compare and contrast
Drugs have left our society striving to find a solution or ways to eliminate it. A controversial issue has been lingered on for years, whether drugs should be legalized or not. William Bennett and Milton Friedman are toe people who are aiming for the same goal; that is to eliminate drugs, crimes, and addicts, but yet, they have different approach on attacking this problem. They both have their agreements on the affect of drugs and yet their disagreements differ dramatically. Milton Friedman, a Noble Prizewinner for his "monetary" and also an author of "Prohibition and Drugs", believe that drugs should be legalized (pg. 931). Yet, his opponent William Bennett who have a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Texas and also have a law degree at Harvard and the author of "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" is total against legalizing drugs. I will compare and contrast the two author's arguments. They have very few agreements. Some agreements that they agree on are about the affect drugs have on people and society. They both agree that drugs are a scourge that is devastating our society (pg.934). Also they agree that drugs are running the lives of many young people (pg. 934).
Bennett pointed out a fact about the reduction in drug using. From "The National Institute on Drug Abuses", latest survey of current users shows a 37% decrease in drug consumption since 1985. Cocaine is down 50%; marijuana use among young people is at the lowest rate since 1972" (pg.931). He's proving here that ever since 1972, Americans have been fighting against drugs and he sees the progress. The main point that they agree on is that drugs have a very bad affect on society. Drugs create black markets, crimes, and addicts. They both have different point on the affect drugs have on society if drugs were to be legalized. The way they feel about the government role on its citizens also differs. After reading this whole argument I feel that their arguments are getting no where. Further in their arguments, they keep on making the same points. At one point I believe that Friedman were contradicting himself. One point I think that he is contradicting himself on page 933 he stated that if drugs were to be legal the inhumane activity would disappear. Yet on page 940, he said, "No doubt also there will be "a black market to undercut the regulated one". How can one time he said by legalizing drugs there will no more black markets and yet at another time just to argue against Bennett he contradict himself? As for Bennett he stated a lot of points but he has no proof to defend his points. He does not point out any real evidence for the points he made. I agree with Bennett how he feels that the government has the right to regulate in what we do. I disagree with Friedman, how he says that the government should not be in the way of the citizen's right as long as it is no
Some common words found in the essay are:
Drug Abuses, Bennett Friedman, Drugs Legalized, Milton Friedman, CONTRAST Drugs, Prohibition Drugs, black markets, drugs legalized, University Texas, William Bennett, legalizing drugs, Noble Prizewinner, affect society, agree drugs, drugs create, affect drugs, bennett believes, friedman believes, believes government, legalizing drugs black, drugs black markets, society drugs create, bennett believes government, agree black markets,
Approximate Word count = 1137
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|