The Opposite Clinic Case Study

In the essay “America’s Unjust Drug War” by Michael Huemer, Huemer discusses the facts and opinions around the subject on whether or not the recreational use of drugs should be banned by law. Huemer believes that the American government should not prohibit the use of drugs. He brings up the point on drugs and how they harm the users and the people in the user’s life; he proves that the prohibition on drugs in unjust. Huemer believes that drug prohibition is an injustice to Americans’ natural rights and questions why people can persucute those who do drugs.

Drugs have been known to be detrimental to American society. Commonly known as “ The war on drugs”. Majority of individuals who are incarcerated have been convicted of some type of drug offense and if not a drug related crimes. In many instances, a person can be sent to a jail or prison without receiving the required treatment to help the individual overcome their drug of choice. Remarkably, there is a court solely focused on an individual with a drug problem, which is known as Drug courts.

Many different states have begun sending nonviolent drug offenders to various kinds of drug treatment program the state offers. By doing this, it has significantly reduced the problems with overcrowding. If an individual is arrested and charged with simple possession of a drug and no other crime is being commented, then this person is doing no harm to anyone else. They should be given the opportunity to try and make a change in their life and beat the addiction. Instead, if this person is thrown into jail, they are still going to be an addict with a criminal record now and will not be able to be a contributing member of society. (Everett 1 ).

Harm reductions recognizes an individual’s willingness to make a change in their life, there is a wide range that these individuals may be along, from not thinking about change, to contemplating change, to taking action, to maintaining change and the other way around. The method of harm reduction first begins with focusing on what stage the individual is on with their drug use. As earlier stated the active participation of individuals who use drugs is at the heart of harm reduction. These individuals are the best source of information in terms of their own drug use and are determined with the help of other service agencies to determine the best form of intervention. There have been many success stories from having injection sites as a form

The mandatory sentence of two years’ imprisonment is unconstitutional because it is “cruel and unusual punishment” which infringes upon the accused’s right not to be subjected to such treatment. Firstly, it is determined that the mandatory minimum sentence in this case is grossly disproportionate to the accused’s circumstances and would be reasonably foreseeable that the provision would have the same overreaching effect on other offenders. Secondly, the provision in question in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not saved by section 1 of the Charter as it has failed the prescribed Oakes test. The test gives weight to the law’s objective in comparison to the means of achieving it, which in this case, impaired too heavily on the right of the accused.

In the United States, we have a culture that accepts the use of some substances over others, regardless of the negative affects of the “acceptable” drugs. For instance, it is socially acceptable to drink alcohol, eat sugar, and, while no longer as in vogue, smoke cigarettes. From a public health standpoint, these substances are also dangerous and can have debilitating affects on both children and adults. What is more, while narcotics use during pregnancy can lead to NAS at birth, there has been no conclusive evidence of lasting negative effects across the lifespan (Goldensohn & Levy, 2014; Miller, 2015). However, the use of other substances, such as alcohol, can be devastating and carry much more risk, leading some reporters to believe that the law has more to do with the people using these substances than the substances themselves (Todd, 2014). In any case, the punishment of mothers who suffer from addiction when they should be receiving support and treatment is a large moral failing on the part of policymakers. Arguments around whether the woman should be held responsible for her addiction overlook possible systemic barriers that led to her substance use as well as the fact that drug addiction is a treatable illness (Todd, 2014). In creating and invoking this law, policymakers are essentially turning their backs on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, expectant mothers, and using their resulting arrests as evidence of corrupt principles, deserving of punishment and

There are many differing viewpoints in the United States when dealing with drug policy. Within the political arena, drug policy is a platform that many politicians base their entire campaigns upon, thus showing its importance to our society in general. Some of these modes within which drug policy is studied are in terms of harm reduction, and supply reduction. When studying the harmful effects of drugs, we must first to attempt to determine if drug abuse harms on an individual level of if it is a major cause of many societal problems that we face today. In drawing a preliminary conclusion to this question we are then able to outline the avenues of approach in dealing

Primum non nocere or ‘above all, do no harm’ is a latin phrase that is the basis for the majority of medical ethics (expand on that). The question of whether or not heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) or methadone-assisted treatment (MAT) for drug addiction is morally or ethically sound boils down to two key component, what exactly constitutes harm, and what moral view of addiction does one have. In the matter of what exactly constitutes harm, a particular treatment that cares for an

Sharon Stancliff: “Public health moves slow. This is really an extremely safe, safe medication” (Turkewitz 3). This plays on empathy to help people and care for those less fortunate. The writer had previously used pathos to appeal to the reader’s sympathy for drug addicts by referring to them as users and is now adding to that. She is again furthering her position to increase distribution of naloxone because the number of lives saved could be higher than one per 227 kits if naloxone was more widely distributed.

Puerto Rico, in recent months, has been involved with the decriminalization of drug possession. Nevertheless, this is a topic that not everyone is in favor of. According to a group of lawyers that know about this situation, establish that the Controlled Substances Act, in article 404 violates the Puerto Rico Constitution, the law and the applicable right. It also considers that it is a cruel punishment, that it violates human dignity and the right to rehabilitation.

Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;

Consequently, could placing legal restrictions on the choice of engaging in such activities be seen as an infringement of this liberty. Furthermore, to what extent should the law control an individual’s personal choice? These questions raise a similar response to what was established in the Hart-Devlin debate, which is, a principle of the law is to prevent harm arising to others. For that reason, it could be argued that provided an individual’s actions do not evoke harm on others, their choices should remain without legal interference. However, the law principally endeavours to protect individuals from harming others. The law can therefore justify limiting liberty of choice and individual freedom, provided their actions would result in evoking harm to others. Cited OU (2016a 2). What often gets forgotten is the indirect effect drug use has on families and other individuals

In pre-modern times, drugs took on a role of medicinal use. As they were distributed in a free market without any constraints, Opium was recommended for sleepless nights, Cocaine for anesthesia, Hashish for relaxation (Hart, Ksir & Ray). These drugs were not dubbed as harmful, therefore, under the appropriate circumstances, provided beneficial effects to its users. More recently, individuals are more inclined to use drugs as an ‘escape’. Stimulants provide a sort of alternate existence which tends to reduce mental tension, increase energy, or induce euphoria (Hart, Ksir & Ray). Argumentatively speaking, drug use only affects the user, so there is no valid reasoning for impairing the freedom of citizens by prohibiting them. Individuals benefit by having the freedom to use

There are people all over the world who use drugs and often abuse them. They pursue substances that can mask their emotions and this can lead to addiction. Families and friends of drug addicts feel as though they are expected to save them from this disease. They believe that they can help them by forcing them to receive treatment. Often times forced rehabilitation can help, but others times it does not help the addict get better. In fact, it violates the natural rights of any person, no matter life choices they make. Therefore, drug addicts should not be forced to receive treatment because it is immoral and violates an individual's right to liberty, happiness, and autonomy.

As we delve into Mr. Szasz’s first argument, we begin to see major problems with the government’s "War on Drugs". According to Szasz, the prohibition of drugs is a blatant violation of human rights guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution. In order to prove his point, he equates drugs to personal property. According to the Constitution, every American citizen shall have "the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, the first two elements resting squarely on the last." (Szasz, 1). Thus, Szasz contends that "because both our bodies and drugs are types of property—producing, trading in, and using drugs are property rights, and drug prohibitions constitute a deprivation of basic constitutional rights." (Szasz, 2). In other words, just like the prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment, so does the prohibition of drugs. Without that amendment, the prohibition of drugs is in direct violation of the