- Information
- AI Chat
Philosophy paper #2
Critical Thinking and Composition (PHILOS 005)
Los Angeles Pierce College
Students also viewed
Preview text
Jessica Tsaturyan Gillis Philosophy 020 15 December 2021
Super-E Many people nowadays are at risk of drug abuse, their health dangers, and other issues. Some drugs are far more dangerous than others, and they only affect particular people. One of the objectives of fighting against drug misuse is to educate the public about the causes of drug abuse and how to prevent it. Some people, on the other hand, feel that drugs should be legalized because it would bring peace to the world. Two philosophers, Peter de Marneffe and Tibor Machan, have differing perspectives on drugs, which will impact how they perceive the case study. I would argue that Marneffe has a better solution to the problem since he cares about the people and does not want drugs to be overused, due to their addictive nature. Super-E is a new drug that has been developed. Anyone who uses this medicine develops a higher level of morality and ethics. It also promotes users to develop into highly logical, and selfless individuals who are passionate about promoting global objective good for all humanity. Super-E, on the other hand, is highly addictive, and users who aren't on it become greedy and unstable egoists. Super-E is a low-cost, easy-to-make supplement with no negative side effects. The government is contemplating putting Super-E on the market. According to Peter de Marneffe, drug legalization would not benefit others since more drugs would be overused. He begins by explaining when he meant “drug abuse.” Drug abuse is
defined as causing enough harm to others or oneself to be considered a harmful or hazardous behavior. It does harm in a variety of ways, ranging from opportunities and resources to their physical or mental health. He also claims that criminal responsibility is a dangerous form of drug usage that is damaging. Marneffe refers to this as "independent harm." For example, “Drug prohibition can be justified only as reducing independent harms since legally created harms would be eliminated by legalization” (Marneffe 354). Drug legalization, according to Marneffe, is a regime under which the manufacturing and sale of narcotics are not punishable by law. He's effectively saying that if powerful substances like cocaine or heroin were legalized, law enforcement would handle them the same way as they do for cigarettes or alcohol. They'd be handled as if they weren't a big problem. Marneffe also discusses drug decriminalization, which is the elimination of criminal sanctions for drug use and possession in tiny amounts. He does not explicitly state that he opposes decriminalization, but he does state that he opposes legalization. Marneffe asks,"Does the objection that drug laws do not work mean, then, that they do absolutely nothing to reduce drug abuse?" (Marneffe 354). He then expresses his strong opposition to it. He claims that most individuals or people who use drugs do it for their own pleasure. This would mean that an increasing number of individuals would do it, making it easier and less expensive in certain aspects. He argues that if drugs were legal, the danger of violence would decrease dramatically since they would be easy to obtain and supplied in doses. Any measure that makes it more difficult to use or obtain drugs is likely to have an impact on drug use and usage. Although an increase in usage does not always imply an increase in abuse, de Marneffe appears to think so.
unacceptably high risk of imprisonment on anyone.”(Marneffe 359). Manufacturing, selling, or possessing large amounts of heroin would be illegal, but the punishments would be tiered and commensurate. Even possessing a small amount of heroin can be illegal. Drug restriction is justifiable, according to Marneffe, since some individuals behave against their own interests and need to be safeguarded from the repercussions of possibly harmful decisions. This will demand international relations policies and exercises, training strategy and other police organizations to respect civil liberties and provide institutional benefits, a commitment by government, educational, and healthcare agencies to warn about the risks of drug use and overdose, and space to allow for the prescription of heroin for pain relief. Tibor Machan argues that drug usage should not be forbidden, and that any misuse should be addressed by education, moral fortitude, willpower, and social institutions. Machan, on the other hand, claims that it is impossible in our "free" society because of the common belief that individual responsibility is only a vestige of worry, philosophy, and religion. Machan compares drug prohibition's effectiveness to communism's development of a new economy. In his opinion, this is a really clever analogy because he does not want drugs to be forbidden. Machan states, “The fact that a full array of illegal drugs is available for sale throughout the Federal prison system, the Pentagon, and in front of the Drug Enforcement Administration building in Washington, D., demonstrates that little has been accomplished” (Machan 86). Because it is open to any federal system, this plainly shows that the banning procedure would take a long time. He believes that eliminating mind-altering substances will reduce crime such as robbery, bulgary, and prostitution as a method of financing illegal narcotics. Machan uses the example of the alcohol ban, which was not well received since crime had increased and riots erupted.
Machan also believes that drug prohibition has harmed the political process for a long time. According to Machan, “Prohibition forces black market suppliers to take precautions against detection” (Machan 87). This essentially means that the illegal market is constantly one step ahead of the official market. Machan even claimed that if prohibition succeeded, he would be shocked. Because the country is democratic and a free market society, it has a very little possibility of succeeding. For example, “The most important point to make is that if one has the right to his or her life, this implies that one also has the right to do with it what one will provide; this doesn’t involve aggression” (Machan 88). He claims that prohibition is responsible for some of the negative consequences. According to Machan, there are various advantages to legalization. The first benefit he mentions is that it will shift drug abuse responsibilities to the business sector. Individuals will have the freedom to choose whether to indulge or abstain. It would also imply that individuals would be less likely to turn to crime in order to pay for certain narcotics. He also claims that legalizing it will not help the government manage its budget. Tax rates could not be raised high enough to help with the federal budget. Furthermore, Machan claims that if drugs were legalized, it would create employment in the private sector and people would be engaged in the drug manufacturing industry. It would also allow law enforcement to focus their efforts on serious offenders. Machan also predicts that selling and developing pharmaceuticals would alter as a result of the competitive market. The drugs, on the other hand, will be weaker and less harmful. Machan concludes with a discussion of private restrictions. Machan states that the distinction between prohibition and private contracts is misunderstood. Anyone who opposes legalization states that everyone will use drugs wherever they choose, which Machan disagrees
argues that the same thing might happen if narcotics were prohibited, such as an increase in crime and riots. If a huge number of people opted to take or try Super-E, the same thing would happen. This is why I believe Machan would choose Super-E to be scheduled. Marneffe has the superior approach to this issue because he opposes drug legalization or the scheduling of Super-E. A person's physical and mental health would be harmed if drugs were misused. He cited Heroin as an example of how it has such a powerful influence on a person, their family, and everyone else in their environment. The same scenario might happen with Super-E. It's immensely addicting, morality, and humanity it imparts are just fleeting. When people stop taking the drug, they become egoistic, and have to continue taking it in order for the individual to feel “ normal.” Machan's concept or proposal isn't inherently incorrect, but it is in many respects unsuitable for the people. Machan supports drug legalization and believes that drug misuse can be addressed only via education. He also claimed that drugs would be simple to make and acquire, resulting in peace. However, given Marneffe's viewpoint and the facts of this situation, scheduling Super-E would not assist anyone. The intoxication from Super-E will only last a short time because all of these moral principles come from inside, and each individual has their own unique way of thinking. Not scheduling Super-E would be the ideal option. Because Super-E is said to be very addictive. Users who are "down" or "off" will become selfish and egoistic. This medicine has the potential to be abused. I believe that further research should be made before this substance is available for purchase. Also, if this drug were to be on the market and people started abusing it, I believe it would stop working for them after a while since they would have become adapted to the effects. This, like any other substance abused by people, would lead to a demand for
something stronger. Despite the fact that this substance has a positive effect and beneficial to humans, it is considered to be very addictive. I also believe that if Super-E is legalized, people would want other violent and powerful substances to be legalized as well, which would affect a large number of people. The moral principles it conveys will only be ephemeral, because those thoughts come within yourself. Everyone is unique in their own way, therefore I don't see why anyone would want to take this substance, especially when it is very addictive. In conclusion, given these circumstances and the philosophers' viewpoints, not scheduling Super-E would be the best option. This ensures that no one is affected by the substance on a mental or physical level Super-E would not be optimal, because of how drugs are being misused and becoming addicting. Marneffe demonstrated how his theories were valid for this case study. Machan did not have a strong argument for the conditions of Super-E because of his views on drug legalization.
Philosophy paper #2
Course: Critical Thinking and Composition (PHILOS 005)
University: Los Angeles Pierce College
- Discover more from:
