War On Drugs Essay Research Paper Marcie

Marcie AmorosonEssay #2Wink and Wilson In their response to the problem of drugs, Walter Wink and James Q. Wilson have one major area of agreement. Both agree that we haven’t won the war on drugs. The extent of their disagreement is over on how to solve the drug problem, a disagreement involving believes and assumptions. Wink and Wilson agree on the relevant statistics. Both agree that there is a problem with drugs and legalization would cause a rise in the use of drugs. But they disagree in their analysis of causes. Whereas Wink asserts that it is not drugs but rather drug laws that have made casualties, Wilson rejects this proposal. Wilson feels there will be more casualties if they legalize drugs. Casualties of drug dependent individuals that create the crimes and it will only get worse if they legalize drugs. He states, “The notion that abusing drugs such as cocaine is a ‘victimless crime’ is not only absurd but dangerous”. Although Wilson has a different claim than Winks, he himself provides no evidence against drug laws causing causalities. However, neither writer offers empirical evidence to support his position on what causes casualties. Naturally, Winks has a different agreement than Wilson about the causes of casualties that lead them toward dramatically different solutions as well. Wink believes that the legalization of drugs would be the solution to the drug war. For instance, Wink reveals a solution that legalized drugs can be maintained through government sales, possibly through state clinics or stores. He sees his proposal as a way of decreasing crimes, drug profits plummet, and the Drug Empire ruined. On the other hand, Wilson believes that having drugs illegal, the drugs are contained. He believes that having drugs contained will buy time for science to learn more and perhaps discover a cure. Wilson feels once a drug is legal, they will prefer pleasure whatever the cost to themselves or their families. Wilson reveals on the proposal of having drugs maintained through government sales, we would have far worse results from “leaky” clinics and new recruits from friends than Britain did when they tried to maintain heroin through government sales. All in all, he reveals if Britain found it difficult when they only dealt with a few hundred people, we would have a larger problem dealing with tens of thousands of people. These values differences also give rise to some interesting disputes involving definitions or analogies. For example, Wink analogy of what makes drugs so irresistible today is “lucrativeness”. He sees his proposal of making drugs legal would lead young people to not want drugs as much. Wink wants us to believe that young people find drugs irresistible today because they are not allowed to have it. Wilson on the other hand, believes that young people do not want drugs because they are forbidden. He claims young people are still going to want fast cars and strong liquor even if they cut the price by comparable amount. He feels they want these things for the pleasure, not because it is forbidden. Wilson points out, you could not say to young people that drugs are pleasurable, but devoting yourself to so much pleasure is not a good idea even though it is legal. He wants us to see the moral message of telling a young person not to do something that is perfectly legal. The differences are also reflected in the meaning of “legalization “. According to Wink, to” legalize” by definition is ” to have millions of people, hundreds of thousand of infants, and hundreds of neighborhoods to a life of oblivion and disease and whatever else a basement scientist can invent”. Wilson sees legalizing drugs as destroying lives and increasing crimes. He feels we haven’t won but we haven’t lost. He feels that the problem is contained and if we legalize drugs, we will not be able to ever gain control again. On the contrast, Wink wants us to see legalization as a way to end the war on drugs. For Wink, legalization would lead to the end to crimes, no more drug lords, and legalization would free up wasted money. He believes that legalization offers a nonviolent, nonreactive, creative alternative. Thus for Wink, the only way for us to win the war on drugs, is to legalize drugs. To conclude the disagreements over legalization of drugs and basic values that each writer brings to the debate. To accept Winks, one would have to believe that legalization of drugs to a nonviolent, nonreactive and creative alternative that would make these things caused by drug collapse. It would also mean that you would have to believe that drug dealers would be ruined and care and compassion will heal addicts. You would also have to believe there would be no more casualties and wasted money would be freed. To accept Wilson, it would mean that you would have to believe that having legalization of drugs would lead to more wide spread dregration of human personality and to have a greater rate of accidents and violence. Legalization would mean you would have to find some way to police thousands of physicians and hundreds of clinics. It would also mean that legalization would give a wrong moral message to young people