Dear Editor, I applaud you for publishing something so controversial and diverse. The war on drugs has been recognized as a large issue that is present, yet untouched, in society today. Although I understand and agree with many of the ideas Norm Stamper approached in his article, “Let those Dopers Be,” legalizing all drugs would only fail to benefit society as a whole. Stamper neglects to address the damaging consequences that would occur if drugs were welcomed into our communities, open armed, and available for everyone. Stamper introduced that the prohibition of drugs “rests on an equally wobbly foundation” as the prohibition of alcohol did, which proved to be unsuccessful, “[falling] flat on its face.” However, the suggestion that there
…show more content…
Our country’s present laws regulating drugs are built with the The Controlled Substances Act. This act is the “federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances is regulated.” This allows new regulations and precautions to be taken for both safety regulations against drugs, and the legalization of certain drugs for certain uses. Unlike prohibition, this act allows government to have interference with the regulations of drugs and does not set a certain unchangeable boundary for drug use. The point of prohibition is not to get rid of the issue entirely, but to prove that laws can make a difference in usage. Athough, there are some issues with the current standings of drug prohibition, as Stamper states in his article, it is a small price to pay compared to the benefits. Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal, they are illegal because they are dangerous. Although I understand that the war on drugs is a complicated matter, the mindset of drugs being harmful is embedded into our society. Changing this mindset would result in worse issues than we have occurring in our nation today. Stamper provides adiquate reasoning for the legalization of drugs but fails to address all counter arguments, the pros and cons of this debate are needed
Our country’s present laws regulating drugs are built with the The Controlled Substances Act. This act is the “federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain substances is regulated.” This allows new regulations and precautions to be taken for both safety regulations against drugs, and the legalization of certain drugs for certain uses. Unlike prohibition, this act allows government to have interference with the regulations of drugs and does not set a certain unchangeable boundary for drug use. The point of prohibition is not to get rid of the issue entirely, but to prove that laws can make a difference in usage. Athough, there are some issues with the current standings of drug prohibition, as Stamper states in his article, it is a small price to pay compared to the benefits. Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal, they are illegal because they are dangerous. Although I understand that the war on drugs is a complicated matter, the mindset of drugs being harmful is embedded into our society. Changing this mindset would result in worse issues than we have occurring in our nation today. Stamper provides adiquate reasoning for the legalization of drugs but fails to address all counter arguments, the pros and cons of this debate are needed