Drug Law Reform vs. Supporters of a Failed Unwinnable War

My opposition has a fear of having a world with drugs fully legalized. They say this because these opposing groups believe it is an “absolutely untested proposition” and the only evidence provided so far is in small trials in small parts of the world. They make it seam as if a trial in America or possibly other large nations is terrifying and has “unforeseeable consequences”.

The Drug Commission recently scrutinized the last four decades of the Drug War and they have categorized it as a failure. They are examining parts of the world taking a different approach to drub prohibition such as Portugal, which said they would not legalize all drugs but were going to decriminalize them. Which for the most part means that if a citizen is caught with illicit drugs they will not be incarcerated. The money it would take to put these individuals in prison will now be spent on the treatment of their addiction “which is about three-quarters cheaper.” Portugal has seen substantial reduction in people using heroin along with drug-related robbery. “Heroin use among 16- to 18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%. New HIV infections fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003. Deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by half.”

My opposition may be hesitant about the statistics related to Portugal because the small nation seams to be a semi-isolated, and is for the most part well off. They say the poverty stricken South American locations would not respond well to this method of drug reform. “Everything we’ve seen about decriminalization just frees up the drug barons, because they are in a position to continue a substantial market without law-enforcement” and there would still be a major black market for drugs. New drugs would be coming onto the market constantly and a significant amount of law enforcement is the only way to shut down the drug trade.

Also the focus is usually on addicts getting treated for their drug habits, but the common drug user has a job and a stable life. “Is it right to criminalize them?” The common drug user (225 million people) is mostly just a marijuana user and there is the argument that drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco are more detrimental to a person’s health than the use of marijuana. “Because marijuana is the drug of choice of young people, is it right that it should be treated any differently from alcohol?” Also very high portions of people who use the drug are not addicts.

A previous experiment around the reclassification of cannabis happened which my opposition claims that the politicians who were for the reclassification were whipped out because of it and that any politician who goes forward into a election with the a position similar to this could not win and there for the laws will never get made. This is not necessarily true though it does not have to be a vote-loser for politicians there were two surveys done recently in Britain and an overwhelming amount of civilians (potential voters) said, “nobody should be sent to prison for taking drugs, they should be decriminalized”

Others say that drugs’ being illegal is “about protection of people from the really bad guys. Enforcement has to be part of that.” But if done right these “bad guys” don’t even need to exist. These so-called bad guys are the “drug pushers” so to eliminate them the government needs to go to the next step and legalize. Let’s say they legalized marijuana and taxed it like any other product there will be vast amounts of income from it. So why not put the nearly “$350 billion dollars” to good use instead of giving it to drug dealers.

But then the question of how legalizing “milder” drugs will move up to cocaine, heroin, and other harder drugs. But one of the main reasons that someone acquires these hard drugs is because the black market drug dealer selling these people their marijuana also sells them.

Groups Conflicting with my ideas say they need hard law enforcement, stronger penalties, and complete criminalization to stop the drug problem. They need to open their eyes to new ideas and look upon our worldly neighbors for examples on how to reform our drug laws so that we can be a more efficient and drug problem free country.

When looking at teens today that are involved with gangs, people automatically think that there is no reason they should be in it. But behind the violence and the drug dealing is a lot of pain that needs to be healed. As results are found, it shows that more teens are becoming actively involved with gangs because of their problems at home. One looking from the outside in might not realize it because  the teen does not show that he/she are hurting on the inside, but honestly they are.

Teens that are dealing with home issues often do not know how to deal with them so they seek for attention outside of their home to take their mind off of the problems they’re having. Most teens that are joining gangs today are lacking the significance of having a father figure or positive male role model in their life so the have joined a gang to feel the comfort of love and support from the male type of bonding. They often do not learn how to become a man without some type of guidance.

Even though divorce can be a great cause of why fathers are no longer around for their kids, one might argue that divorce isn’t the reason kids a joining gangs. If evidence was to be taken into consideration then it would show that about half of the world’s marriages today end in divorce but not nearly half of Americas teen population have joined gangs.

Therefore saying the results of  divorce is a factor leading kids in to a gang related lifestyle is wrong. I totally disagree with that rebuttal if it was to be made because most divorce leads fathers or even mothers away from the family which is what causes the seeking of love by a father or even mother. No one is saying that divorce is the leading cause of teens joining gangs, but it does make a good argument to say that it might play a big role in it.

Another argument that could come about is why aren’t all kids or teens in gangs that do not have a father in their life? Even if they don’t have that positive male role model in their life as stated in the previous essay, why are they doing good in life without one?

My answer to that would be that not all teens take a divorce between their parents hard some might take it as a relief as if the father was abusive to the mother or even to them. Some children might not even have been born with a father around to get that attachment where they would need it in the future because they have had the chance  to experience it already. No one is the same so some people take to situations different than others.

Some children have they luxury of having a mother that know how to cope with the their child not having a father figure, that’s why when the child is being brought up they might not need the guidance of a male figure in their life because the mother is playing the role of the all around parent. If the child is small enough and the mother has another boyfriend or man in her life and he takes on the positive role of becoming the father figure then the child will not be in need of its biological father because the comfort and love is still being fulfilled.

Teens on the other hand might have a different view on this concept. What happens when they meet the new father figure, but still isn’t used to having him around and they either want their own father back or want their mother to themselves? What if the “new father” is in the teens life but they aren’t making an attempt to fulfill the needs of the teen? One might continue to say that it is easier to mold a little child into accepting the fact that he or she has a new father in their life. After a couple of months they get used to him and start to forget about the divorce or break up. But for a teens who might have grown up with their father for  some odd years might not be able to adapt to that life style of beginning into a different family aspect.

I say yes it is easier to mold a little child into accepting a new father figure, but also it is easier for a teen to understand what happened and why it happened and then once they accept the fact that what did happen happened, they will begin to come around and realize life goes on. Now with that being said just because he or she accepts the fact of what did happen, they might then take that initial step and say well I don’t want to have a new father with my mother or as stated before the “new father” might not be playing that specific role correctly which can also lead to gang related people into the teens life as he or she starts to adapt to living in that type of environment.

There are benefits of not having a father around though. The most popular one is that you have a chance to be better than your father was. Teens might say that their father did this and didn’t do that but a recent article states, “you don’t need your father to be your father figure” meaning you can find that father in someone else that is successful at being a great father.

I agree with that statement but that still doesn’t defeat the fact that most teens today that are being influenced by music and other people that live a life of crime, needs the father figure to be there for them. That’s why it is being proven that not having a father is leading kids to gangs because they don’t have no on to look up to so they follow the wrong people into the wrong life to live.

Works Cited

Not having a father Kate Fogarty and Garret D. Evans Web.  April 3, 2012

Benefit of not having a father  Brett & Kate McKay on June 17, 2009

The Missing Link between Violence in Games and in Real Life is Still Missing

There exists a staggering amount of controversy over violence in recent video games. Despite some evidence to the contrary, it is easily conceivable for one who studies the effects of this violence to conclude that it causes an increase in aggression. While it would be simple to create a rebuttal to this point of view using sources to directly contradict this idea, it would also be nearly pointless to do so – someone determined in their belief could rationalize away the differences, or simply believe that more research will show that they are correct. Instead, Instead, I will proceed upon the hypothesis that video games do cause aggression, and defend against the common following argument that video games are causing definite harm. This also limits me to only the sources that do not directly refute that video games cause aggression. Despite this handicap, it is still evident that many of those studies suffer from a number of faults. There is little consensus on how long the increased aggression last, and if it will build up over time; both of these factors are essential to determining if violence in games will cause any lasting harm. Further, these studies do not control for a key variable that could greatly influence their results. Finally, there is little evidence explaining why this increased aggression from video games is more of a danger than increased aggression from other media and activities.

The first important discrepancy between studies supporting violence in video games is their lack of agreement on the timeframe this aggression lasts. Many studies subscribe to the General Aggression Model (GAM), which states that in video game play that increases aggression in the short term will carry over and increase aggression on a longer timeframe. Some studies that use this interpretation this are the study of video game violence on German adolescents conducted by Muller and Krahe and the “Longer You Play” study by Christopher P. Barlett, though the latter also states that more study is needed to conclusively prove this effect (Muller) (Barlett). Conveniently, Barlett and others followed this line of questioning and published a study titled “How long do the short-term violent video game effects last?” He tests for aggressive thoughts and feelings after playing a violent video game using the standard proven questionnaires, but also employs the hot sauce paradigm at either zero, five, or ten minutes after violent game play has ceased. The hot sauce paradigm is a test of aggressive behavior where a participant is informed that he is responsible for preparing a cup of hot chili sauce for another participant who does not like spicy foods; the level of aggression is measured by the type and amount of sauce given. After 10 minutes the measured levels of aggression spike sharply downward, indicating that the effects of video games only last this amount of time (Harris). While this does not completely disprove the GAM model, it casts doubt on the results of studies which employ it, as well as other studies that cite results from the first set to provide support for their own conclusions.

Another point of contention that weakens these studies is that they do not control for all important variables. One of the most glaring examples of this is shown by Paul Adachi and Teena Willoughby, who conducted a two part study to test the effects of violence in a video game versus the effects of competitiveness, difficult, and pace of action.  The first part of the study found that both a violent action game and a nonviolent racing one produced an equal increase in aggression. The second study concluded that between four games, 2 violent and 2 nonviolent, the violent and nonviolent game that were judged to be more competitive showed a much greater increase in aggression than the two less competitive ones (Adachi). Though it may only be one variable, this is of paramount importance. If it is not violence in video games but rather competition that causes adverse effects, then any study that does not take this into account cannot give fully reliable conclusions.

A particularly determined individual may not be swayed by the above arguments. Regardless of the issues with the studies which find violence in video games produces a significant level of increased aggression, this individual may simply assume that more research could solve the problem. However, even if violence in video games is conclusively linked to an increase in aggression, one major problem still remains – a multitude of other things are also believed to increase aggression. Violence in television broadcasts has been linked to increase aggression for years, with many studies, such as one by Paul Haridakis, taking this for granted and instead trying to determine what causes the difference in aggression changes by examining the motivations and backgrounds of the participants (Haridakis). Another study even compared the level of aggression between those playing violent video games and those who ascribe to a traditional masculine ideology and found that both correlate with a higher level of aggression (Thomas). This means that just being exposed to the traditional gender roles has the chance to increase aggression, something that is nearly unavoidable. Despite this similarity in effect, many see males conforming to traditional gender roles as healthy for children while simultaneously deriding television and video games for corrupting youth. Additionally, a study on the release of violent films find that the violent crime rate actually decreases, with the release of a violent movie deterring approximately one thousand assaults on an average weekend. (Dahl)  If video games follow this trend, playing a violent video game could actually reduce violence – in fact, the effect might be even stronger, since video games tend to encourage greater player presence and last longer than an average movie.

Clearly, even by only using sources that support an increase in aggression through video game use, the argument that video games cause significant harm is not very strong. There are few studies that prove to any extent that this aggression last longer than a very short time after play. Significant variables, such as the difficulty and competition inspired by the game, have not been taking into consideration when designing a majority of these studies. Further, not only are there a multitude of other causes of increased aggression, but violence in games may act as a cathartic element and in fact prevent violence in real life.

Works Cited

1. Adachi, Paul J. C., and Teena Willoughby. “The Effect Of Video Game Competition And Violence On Aggressive Behavior: Which Characteristic Has The Greatest Influence?.” Psychology Of Violence 1.4 (2011): 259-274. PsycARTICLES. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.
2. Barlett, Christopher P., Richard J. Harris, and Ross Baldassaro. “Longer You Play, The More Hostile You Feel: Examination Of First Person Shooter Video Games And Aggression During Video Game Play.” Aggressive Behavior 33.6 (2007): 486-497. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012
3. Dahl, Gordon and Stefano DellaVigna. “Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2009 124: 677-734. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Apr. 2012.
4. Haridakis, Paul M. “Men, Women, And Televised Violence: Predicting Viewer Aggression In Male And Female Television Viewers.” Communication Quarterly 54.2 (2006): 227-255. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.
5. Harris, Richard, et al. “How Long Do The Short-Term Violent Video Game Effects Last?.” Aggressive Behavior 35.3 (2009): 225-236. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.
6. Levitt, Steven D, and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: William Morrow, 2005. Print.
7.  Möller, Ingrid, and Barbara Krahé. “Exposure To Violent Video Games And Aggression In German Adolescents: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Aggressive Behavior 35.1 (2009): 75-89. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Mar. 2012.
8. Thomas, Kimberly D., and Ronald F. Levant. “Does The Endorsement Of Traditional Masculinity Ideology Moderate The Relationship Between Exposure To Violent Video Games And Aggression?.” Journal Of Men’s Studies 20.1 (2012): 47-56. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.