The government is, and has always been, …show more content…
A popular idea which many people use to object drug use, is utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, the main goal is to maximize the welfare of the composite, meaning the balance of benefits and harms should be equal, and the harms should never outweigh the benefits. If a utilitarian were to speak about drugs, they might argue that drugs should not be legal or used, because the harms outweigh the benefits (Sencerz, 2011). Their argument might be considered valid, but it cannot be concluded that it is sound. The premise for the conclusion, cannot be deemed for all instances, but it is reasonable to say that the conclusion lines up with the premises. This seems to be a reasonable way to view drugs, however, it fails to take into account that the government is doing more harm than drugs are. Given the issues with soundness, this utilitarian argument against drug use, should not be used to object it. If the government were to provide more rehabilitation and ways, or programs, for people to utilize in ceasing drug use and trade, it is probable that drug use, crime, trade, and disease related to drug use, will decrease. The government does provide rehabilitation and programs; however, the problem is that said programs and rehabilitations centers, are the first to be cut when budgets are low and they are not abundant (The House I Live In, 2012). There …show more content…
The House I Live In, is a powerful and effective documentary, which successfully uncovers the history and hidden information on the war on drugs. Recently, there have been small progressions, but, if the government wants to see drastic positive change in the use and trade of drugs, there is still a great deal of work to be done. They say history repeats itself. If the war on drugs is not regulated, we may see some detrimental events. Some, maybe even like ones we have seen