There are many controversial topics being debated about in the United States. One topic most often debated about is the legalization of drugs. Of course people have their own beliefs and opinions on the subject, but are the arguments discussed about actually valid? Is there enough evidence supporting the premises they claim? These are questions we should ask when observing the arguments people are presenting to defend their beliefs. I believe that drugs should not be legalized for several reasons, but as stated above, different people have different opinions.
One of the arguments presented from the people who believe that drugs should be legalized is that the government should not interfere with people’s activities as long as it is not affecting other people’s rights. They state exactly, “As far as morality is concerned, the decision to use or not use drugs is a personal one that does not directly impinge upon the rights of others, and the government should never forbid activities that do not impinge upon the rights of others. I believe that there are many things wrong with this argument, but the main problem here is that there is no evidence to support the premise, therefore I see it as a false premise.
I don’t understand how they can say that drugs doesn’t impinge upon the rights of others when there are drug related crimes happening every day. When people are high on drugs, their minds are altered. Many times while under the influence of an illegal substance, people will commit crimes and put other people’s life in danger. This obviously affects the rights of others because people should not have to be put into danger because of other people’s “activities”.
The legalization of drugs would make it more easily accessible, which in the end would result in more crimes and more people getting hurt. Another argument presented is that everything is dangerous. They state “Driving on the freeways in L. A. is very dangerous and leads to a good many deaths and injuries; thus, it creates suffering in loved ones, and society as a whole is often called upon to pay for the medical expenses of those injured in accidents. The point is this: if you’re going to forbid drugs for the above reason, then you ought to forbid anything which is in the least bit dangerous. ” This argument is questionable.
Yes, it is true that everything is dangerous, but that is not the part of the argument that is under question. What it is that’s under question in this argument is what they’re saying about forbidding anything that’s dangerous if they’re going to forbid drugs that are dangerous. It is true that everything is dangerous, but drugs are not only dangerous, but they are mind altering. If you go about your day and face dangers, being under the influence of drugs makes your dangers so much higher, because you are not in a stable state of mind. So with this argument we must question the dangers of normal activities versus mind altering activities.
The legalization of drugs will definitely result in more danger, and make regular activities dangerous. For example driving, it is illegal for people to drive under the influence, but if people are going to be high all the time, they will most likely not hesitate getting into a car to get to where they need. As they stated, driving is a dangerous activity. The point here is, driving under the influence is an even more dangerous activity. Drugs are not necessities, but in current times, driving is a necessity. We should continue to try and keep people safe by prohibiting the unnecessary dangers.