Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
The consensus in respect to medication laws favors stricter and domineering legislation, with the attempt to quell use and punish crime. There are many claims used against drug legalization, such as, moral degradation, crime, the destruction of cities, together with families, diseases, such as AIDS, and the corrupting of law enforcement. When one assesses the consequences of prohibition, one has to inquire: has the cost been worthwhile? Certainly, an argument for the abolition of prohibition doesn't incorporate the favoring of drug use, but only recognizes the vain and utopian attempt to restrain individual choices. Along these lines, the unintended consequences of those efforts may negate any benefits. Further, one has to wonder: are the legislation--at the federal level--constitutional or not? This paper will analyze the issue of drug prohibition in the constitutional standpoint, an economic perspective, as well as the social effects these laws have. The Constitution of the United States determines the ultimate law of the land. Although this statement appears axiomatic, it is crucial to discern the explication and consequence of the regarding the drug war. Folks suppose that whatever the federal government passes are from the fact that itself constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court. By contrast, the people ratified the Constitution on the qualification that the national government would only possess the particular powers delegated to it from the people of the countries (Tucker, 2010). The 10th amendment reinforces this. (Mount, 2010). This view stipulates that the national government has defined and limited powers; moreover, for the government to market new powers, the right strategy mandates Article V's amendment process. In reality, with alcohol ban...