliable Source? Is Wikipedia Really A Reliable Source? The task or writing a research paper or completing a project that requires research can often be daunting and time consuming especially for those who are not in a research field. Because of this, many people will look to find a shortcut through this process. Wikipedia can be considered one of these shortcuts. According to Wikipedia (n.d.), “Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project based on an openly editable model” (1). Wikipedia undoubtedly provides a more rapid way to research. The site contains 8.2 million articles in 283 different languages (Wikipedia, n.d.). The site is free to use and has very simple, straightforward navigation. If one were to write out all of the pros of Wikipedia, it would be a very long list, but the question is – is Wikipedia really reliable? Are we sacrificing reliability for shortcuts? Are we giving up quality of information for quantity? The argument for reliability These questions are a part of an ongoing and seemingly not ending (at least not any time soon) debate. According to a debate with classmates, many who are for the reliability of Wikipedia believe it to be as reliable if not more than traditional sources; however, during the debate classmates were found to list pros of the site as opposed to actual reasons that information found on the site could be deemed reliable. Some classmates pointed out that...
Words: 1117 - Pages: 5
...Writing an Argument; Wikipedia Jesus Manuel Acosta-Vargas University of Phoenix MGT/521 Management Prof. Elsie Jimenez-Galarza Writing an Argument Today in this century that “we” live, must student like surfing in the Internet to find his resources. The Internet as of the present time contains a several encyclopedias online and research’s websites of all kinds. Some of these types of research’s websites are reliable in some points, some are credible investigations some not, some are valid point of view, and other websites are not developing any of these criteria and lack bias. I am going to writing an argument about the infamous Wikipedia online encyclopedia and his credibility in the web. Wikipedia from scratch we have to make some question; have a valid point of view? Have some credible sources? Is reliable source of information and good research to an essay? In addition to that i have to develop an argument based upon are the outcomes about the debate pro Wikipedia and against Wikipedia. And to support all the argument against Wikipedia, I going to identifying each criterion used to analyze and evaluate all the credibility sources. Some research demonstrates that Wikipedia’s articles that lack biases. Some articles are lack of ideas and neutral point of view too. Head and Eisenberg (2010) write that Wikipedia is a source that is used in 85% of the work course of university students and in 91% of related searches problems...
Words: 946 - Pages: 4
...that we discussed and debated in class is Wikipedia. “Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia.......” "Wikipedia:general Disclaimer" (2011) So what about Wikipedia does or does not make it a credible source. Below I will discuss the debate outcomes, the arguments between both sides, and my reasoning for choosing the against side. An argument was developed based on debate outcomes Based on the debate outcomes from the group, there were many good points in reasoning why Wikipedia is or is not a credible source. The group came up with approximately 26 points that were either against or for Wikipedia being a credible source. The debate was very active leaving everyone a good foundation on what each person thought about the topic. The four steps for presenting arguments fairly were used to develop the argument Each person has their opinion on what they feel about the credibility and reliability of Wikipedia. Some believed that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anyone can create an account and update information whereas others may think that to be a positive aspect. They feel because anyone can create an account, this gives the opportunity for groups to come together (especially those that are very knowledgeable) and this in turn will develop a common resource of knowledge to be credible. Some will argue that Wikipedia is not reliable because it is not peered reviewed, but then some would say that Wikipedia is backed up with references at the end of...
Words: 312 - Pages: 2
...Wikipedia as a Credible Source Jon Castillo MGT521 November 19, 2012 Robert Carter Wikipedia as a Credible Source As everybody knows, Wikipedia is an online collaborative encyclopedia, which is created outside the traditional authorship, editorial, and copyright constraints (Parker, Strickler, Banappagari, 2012). In the simplest terms, the website is used to express encyclopedic knowledge over the Internet. It is designed to allow contribution of new information or the correcting of information contributed by others. The website is full of information, but how much of that information is accurate and should actually be considered credible is up for debate. On one side it is argued that use of this information is credible and valid, and on the other side it is argued that the information is unreliable and not worthy of citation. Arguments for Wikipedia Wikipedia is basically a free encyclopedia that allows users to edit the information it contains. In the website’s own words, Wikipedia states that “their scientific articles come close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopedia Britannica (Wikipedia, 2012)”. When an outside source edits information it is reviewed and tested for reliability. Any edited information that is not accurate is taken out of the section that it appears in. The process of scrubbing doesn’t happen as quickly as preferred by most people, but the process does lead to the information being reliable. “The website’s ease of use is expected to serve...
Words: 869 - Pages: 4
...Running head: WRITING AN ARGUMENT Writing an Argument University of Phoenix Management 521 June 05, 2011 Writing an Argument: Option 1 Planning a strategy to write a successful argument starts off by merging deductive reasoning—which presents-related principles that coincide with the writer’s main point of view, and inductive reasoning—which shows proof of the writer’s point of view. “This style of writing an argument will effectively assist in building up tactics like: cause and effect or problem and solution; eventually helping the writer gain the reader’s understanding of “why” his or her point of view was formed [ (Spatt, Writing the Research Essay, 2011) ].” Cause and Effect or problem and solution Cause and effect or problem and solution are basically the same. This tactic verifies an informal relationship of two opposing positions. The opinion usually solves any uncertainty to the reader about “why?” For example, in the first class our group split up into two teams. Team Joe, Joe and Kurt were acting as the debate team in support of Wikipedia as a credible resource for research. Team Lisa, Lisa and Laurie were acting as the debate team against Wikipedia as a credible resource for research. Joe and Kurt’s debate attempted to solve listener’s uncertainty regarding “why” Wikipedia is a credible resource for research. Team Lisa’s debate attempted to solve listener’s uncertainty about “why” Wikipedia is not a credible resource for research. Team Joe mentioned...
Words: 1235 - Pages: 5
...Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia that many rely on as a source for information. However, there are others that question whether the encyclopedia can be cited as a valid and credible source. This argument is based on Learning Team C’s debate on whether Wikipedia is a valid and credible source for information. The viewpoints from both sides will be examined and a conclusion will be drawn as to why Wikipedia is not a credible and valid source for information. Credible According to Lizz Shepherd, a freelance writer, Wikipedia has one of the best Google page ranks of any site in the world and is in the top 10 of Alexa. Regardless of what you search for, the Wikipedia entry is probably in the top three results for that topic. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that allows its users to edit and remove content from any page. Because Wikipedia allows its users to change information brings frequent questions about the validity of the information on its pages. The Encyclopedia Britannica is one of the few sources that most people agree on for reliable, accurate information. Encyclopedia Britannica is considered the standard for finding accurate information. In an attempt to compare accuracy, the journal Nature ran a large-scale test of the information in Wikipedia entries versus the same entries in Encyclopedia Britannica (Shepherd, 2010). Nature’s results of the test revealed that both sources had numerous errors, Wikipedia, 2.86% and Encyclopedia Britannica...
Words: 616 - Pages: 3
...Who Can Stem Cell Research Save? Human stem cell research is a widely controversial topic in the United States. Most controversy concerns are religious, moral, and legal contestations regarding human embryos. Research on human embryos have been approved in other countries such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Greece, Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands, it remains a controversy issue in the United States. In the United States the States are split on whether it’s enforcing a complete ban or allowed funding in some States for stem cell research. President Clinton passed Dickey Amendment which cut off all Department of Health and Human Services and all federal funding for stem cell research on human embryos. Private funding was still aloud for the research. In 2001 President George Bush approved limited funding because of the great outcomes it could one day give us with cures for diseases and disorders. On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own. An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. "Make no mistake," he told me, "that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these," he said, "because we are dealing with the seeds of...
Words: 3053 - Pages: 13
...Wikipedia: Appropriate For What The online encyclopedia Wikipedia has grown impressively since its creation eight years ago. Its 8.2 million entries in 253 languages have been written entirely by web volunteers. That sounds like an impressive story of success, if it was not the polemic behind it. Whereas many defend the free source of information others ban the website because the writers are anonymous volunteers and the revision process questionable. If the source people are using for writing an essay is not reliable so they are not. That is a very simple sentence that demonstrates how dangerous it can be avoiding to evaluate well the sources of information used as a baseline for our creation. A good source of information needs to be impartial, showing different points of view about the subject, has to have the right style and tone, depending on our audience and purpose of writing, needs to be updated, and the author to have the ideal credentials to write about the topic with property. Most of the critic against Wikipedia resides in the argument that nobody can trust a source that everyone can edit, and it does make sense, but radicalism is not needed. The historian Waters (2007) have said that the absence of accountability of the website is reason to ban students from using Wikipedia in research where they are responsible for informational accuracy. That is truly an argument that needs to be considered when discussing if the source is valid for formal researches, but why...
Words: 744 - Pages: 3
...In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These comparisons may or may not be valid, but the invalid ones are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. For example, Harmonizing file names of a set of images is a valid rationale for renaming file. (To a lesser degree, this applies to article titles as well, although article naming is more complex.) Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Contents [hide] 1 Deletion of articles 2 Creation of articles 3 Inherent notability 4 Precedent in usage 5 See also Deletion of articles[edit] The claim of "Other Stuff Exists" most often arises in article deletion debate, where it is often used in a poor manner. Examples: Keep There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that. –LetsKeepIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC) The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating...
Words: 1054 - Pages: 5
...Since the inception of Wikipedia, the ongoing debate about whether it is a reliable source or not has plague academia. Still to this day many instructors have to make the conscious decision on whether or not they will permit it within their course. Cheryl Miller Maddox wrote, “The history department at Middlebury College banned students from citing Wikipedia articles in their papers and exams” (Jeffe Maehre, 2009, p. 1). This prompted a highly contested debate. The reason the idea is shared that Wikipedia should be ban from school is because of the fact it pollutes the mind. Today many children just are taking it as the gospel. Many educators fear that with the wealth of erroneous information Wikipedia possesses could be dangerous in the development of students’ education. Don Wyatt, chair of the department of history at Middlebury College stated, “As educators, we are in the business of reducing the dissemination of misinformation. Even though Wikipedia may have some value, particularly from the value of leading students to citable sources, it is not itself an appropriate source for citation” (Scott Jaschik, 2007, p. 1). This line of thinking was shared by multiple schools across the country. Many educators believe that the art of researching is a valuable tool to pass along to students. When a student has the knowledge of exploring many sources to find a fact is something that could translate seamlessly into the world of business. For example, a lawyer has to muddle through...
Words: 608 - Pages: 3
