Walter Wink "Biting the Bullet: The Case for Legalizing Drugs"
The more we try to prohibit an act the more tempting and profitable it seems. Wink
uses the quote by Jesus "Resist not evil" and applies it to the drug problem by
stating that we should not prohibit drug use by using violent measures.
Wink condemns President Bush's drug-war strategy because it envolves cutting off
the drug source in Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia where drug lords control the legal
system by buying out judges, officials, and police. Wink is also convinced that
even if the drug source in these areas were eliminated the drug production would
shift to another country and begin all over again. Wink condemns Bush's plan for
interdicting cocaine at our borders because of its high cost compared to the
minimal amount of durgs seized, and eventually the amount seized is often doubled
or even tripled in another area. Scarcity of drugs prompts an increase in its
price and this will not deter addicts; it will simply cause an increase in violent
crimes. Wink's final complaint is that if drug dealers and users continue to be
arrested and jailed the cost to tax paying Americans to keep them jailed would be
very costly, up to 1.785 trillion yearly. Wink claims that drug laws rather than
drugs are what have made drug dealing profitable and have also created casualties
of those caught in crossfires and those gang members in turf wars. Wink's proposed
solution is to legalize drugs so that its prices will plummet and thus cause
profits to diminish and the drug empire will fall with it. Legalization will
decrease crime and cheap drugs would all but eliminate the need to steal to obtain
money for drugs. Legalization would also eliminate wasted money on treatment
programs and incarceration of users. The only negative aspect to legalization is
the short term increase in the use of drugs due to availability, lower prices, and
freedom from prosecution.
Article by Kristina Martinez
Dave Kopel "Why Good People Own Guns: Better Safe Than Sorry"
The article, written by criminologist Dave Kopel, entitled "Why Good People Own Guns: Better Safe Than Sorry", also adresses the issue of gun control. He argues that "citizens need handguns for protection." Kopel opens his article by giving two examples of citizens that used their guns in self defense. The first, was a 41-year-old man who used his gun to shoot two robbers dead as they held him at gun point in a neighborhood in Brooklyn. The second, took place in Chicago, when a 92-year-old women shot and killed a robber about to burglarize her home. Kopel then blames the government, saying that if they would provide protection, citizens would not have to provide it for themselves. He then states that until Americans feel safe, they will continue to purchase guns, "no matter what." Kopel provides statistics responding to his opponent's arguement that guns kept for protection are hardly used. He refers to several surveys and says that use does not always ivolving shooting the gun, but sometimes just showing it off. Kopel then gives more statistics proving that a percentage of violence was not committed out of fear that a victim might be armed. He argues that gun control laws should emphasize decreasing crime, rather than decreasing the citizens' ability to protect themselves. He does not agree with the gun-control movement which he feels implies that most Americans are too incompetent to use a gun. He blames the TV media,also, for not broadcasting enough statistics that oppose gun control. Instead they report statistics that support gun control that are often invalid. Kopel concludes his argument by stating that most Americans purchase a gun because "they know, intuitively, that the government will not protect them from criminal attack."