Final Exam
Question 2
Szasz begins his essay by telling the reader that a fundmental characteristic of humans is becoming habituatated or addicted to things of life . Szasz voiced that not only are narcotics addictive but such “daily life” routines like drinking milk at breakfest, reading a book before going to sleep, and shopping at times of stress. He compares these habitual rountines with that of the addiction of addicts to various chemical agents and physical stimuli. He gives the example of a human smoking for the first time and recieving nothing more than a headache and nausea to the same person smoking 3 packs for a year and having pure joy from the cigarettes. The ciageratte habit according to Szasz can be broken without medical …show more content…
Wilson believes that if the government had “yielded” in 1972 there would be several million heroin addicts. (Social Ethics)His first reason for having drugs staying illegal is that women “are much more likely to use crack than heroin and if they are pregnant the effects on their babies would be tragic.”(Social Ethics) He testfies to the fact that anecdotal evidence suggests that crack mothers are most likely to abuse their infants than mothers that do not take drugs. The notion that cocaine is a victimless crime to Wilson is absurd. Wilson felt that crack dependent people regularly victimized their children, spouses and employers.Wilson believes the government cannot bully us into being good but the government can urge the public to live by standards. He makes a point that advocates (for legalization) talk about the addict not having enough treatment provided. Wilson replies to the advocates that there are drug dependent people that want treatment and will remain in the program but there more short term drugs addicts that drop out after realizing that it takes time and commitment . He makes another point of drug dependent people having “short horizons and weak capacities for commitment. (Social Ethics) He feels drug addicts look for a quick fix instead of a long term commitment.Wilson shows evidence done by researcher Douglas Anglin that states that “longer one stays in a treatment program the better the chances of reduction in drug dependency.” (Social Ethics)But Douglas agrees with Wilson about high dropout rates in treatment programs. Wilson after includes from Douglas’s research that patients who enter treatment “under legal compulsion stay in the program longer than those not subject to pressure.” (Social Ethics) Wilson makes a point to have us understand that the government invests substantially in drug education programs at school. He feels if we legalize drugs then it will be hard to dissuade children from doing something that is legal. His last
Question 2
Szasz begins his essay by telling the reader that a fundmental characteristic of humans is becoming habituatated or addicted to things of life . Szasz voiced that not only are narcotics addictive but such “daily life” routines like drinking milk at breakfest, reading a book before going to sleep, and shopping at times of stress. He compares these habitual rountines with that of the addiction of addicts to various chemical agents and physical stimuli. He gives the example of a human smoking for the first time and recieving nothing more than a headache and nausea to the same person smoking 3 packs for a year and having pure joy from the cigarettes. The ciageratte habit according to Szasz can be broken without medical …show more content…
Wilson believes that if the government had “yielded” in 1972 there would be several million heroin addicts. (Social Ethics)His first reason for having drugs staying illegal is that women “are much more likely to use crack than heroin and if they are pregnant the effects on their babies would be tragic.”(Social Ethics) He testfies to the fact that anecdotal evidence suggests that crack mothers are most likely to abuse their infants than mothers that do not take drugs. The notion that cocaine is a victimless crime to Wilson is absurd. Wilson felt that crack dependent people regularly victimized their children, spouses and employers.Wilson believes the government cannot bully us into being good but the government can urge the public to live by standards. He makes a point that advocates (for legalization) talk about the addict not having enough treatment provided. Wilson replies to the advocates that there are drug dependent people that want treatment and will remain in the program but there more short term drugs addicts that drop out after realizing that it takes time and commitment . He makes another point of drug dependent people having “short horizons and weak capacities for commitment. (Social Ethics) He feels drug addicts look for a quick fix instead of a long term commitment.Wilson shows evidence done by researcher Douglas Anglin that states that “longer one stays in a treatment program the better the chances of reduction in drug dependency.” (Social Ethics)But Douglas agrees with Wilson about high dropout rates in treatment programs. Wilson after includes from Douglas’s research that patients who enter treatment “under legal compulsion stay in the program longer than those not subject to pressure.” (Social Ethics) Wilson makes a point to have us understand that the government invests substantially in drug education programs at school. He feels if we legalize drugs then it will be hard to dissuade children from doing something that is legal. His last