From the pro perspective on ending the war on drugs what factors would present the best argument? What are some valid sources that supports the arguments.
Those who argue for ending the war on drugs argue for legalization of drugs. The majority of arguments made for legalization (those oppose the war on drugs) focus on the “harms” caused by the war on drugs (e.g., increase in the number of people in jail, violating privacy rights and personal liberties, social costs of the war on drugs, very little proof that it is working, etc.), while most arguments for the war on war and against legalization focus on the harms that would result because of legalization (e.g. more addicts youth, drugs are harmful to health and society, more crime and violence, drugs are illegal so users need to be punished ‘just desert’ theory, etc)
Those who want to end the war on drugs and legalize drugs, present the following arguments:
1. The war on drugs violates the right to privacy and an individual’s civil liberty to freedom to make her or his own decisions.
It is argued that the right of privacy is protected by the 9th Amendment and extended to the states by the 14th. The right has been invoked to protect privacy in such areas as family planning — birth control — and, at least so far, the right of privacy seems to be protecting a woman’s choice whether or not to have an abortion. Furthermore, this same right should apply in matters involving an individual’s decision to consume, privately, a recreational drug in his or her home. However, the argument that might militate against this idea of a right of privacy taking precedence might be, what if the people who use drugs are infringing on the rights of other people? For example, drugs addicts are known to be involved in higher levels of crime and violence, so …