First off, the reason I choose the side of legalizing drugs rather than keeping them banned is because from doing extensive research, legalizing drugs can only benefit the economy. Of course, it will take generations for people to respect the rules and not abuse them. When it finally is in place, it will just be something people are used to.
In Germany, you are allowed to drink wine and beer at a young age. Also when one gets their license, they have to pay a certain amount. By the time they can actually drink liquor, they have a certain amount of respect for the laws. They do not abuse them like we do. They do not take advantage of being able to drive because they actually earned and saved up for a license.
Despite all this, it is also very easy for me to understand why legalizing drugs is a negative thing. According to Jennifer Shaw, an employment lawyer says “it will make workplaces less safe, increase liability insurance costs and encourage worker lawsuits” (Gosh, 2010). "The last thing we need is another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, a lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association.We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products. Drug users will not be able to perform at work and that passage could create a new class of protected California citizens” (Gosh, 2010). Also, “It is believed that if arrested on a drug related charge, people who have committed or are likely to commit serious crimes, are taken off the streets” (Messerli, 2011).
I really do not feel that different audiences are being targeted. Like I said in my speech, I am a person that does not abuse or use drugs and I’ve seen people lives be ruined by drugs I still am a firm believer that legalizing SOME drugs can benefit our economy.
I also think that assumptions are definitely being made about the people involved. That is coming from both sides, people on the anti legalization look at the pro side and think they are all a bunch of pot smoking hippies. People on the pro legalization side look at the anti legalization side as people who are trying to prevent innocent citizens from expressing themselves.
Finally each side frames the problem in a different way. The pro legalization people look at the crime rate and our financial status and say it can only get better and its worth a shot, where as the anti legalization people look at our current crime rate and say things will only get worse and we shouldnt try because we are already in a bad place.
You do well to discuss your skepticism here. So those who are in favor of legalization suggest that such a move could have positive economic benefits, but those against it say that the crime rate would "get worse"? When you are dealing with an issue that encompasses so many fears and misconceptions, don't the arguments need to consist of something more than a warning? You don't really demonstrate an understanding of the objections being brought up. Were both Lovell and Shaw quoted in an article by Gosh? Who is the author? Where did this article appear? Who is Masserli? Clearly, many people have weighed into this debate. Understanding the dissoi logoi is meant to help the advocate craft an appropriate persuasive appeal. After having read what the opposition to your position states, what insights do you have on the issue?
ReplyDelete