Recent orders
Drunk Driving (2)
Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Course Code:
Date:
Drunk Driving
A large percentage of the United States citizens are used to partying during the weekends, and this is a culture that has been in existence for decades. Having fun is part of making the body relax as it helps in removing stress from the body. The United States does not prohibit drinking as the legal drinking age is 21 and above (Fell et al., p258). Surprisingly, the United States tends to have the highest legal drinking age across the globe, but this regulation is for the benefit of the country since only a slight percentage of the minors will be involved in alcohol consumption. In this era of the 21st century, almost every household in the United States do own a motor vehicle, and this means that every person in a household can drive. With the rise in drinking culture, the probability of drink driving in the United States is higher. Despite the high drinking age, there is still a large number of people who abuse alcohol in the U.S, and this can be attributed to the drinking culture that is evident in most parts of the country. According to statistics, 29 people die in the United States on a daily basis due to motor vehicle accidents that involve alcohol-impaired drivers. A proper interpretation of this is that there is a person who succumbs to death in every 50 minutes. The motor vehicle accidents resulting from drunk driving has been too expensive, attributing to more than 44 billion dollars annually.
Drunk driving often results in distraction of drivers, and this is one of the major causes of accidents not only in the United States but also across the globe (Morain and Emily, p712). The reason why drunk driving is a major cause of accidents is due to its ability to distort the judgment capability of the drivers hence resulting in accidents. An intoxicated person is not able to judge or make approximations. Also, they are not able to fully control the vehicles they are driving, and this makes it difficult to avoid turning in the wrong direction, which is always catastrophic. There are many distractions that can happen when driving, especially when a person is drunk, and this may include phone calling and texting, and these acts as distractions to the driver as they are unable to keep attention on the road. Unfortunately, this often results in a life-threatening accident. In some cases, the driver might be lucky to escape the scene of the accident, but it is very hard for the driver and passengers to get out of the vehicle unharmed. A split second of loss of focus on the road while driving, therefore, can be fatal and thus can cost a life.
According to research, alcohol is known to affect the body negatively, and one of the major effects involves slowing down the brain and body reaction, in general, making it a challenge for a drunk person to act normally (Payne, Paul and Andrew, p820). It is believed that drink driving is responsible for more than 25% of the total deaths that result from road accidents. The primary explanation for this revolves around a distorted judgment that leads to poor coordination, blurred, and double vision, as well as decreased self-consciousness. People get drunk on different alcoholic percentages, and this implies that the consumption of only one drink may overpower a person who has not been used to drinking. However, it should be noted that different countries have different limits that a person can be allowed to drive under the influence of alcohol. In the United States, the blood alcohol content that is approved for drivers is 0.08% and lower. Therefore, any higher percentage implies that a person is considered legally impaired to drive in the United States. However, a person can still be charged for having alcohol in their blood as it is considered driving under the influence (DUI), and this can happen for any level that is above 0.00%.
According to the United States, driving under the influence can influence the judgment abilities of a person. To them, impairment of the brain may result in an accident as the driver is unable to perform the basic tasks required for safe driving. Based on this, excessive consumption of alcohol has even greater detrimental impacts on the drivers’ judgment, which translates to their abilities to process information. A drunk driver, therefore, may find it difficult to judge the distance between the cars, the speed of the vehicles both before and after them, and even concentrate on the driving task (Robbins, Sythey and Peter, p378). Besides, the driver may find it difficult to notice the pedestrians due to blurred vision, traffic lights as well as other safety hazards that are placed on the road, unable to react to the things around them, maintain balance as well as staying awake during driving.
In most cases, a drunk person may find it difficult to refrain from sleep, and the same case may apply to a drunk driver, making it easy to cause an accident that may claim their lives. Therefore, drunk driving may result in fatal accidents and even death of the passengers. Consequently, it can be considered a criminal offense that is punishable by the law of the United States. As stated above, every state in the United States, as well as other nations around the globe, have varying legal limits as to how much alcohol a driver can have in the blood when driving. For the United States, it is 0.08%, and any violations of these regulations are referred to be a crime (Scherer, Michael, and James, p7). It is considered as one of the major crimes that are not predicated upon international harm to an individual or property but are predicated upon the risk of harm. As a result of this, many innocent souls are injured and even killed by drunk drivers, with many cases going unnoticed. Due to this, in some cases, drunk driving is therefore classified as a felony regardless of the fact whether the driver injured or killed a person.
There are people who are pessimistic about the future. However, every person is required by ye government to be keen on what they are doing, emphasizing decision evaluation before implementing it. Before drinking and driving, an individual should think about the future consequences taking into consideration that it may lead to death and incapacitation of the passengers. Any driver in the United States who is caught by the police to be driving while under the influence of alcohol should be treated as a criminal as they are risking the lives of many people. Therefore, they should be taken to jail.
Any judge that is of sound mind will have to punish people who are caught drunk driving, and therefore it should not be a surprise if a person is put to jail for gross misconduct of drunk driving. In most cases, the judge will have to look at the drivers’ blood alcoholic levels, which is often at 0.08%, and if the driver has exceeded the specified maximum, then they are found guilty. The case scenario, however, may be different for the drivers who have exceeded the maximum required level. For example, a person who is found to have a blood alcohol content of 0.10% and above, it is estimated that there is a seven times probability of being involved in a fatal accident that can happen to a driver who is free from alcoholic influence. Based on this, it can be inferred that the more alcohol an individual consumes, the higher the chances of being involved in an accident.
Other than being taken to jail for drunk driving, there are other consequences that an intoxicated person can be subjected to, and this includes revoking the driver’s license or being suspended for a certain duration (Fell and Michael, p579). Most of the states in the United States require that the drunk drivers go through an assessment of their drinking habits and as well required to take part in educational classes that regard alcohol, its danger, and harm that can result from the intake. All this is done before being refunded their licenses back and other driving privileges. In some cases, the drinking habits may be excess, and beyond simple remedies of being license suspension. As a result, there is a need for rehabilitation of the driver through treatment, which at times it is a must for the addict drivers. Furthermore, drunk drivers may be required to pay for the installation of an ignition interlock device in their vehicles, which allows the engine to ignite after the driver blows into a mouthpiece on the device. If the results of alcohol concentration in the Breathalyzer is higher than the programmed blood alcohol concentration, the device prevents the engine from igniting, and this may prevent drunk driving.
The drunk driving problem is not only a challenge to the United States, but it is also a serious problem in many countries across the world. As a result, many states have come up with measures to restrict drunk driving in their jurisdictions. Some of the countries have stricter measures that have been constantly used by the people in the hope that sometimes, in the future the humanity will forget about drinking and adopt a culture that doesn’t favor alcohol. According to reports by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were more than 1.5 million Americans who were arrested in a single year due to drunk driving as well as under other influences of major drugs (Light, Michael and Brian, p1448). The statistics imply that one out of the 121 licensed drivers across the United States was drunk and driving under the influence of alcohol.
Furthermore, the reports indicated that within two hours of drinking, there were more than 700 drivers are arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. A study conducted in the year 2000 reported that more than 1400 traffic accidents which involved fatalities were caused by drunk drivers or under the influence of other drugs. The total number of traffic accidents accounts for about 9% of all alcohol-involved road accidents to which involved fatalities. Drunk driving is a serious offense, and according to statistics, drunk drivers have a higher chance, more than 1.5 times of getting involved in fatal accidents.
According to statistics in the United States, more than 12,000 people die annually as a result of alcohol-related accidents (Morrison et al., p798). In this line, more than 900,000 offenders are being arrested each year for driving under the influence of alcohol. However, as a result of the measures put forward to reduce drunk driving, the number of accidents has reduced as there has been a significant decline in the number of drunk drivers across the United States. However, even though there have been a reduced number of drunk driving cases in the United States in the recent past, the problem has still been there, the menace that has continued to claim the lives of many people.
The solution to reducing the drunk driving menace should not only depend on the measures put forth by the government through laws and regulations, as the government only tries to restrict people from drinking. However, the primary solution lies in the hands of the drivers. A driver should be conscious of their actions and be wary of the consequences as well as the risks that they put not only into their lives but also to the families and the passengers they carry. It is essential for the drivers to keep the roadways safe in the bid to help reduce road accidents, thus reducing the mortality rate and also ensure safer driving.
Deviant behavior can be attributed to the increased number of drunk driving accidents in the United States (Stringer, p379). The reason behind this is that people have continued to violate the laws set by the government, getting behind the wheel while drunk. And this happens despite the increased public awareness of the issue, education programs for the drunk drivers, warnings, stiff penalties for the law violation as well as imprisonment of the offenders. In the United States, more than 40% of all the population has been involved in a traffic mishap that has been related to drunk driving, with most of the people caught violating the laws coming from parties. As a result of this, the government has continued to make the penalties for drunk driving stiffer, and this particularly targets repeat offenders. Most of the states in the United States have even instituted laws that require imprisonment of drunk offenders. Other punishments such as fines have become larger, and the license suspension length has been extended. However, despite all these measures, the problem of drunk driving has continued to be a major problem in the United States.
The effectiveness of the penalty on drunk driving depends on the nation’s laws and aggravating circumstances (Grant, p19). However, in the United States, ale the cases of drunk driving among the first time offenders are considered as a misdemeanor, which is punishable up to six months imprisonment. However, the period of imprisonment may vary as it may be increased under certain circumstances, as the state or judge may deem necessary. Some states may prefer mandating more severe punishments for drunk drivers depending on the blood alcohol level at the time of their first arrest. However, many states have been considerate for first time offenders as they perceive it as a warning to the first time drunk drivers and thus reduce their punishment to a minimum. In contrast, multiple times, offenders find it rough as they are perceived as being ignorant of the law. As a result, they are subjected to longer jail terms, which may even extend to a year.
The United States has witnessed many cases of homicide in almost all states. Homicide can be defined as the act of terminating another person’s life without their consent. Based on this, causing deaths when in a state of drunk driving, a driver may be considered to have committed a homicide, and just like the other cases, it should be punishable as murder under the eyes of the law (McPherson and Cyrus). Drunk driving is therefore considered a serious offense, and this explains why the government is constantly putting up severe punishment that starts from hiking the prices of alcoholic beverages to minimize the purchase rates.
Also, the government has harsh punishments for the offenders, including higher fines and longer imprisonments for the repeat offenders. However, the judge may make certain alternative considerations in regards to cases of drunk driving that include probation, community service, and even rehabilitation to help the addicted drivers to reform. However, the current trend of repeat offending in regard to drunk driving implies that the government is not doing enough to stop the people from consuming alcohol. And this means that the government should improve their play by developing stricter punishment that will be able to prevent the crime of drinking and driving. As a result of this, some states have made tougher resolutions to help reduce the offense. One of the major policies that have been put up includes passing mandatory alcohol testing not only in fatal crashes but also randomly for the drivers to make sure that they don’t drive under the influence of alcohol. Through mandatory testing, a large number of offenders might be caught unaware. As a result of harsher punishment, they may fear drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol.
Another solution though a minor one is that the drinking age should be increased from 21 years to around 25 years. The reason behind this is that most of the drunk drivers are young adults who are driven by the pleasures of feeling high, and this is the age of experimentation. Therefore, having the drinking age risen will at least reduce the number of offenders. Another major consideration includes the installation of an interlocking device in the vehicles which are more effective than revoking the license. However, a drunk driver may opt not to use the Breathalyzer as they are aware that the vehicle will be locked and thus may continue driving as usual.
Based on the above strategies, they are not as effective as they have loopholes that can be used by drunk drivers. An alternative measure would be allowing a person to be driven by a sober person to their homes or even taking a cab to their place of residence (Greenwood and Sunil, p163). Based on this measure, it would not be possible for a person to drive while drunk. If a person is arrested driving while intoxicated and they had an option of hiring a sober driver to drive them safely or could have requested for a cab, then they must be subjected to severe punishment as this may be considered as ignorance to the law. A jail term of around two years should be enforced as the person is not only endangering their lives but also to the properties of other innocent people.
In conclusion, drunk driving has been a major problem in the United States and many other countries across the globe. States have been greatly involved in fighting the menace of drunken driving since it has resulted in numerous catastrophic effects such as death and disabilities through accidents, which results from the impaired perception of the drivers. In many cases, most of the drunk drivers come from parties, a culture that has been prevalent in the United States for decades, especially for young people. As a result, the government has tried various measures ranging from extended jail terms, bigger fines, and even revoking of the offender’s license. However, all these haven’t worked to reduce the incidences of drunk driving as the number continues to rise for all countries. Based on my perception, drunk driving is a habit, a culture that has been developed by people, and this means that in the efforts to reduce the cases of drunk driving, a personal approach should be taken. A person should be held accountable for their actions as they decide to drink and drive. If people desist from drinking and driving, there would be a reduced number of alcohol-related accidents. Therefore, all other measures may remain futile, but behavioral change and personal responsibility may help reduce cases of drunk driving across the globe.
Works Cited
Fell, James C., and Michael Scherer. “Administrative license suspension: Does length of suspension matter?.” Traffic injury prevention 18.6 (2017): 577-584.
Fell, James C., et al. “Assessing the impact of twenty underage drinking laws.” Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs 77.2 (2016): 249-260.
Grant, Darren. “A structural analysis of US drunk driving policy.” International Review of Law and Economics 45 (2016): 14-22.
Greenwood, Brad N., and Sunil Wattal. “Show Me the Way to Go Home: An Empirical Investigation of Ride-Sharing and Alcohol Related Motor Vehicle Fatalities.” MIS quarterly 41.1 (2017): 163-187.
Light, Michael T., Ty Miller, and Brian C. Kelly. “Undocumented immigration, drug problems, and driving under the influence in the United States, 1990–2014.” American journal of public health 107.9 (2017): 1448-1454.
McPherson, Rachel, and Cyrus Tata. “Causing Death by Driving Offences: Literature Review.” (2018).
Morain, Stephanie, and Emily Largent. “Ethical Acceptability of Reducing the Legal Blood Alcohol Concentration Limit to 0.05.” American journal of public health 109.5 (2019): 709-713.
Morrison, Christopher N., et al. “Sobriety checkpoints and alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes at different temporal scales.” American journal of preventive medicine 56.6 (2019): 795-802.
Payne, Thomas O., Paul J. Banim, and Andrew Hart. “Mo1720–Investigation of Recommended Alcohol Intakes and Risk of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma, with Sensitivity Analyses According to Known Risk Factors–a Prospective Cohort Study.” Gastroenterology 156.6 (2019): S-820.
Robbins, Chloe J., Sythey Russell, and Peter Chapman. “Student drivers the morning after drinking: a willingness to violate road rules despite typical visual attention.” Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 62 (2019): 376-389.
Scherer, Michael, and James C. Fell. “Effectiveness of lowering the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving from 0.10 to 0.08 grams per deciliter in the United States.” Traffic injury prevention 20.1 (2019): 1-8.
Stringer, Richard J. “Exploring traffic safety culture and drunk driving: An examination of the community and DUI related fatal crashes in the US (1993–2015).” Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 56 (2018): 371-380.
Fast Food and Deprivation in Nova Scotia
Name
Institution
Course
Date
Fast Food and Deprivation in Nova Scotia
Introduction
Generally, Jennifer Jones wrote the Fast Food and Deprivation in Nova Scotia article to give a general reflection on the existing affiliations between fast food diners and measures of social and material deprivation level in Nova Scotia, Canada. In her article, Jennifer Jones talks about how Obesity has been rampant among the youth in Canada. In giving her views, Jennifer reflects on the year 2004, where at least 23.1% of the Canadians were categorized as stout and overweight. The article generally gives evidences by using different surveys results in the Canada. One particular study that Jennifer uses in giving out her ideas is the relationship that exists between the environment and the increase in the level of obesity. In giving out her ideas, Jennifer states that, the socially deprived individuals seem to live in areas close with similar conditions and are likely to suffer from there is a positive association with other communities. In this context, Jennifer has issues with some of these aspects in the community. She generally advocates against these issues in the society.
Nova Scotia has a high obesity pervasiveness and overweight issues that can be credited to his dietary behaviors and poor life choices (Statistics Canada, 35).
Jennifer goes further to explain about the fast foods situation, which are located in urban areas and the fact that they are characterized by less deprivation. Here, Jennifer has issues with the fast food aspects in the area, which she sees as a contributing factor towards the disorder. Jennifer refers to deprivation as the relation between the social and material disadvantage. From here, Jennifer draws the line that exists in Nova Scotia by talking about the physical deprivation aspect, which tends to reside more in rural areas than in emotional deprivation. This aspect shows that Jennifer is specific in bringing out her points regarding the Nova Scotia situation (Statistics Canada, 35).
In this context, Jennifer raises issues with the urban areas, which she sees as ideal contributor to the disorder. However, her issues about the urban areas do not imply that that there is not material deprivation in urban areas. According to her, obesity and overweight are more rampant in the more destitute communities. She additionally claims that this aspect leads to the assumption that most unhealthy food retailers, especially fast food restaurants are most likely to be located in these areas. From this context, we can attest that Jennifer has the urge to stamp out some of these aspects thus the increasing food restaurants in urban areas, which she sees as main contributors to this disorder. Regarding her views on fast foods restaurants and the issues of obesity and overweight, Jennifer also feels the issue has largely affected the overall demand the for the fast food products. She states in her article that there is a rampant increase in the number of fast food restaurants in Nova Scotia and you will find that most Canadians will spend up to $400 yearly on fast food. Jennifer also reviews about the census, which was carried out in England and Scotland in a bid to give out facts about the issue (Statistics Canada, 35).
From the Fast Food and Deprivation in Nova Scotia article by Jennifer Jones, it is clear that obesity and overweight issues continue to be rampant in Canada. Jennifer tries to raise the issue, which to her seem to be alarming. However, Jennifer fails to give some of the strategies and aspects of combating some of these issues in Nova Scotia.
Realistic
In her article, Fast Food and Deprivation in Nova Scotia, Jennifer Jones provides a vivid and realistic approach and assessment to the obesity pandemic among the youth in Canada. Her views are insightful especially when considering that the pandemic cuts across all social classes in the society. The author has furnished adequate proof to dispel any doubts or reservations that many people have had about the fundamental effects of lifestyle to the rampant cases of obesity in the country (Statistics Canada, 35). In addition, she urges health professionals to consider the pandemic as a chronic disease. To prove her assertions further, she outlines the staggering individual, economic, and health-related consequences that have been associated with obesity.
Although depression blatantly sounds ridiculous, the desire to manage obesity effectively is long overdue. In essence, the individuals who are obese as well as their family members should recognize obesity as a disease and agitate for prompt medical interventions (Statistics Canada, 35). In the Canada case, it is conceivably accurate to believe that dialogues are insufficient as far as the pandemic is concerned. Physicians and other important stakeholder need to swing into action to end the scourge, which is potentially a huge health challenge to Canadians and millions of people across the globe. Even though efforts to prevent obesity are fast gaining momentum, clinical management of the condition has been among the greatest challenges for stakeholders.
Impressionistic
An impressionist approach to Jennifer’s article primarily focuses on the efforts of the population to prevent or end the pandemic altogether. Jennifer examines some of things that have turned out to be trendy habits of the population. Incidentally, many of the people seem to be carried away by the unique lifestyle oblivious of the dangers. The article presents a picture of mushrooming fast food restaurants, which perfectly defines the urban life in Canada (Statistics Canada, 35). Besides, the article provides a comprehensive picture of men and women residents in major urban areas who are either overweight or obese. The Nova Scotia situation is a perfect impressionist view of social deprivation with majority of victims being people living in the villages. Jennifer provides specific details about her case hence effectively boosting validity of her claims. However, any form of interventions should first address the inequalities existing between different social classes and residential areas.
According to Jennifer’s predictions, citizens who reside in the urban areas are arguably the major victims of the rampant cases of obesity. The high cost of health and poor health outcomes for obesity patients has facilitated a shift in focus. Medical practitioners and other key stakeholders have put more efforts to curbing the risk factors, facilitating prevention mechanisms, and better strategies for treating the disease (Statistics Canada, 35). Although the fast food restaurants are immensely contributing to several instances of overweight and obesity, authorities are yet to act in attempt to cutting down the influx of fast food restaurant in urban areas. Lastly, it is necessary to acknowledge the implications of environmental, individual biological and behavioral determinants in the prevention of the pandemic. Nevertheless, it is imperative to emphasize the interactive roles of these determinants toward warding off unhealthy eating, physical inactivity, and obesity.
Work CitedStatistics Canada. Measured Obesity: Adult Obesity in Canada. Nutrition: Findings from the Canadian Community Health Survey. Issue no. 1. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 82-620-MWE, 2005.
Drugs are, without a doubt, one of the most widespread problems in this country
Drugs
Drugs are, without a doubt, one of the most widespread problems in this country. About eighty percent of all prison inmates have been incarcerated because of drug related charges. It seems that the more the nation “cracks down” on drugs the more they proliferate throughout our society. But why do we choose to continue implementing ideas that have already been shown to be incapable of solving the problem? Why do we keep increasing prison sentences, inflating punitive measures, and torturing sick people; people who are already tortured from within? Why are drugs illegal at all?
What right has another to determine what a person morally can and cannot do to their own body? How can one impose paternalistic laws upon personal choices that affect no one save those who make them? Drugs can sometimes be horrible things that result in terrible pain and human suffering, but how can one logically justify our saying that anyone cannot take them; that they do not have the right to take them? Furthermore what right have we to punish a drug addict for acting in a manner that affects no one but themselves? Drug laws have one end alone: to protect us, not from others, but from ourselves; from our own ignorance, our own stupididty, and our inability to make the right decisions. How can one justify the application of what must honestly be perceived as torture upon people who are already in pain? To believe that we should punish drug addicts is to believe that we should brutalize people for being in pain.
The “war on drugs”, more often seeming a war on the people than on drugs, requires more money, time, and effort than any other criminal activity, and the more of these we waste the more drugs we see. Prisons are overflowing with people who made personal decisions about their own lives; and suffered as a result even before they were carelessly flung into a life of socially-sponsored torture. How can anyone, though, really say that what these people did was wrong; according to what flimsy, abstract concept can one say that the ingestion of dangerous substances, in accordance with the personal determinations allowed by natural liberty, is immoral? Perhaps instead of brutalizing these people we should try to help them; steel bars, after all, cannot release a person from a painful addiction; they can only serve to raise the level of pain experienced by the imprisoned. Imagine what would happen if all the money spent for twenty year, thirty year, and lifetime prison sentences was diverted towards education, prevention, and treatment. There lies the solution to the drug problem; not in brutality, but understanding; in a willingness to go beyond the immoral, simplistic, and ignorant response of torture and seek, through logical and reasonable methods, to end the proliferation of drugs and the terrible pain they cause. The solutions are not in bullets, but books.
Law results only in an inflation of both the monetary price of drugs and the social dangers resulting from their affects. Because drugs are illegal their cost is inflated to a level far beyond what their supply would normally dictate. Should drugs be legalized the prices would plummet and so all crimes related to drugs (i.e., crimes to obtain the money to buy them) would not have to be committed. The benefits from selling drugs would disappear with the extremely lower cost. In this case the law actually encourages crime by labeling something as illegal that should logically not be.
Again it seems that the only reason we punish drug offendors is because of anger. These people do not hurt us in any way; they hurt only themselves. There are, undoubtedly, some who believe that taking drugs is immoral and they are enraged when they see others violating their personal code of morality. What right have we, though, to punish others for doing something that we only think is wrong; that we would not do to ourselves? If one wishes to slowly destroy their body that is a personal decision, just as all the alcohol, tobacco, and even caffeine addicts out there choose to do every day; a personal decision cannot be regulated by an external code of morality. If taking these substances is legal why are drugs illegal? We kill ourselves every day with dangerous chemicals and poisons in almost all of our foods. Eating a poor diet is stupid, but certainly not illegal. Taking drugs is stupid, but it shouldn’t be illegal.
There is a question we must ask ourselves: do our drug laws exist because we want to protect others, or because we want to protect the widespread imposition of our own moral beliefs? It seems foolish to say these laws are passed in order to protect the weak-minded individuals who might fall under the curse of addiction. How do we protect people by sending them to filthy, overcrowded prisons where drugs are just as readily available, if not more available, than they are on the streets? It is contrary to all the myth and propoganda surrounding the passage of all our laws to send sick people to prison; and that is what drug addicts are: sick people who are suffering. Drug addicts are not ruthless criminals; they are sick, desperate, and abused people who need compassion, understanding, and treatment, if they wish it. There is no help available within the filthy confines of a prison cell. Obviously, the only purpose for the continuation of the war on drugs stems from the refusal o!
f its proponents to admit that they are wrong; personal pride is held in higher regard than human life. Isn’t human life though, according to those who take such drastically invasive methods to “protect” it through such reprehensible violence, worth so much more than pride? Isn’t human life, even a single human life, worth more than any percieved national dishonor which might result from an end to the “war?”
Why is drug abuse wrong, one may ask? Well, because it is illegal, one might say. Well then, why is it illegal? Many laws, at least as far as we are told, are created to protect people, and not so much individuals, but society in general. Many tend to oppose laws that, at least openly, restrict personal choice and individual liberty. They would be far more inclined to teach, in order to prevent the action, rather than to restrict personal freedoms. The law seeks not to teach but, rather, to restrict, and from this restriction arises an almost primal human trait; the need to rebel against anything that controls us. One cannot shackle a human being and expect them to be content, and neither can one expect them to understand. We have to teach people if we want to help them. Why is drug abuse wrong? If we continue to tell people that it will land them in prison we will never solve the problem; drug abuse is not dangerous because one can be punished, and severely at that, for it; s!
uch a statement only serves to proliferate further ignorance of the reasons why taking drugs is truly dangerous. Perhaps if, instead, we tell people that it will hurt them, cause them terrible pain and suffering, and eventually kill them, then we can help them. And if they shall choose to ignore the truth then they will have punished themselves; they need no assistance from us.
We need to stop wasting our time with antiquated and barbaric methods of punishment which serve more to satiate a perverted social bloodlust, than protecting human beings from pain and suffering. Drug addiction is dangerous and it needs to be stopped, but the path to that goal is far different from the path we are on. We cannot punish people because they are sick. We cannot blame people because they are addicted. We should not hurt people who have already hurt themselves. We have to see beyond our own ignorance and treat these people with love and understanding. We have to spend the effort we use to punish them to help them instead; in so doing we will help ourselves. Moral progress and social well-being depend as much on the hoped for results of our actions as they do on the actions themselves.
Bibliography: