The American Constitution and Drug War

The consensus on the drug law tends to become more and more severe in order to suppress the use and punishment of crime. There are allegations to prohibit the legalization of drugs such as moral weakness, crime, destruction of the city, there are also families, AIDS, other diseases and corruption of law enforcement agencies. When people confirm the effect of the ban, they have to ask: Is the cost worth it? Of course, the discussion of abolishing the prohibition does not include approval for substance abuse, but simply includes wasteful and utopian attempts to control individual choice.

When we examined Mr. Szasz's first debate, we began seeing the main problem of the government's "drug war". Szasz considers the ban on substance abuse to be an unfair violation of the constitutional guarantee of the human rights of American citizens. In order to prove his view, he identified drugs as personal property. According to the Constitution, all American citizens should enjoy "unfair rights to life, freedom and property", the first two elements will be the last. (Szasz, 1). Therefore, Szasz says, "Because our body and medicine are wealth, the type of trade and the use of drugs are property rights, and drug control constitutes the deprivation of basic constitutional rights" believe. In other words, as with the prohibition of alcohol requiring constitutional amendment, it is also a ban on drug use. Without this amendment, the ban on drug abuse directly violates the Constitution.

10/13/13 COM 101 - 070 Drug War "Drug War" is a term commonly used in banning, military support and military intervention campaigns to reduce and eliminate illegal drug trafficking. Drug war was officially announced by President Richard Nixon in 1971, and today it stands outstanding in our society. Narcotic war has been studied from the beginning, from which we collect large amounts of data. Drug war has a long history.