Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
The consensus with respect to drug laws favors more stringent and draconian laws, with the attempt to stifle usage and punish crime. There are lots of claims utilized against drug legalization, including, moral degradation, crime, the destruction of inner cities; along with families, ailments, such as AIDS, and the corrupting of law enforcement. If one assesses the consequences of prohibition, one needs to ask: has the price been worthwhile? Surely, an argument for the abolition of prohibition doesn't incorporate the favoring of drug use, but only recognizes the vain and laborious effort to control individual decisions. Along these lines, the unintentional consequences of those attempts may preclude any advantages. Further, one must wonder: are such laws--at the federal level--constitutional or not? This paper will analyze the problem of drug prohibition from a constitutional standpoint, an economic perspective, and the societal effects these laws possess. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the property. While this statement appears axiomatic, it is crucial to discern the explication and consequence of the with regard to the drug war. It's been assumed that whatever the national government passes is from the truth itself constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court. However, to the dismay of some, this statement is blatantly untrue. The Constitution was predicated on the state that only the powers the federal government would possess were those specifically delegated to it from the states. This is reinforced by the 10th amendment (Mount, 2010). This view stipulates that the federal government is defined and limited; and, for the government to garner new abilities, the correct strategy would be through Article V's amendment process. .