Many progressive movements in the 21st century call for the legalization of marijuana, citing studies that claim a lack of significant harmful effects. Simultaneously, many conservative groups act adamantly to prevent such legalization, or even reclassification of the drug into a lower risk category. It is not even agreed upon that the government needs to limit what abuses we subject our own bodies to at all. Libertarians would argue that the government need not be involved with what people do with their own bodies. Yet modern society still places limits on which drugs individuals can consume, however not uniformly, and certainly not fairly. Tobacco and alcohol are two examples of addictive substances which are legal in society. Yet in comparison
…show more content…
The answer comes as simply as the needs of the many or greater than the needs of the few. An individual smoking does not only harm himself/herself: he/she subjects others, including pets with no choice, to secondhand smoke. Alcohol is even more problematic in this sense; with the effect of inebriation, normal tasks such as driving can cost thousands in fines, property damage, and kill both intoxicated drivers, and innocent fellow drivers.
School children are filled with information in health classes and the public is bombarded with television advertisements, explaining the dangerous consequences of smoking; yet both social and medical consequences still plague our society. In the case of both substances, it is clear that it is not enough to simply inform the public of the facts; legal regulations are …show more content…
Unfortunately, politicians benefit from keeping the poison on the streets for anyone to buy. Tobacco is a huge industry with large firms that make every effort to make their environment as an unregulated as possible. They do so by hiring professional lobbyists to whip representatives to vote in their favor, by bribing donating to their campaigns. In this case, politicians place the needs of their own pockets in front of the needs of their own people. Analogously, when researching scientific literature, journals which claim heart benefits of red wine are typically published by laboratories that receive funding from the alcohol industry. It is therefore difficult to take corrective action given the large amount of money
The answer comes as simply as the needs of the many or greater than the needs of the few. An individual smoking does not only harm himself/herself: he/she subjects others, including pets with no choice, to secondhand smoke. Alcohol is even more problematic in this sense; with the effect of inebriation, normal tasks such as driving can cost thousands in fines, property damage, and kill both intoxicated drivers, and innocent fellow drivers.
School children are filled with information in health classes and the public is bombarded with television advertisements, explaining the dangerous consequences of smoking; yet both social and medical consequences still plague our society. In the case of both substances, it is clear that it is not enough to simply inform the public of the facts; legal regulations are …show more content…
Unfortunately, politicians benefit from keeping the poison on the streets for anyone to buy. Tobacco is a huge industry with large firms that make every effort to make their environment as an unregulated as possible. They do so by hiring professional lobbyists to whip representatives to vote in their favor, by bribing donating to their campaigns. In this case, politicians place the needs of their own pockets in front of the needs of their own people. Analogously, when researching scientific literature, journals which claim heart benefits of red wine are typically published by laboratories that receive funding from the alcohol industry. It is therefore difficult to take corrective action given the large amount of money