AEP Class Blog - information pages
How to stop the drug wars: from The Economist
I read an articl which is about what the best way to protect people from drugs is. In the article, the point is that prohibition or legalisation, which is better to solve the problem. At first, it's menthioned that how long we've been making the same mistake to try to solve this issue by prohibiton. It also says prohibition makes criminals, and makes drugs more dangerous; that means addicts buy bad quality drugs, or use dirty needles which causes HIV. On the other hand, it says "legalisation offers the opportunity to deal with addiction properly", "it would transform drugs from a low-and-order problem into a public-health problem", and in the end, it asks us if we should try the legalisation, or if we live in another century of failure, which all of them encourage legalisation. It doesn't assert that legalisation is the best way, but stands on its side. When I first studied about drugs, it was in AEP class level 4 for reading and writing, I never thought of legalisation because I thought it was too late and impossible. However, when I read this article, I just thought it would be better because it still has the prospect (I think you guys also studied about that, so it's familiar for you). So it made my opinion change. When I was in level 4, almost all my classmates had the same idea of mine that it was impossible. So I just wondered how about my classmates now, how they think.That is what I want to share with you guys. I'm waiting for your opinion:)
__________
References
How to stop the drug wars. (2009, March 5). The Economist. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from https://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13237193
I think this is a great topic. It's controversial, it's something that most people have thought about, and it requires reading the article and giving it some thought.
ReplyDeleteI really like the way Shinobu has related it to the example paragraph on page 227 of Quest 2, which, as she notes, most students initially disagree with.
Thank you Shinobu for getting us off to such a great start with your blog post.
Wow, Shinobu, did you read my mind? Actually, I and Waew read the whole article, "How to stop the drug and war" from economist journal in the library today. We had small talk about the drug and traffickling. Maybe first time Waew would like to post your topic on Wendsday, but she changed the mind to another topic.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem of the drug is similar to the prostitution. In Korea, government is trying to eradicate prostitution completely, but secretly it become wide black commerce like the drug black market. Therefore, someone argue that prostitution have to be legal, collect tax, and protect public health from HIV and AIDS. Like this, is it appropriate to make legal to stop the drug and prostitution?
Personally, I also doubt that legistration isn't effective, but making them legal, like tobacco, has more side effects than legistration.
As I told you today in WR6 class, I read your post first time, of course, I haven't accepted to legalize addictive drug. I think, it seem try to switch obviously wrong things to be right things. But now I don't have any argument to argue Economist, because, On AEP lv4, my all arguments were disprove by Peter.
ReplyDeleteThank you guys! It would be a big fun devate if we had any chance:) By the way, I'm really interested in what Peter said at that time. Anyway, thank you again!!
ReplyDeleteShinobu,
ReplyDeleteYou can debate here.
I'm wondering why Mark thinks that at least some drug use is "obviously wrong". Is all drug use "obviously wrong" or just illegal drug use?
What does "obviously wrong" really mean?
You can debate as much as you like.
Yes!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I just wondered what would happen if Tabaco were not under legalisation. Because it's much more addictive, I think. Does anyone have any idea? Oh, I'm sorry you guys must be busy!!
Um,, don't have to be sorry, Shinobu ^^
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about drugs, but I heard that some drugs have many social problems. If people take the drug, they can't concentrate their life. In history, there is the Opium War between China and UK. The Opium destroyed not only people's life but also Chinese economy. Finally, the war took place. But, in my opinion, though tobacco can threaten people's health, it doesn't have many social problems like Opium. For Peter's question, I think, like opium which can make many social problems can be "obviously wrong" drugs.
I'm still afraid of the side effecfs after those "obviously wrong" drugs are legalized. In the article from Economist, there is some sense in doing so. However, I think, if the drug can be legalized, many people included teenager easily get the drugs and addict well.Could be safe, if all of drug take the personal decision like tobacco?
In addition, for Shinobu's answer, if tobacco were not under legalization, I think, people still would get the tobacco by black market. I think, eradicating every drugs by black market is almost impossible and legistration wouldn't be effective well. Nevertheless, I think, legalizing all drugs is more dangerous. What do other guys think about?^^
Fistly I may assume that the illegal drugs are what Shinobu mentioned.
ReplyDeleteI don't think illegal drug legistration is a good idea to stop the drug war because if it is legal, then the drug will be more available and easily access that means the number of addicts is likely to increase at the first place. However, I also see the failures of drug prohibition undertaken by officials. I read some articles about drug war in Mexico where is one of most severe countries where drug trafficking and mafia center, I got the ideas that the officials get bribe or do corruption about the drug cases when they bring to the jail or court. That is one of the main reason why the prohibition is failed in that country and I also think that the case in Mexico is quite similar to that in Thailand.
I have another idea to decrease or stop drug trafficking. My idea is that if the official cannot work properly, the local people and private organizations should take some more strong action against this such as the local group judgements and laws of drug addicts and mafia. However, this is not that easy and cannot work with only small group of people. But in my opinion, it is better than legalizing drugs.
That is only my idea. It would be much appreciate to hear your idea.
Thanks Shinobu for your post!
Perhaps there is there is a question to explore in a research paper here, especially if you disagree with the Economist. If you would like to write a research paper proposing a solution to the problem of drug addiction, which could include opposing the Economist's proposal, let me know. Waew seemed to working towards something like that in her last comment above.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay I wrote for level 4 reading and writing, I was careful to restrict my reasons to the same sort of economic and humane reasons that the paragraph in Quest 2 presented, I just expanded on them a little and tried to support them with more solid evidence. I actually think there are much stronger reasons why drugs should be legalised. Again, this is something you might like to explore in a research paper over the next couple of weeks.
I'm enjoying the responses to Shinobu's kick off post from the Economist.
Soojin and Waew should not give up. you to do a research paper to support how legalize drug is not appropriate!! I will cheer you!!
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very interesting topic. I really like it. After I finish reading it, one thing that stuck in my mind is the phrase "prohibition makes criminals, and makes drugs more dangerous". I think it's so funny. Drugs were dangerous, are dangerous, will be dangerous and nothing will change it. In other words, prohibition can't make drugs safer because it is dangerous anyway. This article remind me the story about an environmental-freindly nuclear weapons. What do you think about it? I think supporting education, providing knowledge about drugs, can reduce the rate of the new drug users. Furthermore, a good relationship in a family is very important. I beleive that family is the basement of life and a strong basement leads to a strong building, any kind of building. When people are happy in their life, they don't need drugs to help them escape from the reral world.
ReplyDeleteI like Tuk saying "Drugs were dangerous, are dangerous, will be dangerous and nothing will change it". Yes, drug is dagerous and it should be eradicated. However, the problem is that though people know it is harmful and strong addictive, they can't stop it. I think stoping drugs complimently is impossible forever. Legistration isn't effective and the black market to sell drugs become world-wide. How can we stop it? Actually, I don't have clear solution about it. But only following the solution in the article isn't relieved from doubt as the reason Waew wrote, which I agree with.
ReplyDeleteI know that my idea against the economist couldn't be enough to support, because I don't have any other solution for them. I would like to look statistics which can show whether the solution which the article suggests is effective or not.
The essay I wrote in level 4, supporting a thesis similar to the Economist's, is available at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc39t2qs_420mrbx58d4
ReplyDeleteFollowing Tuk, Soojin wrote: "and [drugs] should be eradicated" (2009, March 12, 12:00 AM, ¶ 1).
ReplyDeleteI suspect that most people would agree with that, but should we agree?
What are the reasons in favour of that very broad proposal?
What presumptions is it based on? And do we really want to agree with those presumptions?
Is there a research paper in Soojin's very common idea about drugs?
Hi there! I'm back, worn out... but I'm enjoying reading your comment. Thank you guys:)
ReplyDelete