Download 1. Under what circumstances, if any, might the legalization or

1. Under what circumstances, if any, might the legalization or decriminalization
of drugs be beneficial to society?
Some people believe that if drugs are made legally available then it could prove to be less
harmful to the society. The reasoning is that when drugs are illegal, their price gets higher. To
maintain the habit, addicts spend money that they would have otherwise spent on necessities
such as food, shelter, and clothing. This neglect contributes to the physical deterioration of the
addicts. When drugs are illegal, the exponential increase in drug prices makes addicts indulge in
crimes such as burglary, robbery, and theft so that they can support their habits. Legalization of
drugs would mean that illegal psychoactive drugs would be available for purchase on the open
market at cheap prices. Decriminalization on the other hand would remove state control on
drugs. I think that legalization or decriminalization of drugs would reduce returns for illegal
drug traders and cause a decline in the amount of money spent by the society to handle the drug
problem, especially costs associated with incarcerated drug offenders. Having said that, I
strongly believe that legalization or decriminalization would only mean an exponential increase
in the number of drug addicts, drug overdoes, and drug-related diseases. Free movement of drugs
on the open market would make it easier for more people to fall into the deadly trap of drug
addiction, increase the overall demand for drugs, and lead to an increased production of drugs.
Considering the above facts, I think the disadvantages of legalization or decriminalization of
drugs by far outweigh the benefits that they could ever possibly bring to society.
Reference:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/goode/bpr6.htm
2. Do you consider alcohol a drug? Should greater control be placed on the sale of alcohol?
Strangely, many people (excluding me) do not consider alcohol to be a drug. The main reason
for the existence of such a thought is probably because it is legal for people to consume alcohol
as long as they are over the legal age. Since alcohol is legal to consume, a lot of people tend to
treat it as just another beverage. The fact however is that alcoholism is a kind of drug addiction
that is just as harmful and serious when compared to addiction to other drugs. Even the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has classified alcohol as a drug. Just as in the case of drug addiction,
alcohol addiction too gives people an uncontrollable craving that they feel they must cater to in
order to live. Even if people are binge drinking, the reality is that alcohol addicts are just like
drug addicts. Considering the concerns on addiction, binge drinking, density of outlets, and the
fact that approximately 40% of violent crimes that take place in the United States are linked to
alcohol abuse, I definitely think more control should be placed on the sale of alcohol through
stricter liquor licensing, local planning regulations, zoning rules, server responsibility and law
compliance.
References:
http://www.addictionsearch.com/treatment_blog/alcoholism-and-addiction_42.html
http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/alcoholalert/alert200402/al200402_16.html
3. Do TV shows and films glorify drug usage and encourage youths to enter
the drug trade? Should all images on TV of drugs and alcohol be banned?
Yes, I certainly think that TV shows and films not only glorify drug usage but also encourage
youth to enter the drug trade. A number of TV shows and films glorify and glamorize the mafia
way of life, making youth want to enter the drug trade. Consider the role of John Travolta in the
film pulp fiction for example. When a popular star like Travolta plays a sympathetic character
who uses hard drugs but runs into no apparently noticeable legal or health issues, a certain
section of people, especially the impressionable young will relate drug usage to a cool-seeming,
anti-establishment attitude. Such youth will make this character as a model of behavior, indulge
in drugs, and increase the overall rate of drug abuse. The film Godfather, popularly considered as
one of the greatest movies ever made, glorified mafia and violence. The film American Gangster
too glorifies the drug trade; however, it does show the real struggle that the addicts go through
and the price they have to pay in order to survive. Though I think there should be a freedom of
expression in TV shows and films, I still think any ads or images on TV and film that glorify
drugs and alcohol should be taken off air and banned, keeping the best interests of the society as
a whole in mind.
Reference:
http://www.mackwhite.com/tv.html
4. Is prostitution really a crime? Should a man or woman have the right to sell sexual
favors if they so choose?
In my opinion, prostitution is a crime. I think neither a man nor or a woman should be allowed to
sell sexual favors if they so choose. Conduct and character are the strengths of humanity and are
seen by law and order as the life and soul of the way they operate. Character and conduct are the
foundations of relationships, society, and culture, so legalizing something against these norms
would be like saying that we do not value these norms anymore. I think if sexual favors are on
sale, then I think marriage, family life, and social fabric as a whole will take a hard hit and moral
values too will degrade in the long run. If prostitution is made legal then crime rates are likely to
increase as well. Drug addicts could then sell sexual favors so that they have money to support
their habits. Legalization could also contribute tremendously to the spread of deadly sexually
transmitted diseases like AIDS. I am not saying that all these problems don’t exist when
prostitution is illegal, just that we’re in a better position to handle them than we would be if
prostitution is legal and not considered as a crime.
5. Do you believe there should be greater controls placed on the distribution of sexually
explicit material on the Internet? Would you approve of the online sale of sexually explicit
photos of children if they were artificial images created by computer animation?
I definitely think that there should be greater controls placed on the distribution
of sexually explicit material on the Internet. A huge amount of sexually explicit material on the
internet is often inappropriate, harmful, and inaccurate. Such material can show violence and
dehumanization of people in sexually explicit scenes, forming powerful but false notions about
human sexuality in the minds of people. Such material often gives no importance to intimacy and
good personal relationship development, rather they encourage people to indulge in sexual acts
without any inhibitions or emotional connections. A number of children today can access such
material on the internet with ease. Research in this area suggests that children who are exposed
to such material early are likely to be impacted negatively. Such material could shape the sexual
attitudes, behaviors, and values of children and have a negative impact on the health of their
sexual development. I would strongly oppose any sale of sexually explicit pictures of children on
the internet, irrespective of whether or not they are artificial ones generated through computer
animation. It is the very thought of child pornography that makes a negative impact on our minds
(computer animation or not), and anything that promotes such a negative, unethical,
inappropriate, and highly disturbing thought or suggestion should never be approved.
Reference:
http://www.kidsintheknow.ca/PDFS/impact_of_viewing.pdf
6. Which statement is more accurate: (a) Sexually aggressive men are drawn to
pornography because it reinforces their pre existing hostile orientation to sexuality; or (b)
Reading or watching pornography can make men become sexually aggressive.
In my opinion, neither of these statements is close to being accurate. A majority of men, who
watch or read pornography, either do so alone or with their partners. In general, sexually explicit
material for most men is just like a visual sex toy, and it doesn’t necessarily have to do too much
with sexual aggression. I think the choice between the two statements can be made better when
viewed in terms of sexual aggression and violent pornography. However, if I have to choose
between the two statements, I would say statement ‘b’ is relatively more accurate than statement
‘a.’ I think a reliable association can be made between sexual aggression and men who use
violent pornography frequently. Even sexually nonaggressive men are drawn to pornography and
it does not reinforce anything. Sexually aggressive men and sexually nonaggressive men
interpret and react differently when they expose themselves to the same pornography. Excess
usage of violent pornography could however produce a range of undesirable effects on men.
7. Are there objective standards of morality? Does the existing criminal code reflect
contemporary national moral standards? Or are laws banning sexual behaviors and
substance abuse the product of a relatively few “moral entrepreneurs” who seek to control
other people's behaviors?
No, there are no objective standards of morality. The existing criminal code certainly reflects
contemporary national moral standards to a large extent. People once upon a time thought it was
right under their criminal code to burn on the stake, women who they thought were witches.
Thankfully, a vast majority of people in the world no longer think the same way today. So, I
don’t think there are any objective universal standards of morality. Moral standards change from
time to time based on ever changing cultural, religious and regional values and standards. What
the majority of a country considers to be moral standards today is converted into the
contemporary criminal code of that country. I agree that there is a strong influence of some
moral entrepreneurs on the criminal code, but again, their views are not entirely different from
what the majority of the country believes are proper moral standards.