Drug Regulations and Addiction
Drug regulations in the United States of America, like those in the majority of countries throughout the world, always include legality and varying degrees of restriction in connection to various types of hard drugs. According to the social perspective on drug addiction, it is considered that persons who are addicted to drugs regularly and obsessively use the drugs, and thus the drugs substantially dominate all of the drug addicts' activities, becoming a major problem. This paper will critically support the argument of Daniel Shapiro on addiction and drug policy by showing its significance on the rate of drug addiction.
Societal Perspective on Drug Addiction
According to the societal perspective on drug addiction, it believed that the people who are addicted to the drugs repeatedly and compulsively use the drugs and therefore the drugs largely dominate all of the activities of the drug addicts and hence becoming an issue of great concern. This paper will critically support the argument of Daniel Shapiro on addiction and drug policy by showing its significance on the rate of drug addiction.
Legalization and Drug Addiction
According to Daniel Shapiro, legalization of the hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine would not lead to substantial increase in the rate of drug abuse and addiction. In that case, it can be said that based on the argument of Shapiro, the legalization of these hard drugs would make the process of drug addiction to be safer than if they are not legalized (Shapiro 216). To further develop his argument, Shapiro was very much categorical on placing a lot of criticism on the "standard model of drug addiction" which proposes that the ability of the drug to cause addiction depends on the inheritability of the addictive nature of the hard drugs is as a result of the pharmacological effects which they have on the human brains. On the other hand, Peter De Marneffe argues that the hard drugs should be decriminalized and not legalized since legalization would lead to significant increase in the number of drug addictions.
Effects of Legalization on Society
It is public knowledge that if something which was previously illegal gets legalized, people will not have the very push which was making them use it before the legalization process. People like breaking the laws since laws were made to be broken. According to the argument of Daniel Shapiro, legalization of hard drugs will not significantly lead to an increased number of new drug addicts in the community. This is very true since the society will not have the urge to try them out since they will be in plenty supply. Based on the standard view of drug addiction, Daniel Shapiro categorically questions the possibility of the use of tolerance, cravings and withdrawal symptoms to illustrate the process of drug addiction (Shapiro 217).
The Linkage between Craving and Action
Therefore, based on the arguments of Shapiro, it is justifiable to note that there is not the direct linkage between craving and the act of doing something. It is therefore not right to conclude that when someone has a strong desire or cravings over something, that person will eventually work through thick and thin to get that particular thing, just as in the case of the hard drugs. To illustrate this, Shapiro was very much categorical when he clarified that there are possibilities of the person choosing to ignore the craving effects (Shapiro 217). Even though Shapiro was able to show that drug tolerance can only be used to clarify the reason as to why the drug user will be able to increase his or her drug intake, it still fails to clearly show why someone would find it difficult to control his or her feelings of wanting to use the hard drugs.
Refuting View of Legalization
The argument by Peter De Marneffe offers a refuting view of the argument which was put across by Shapiro. According to Peter De Marneffe, legalization of the hard drugs would significantly lead to an increased rate of drug addiction in the society, and therefore the most significant approach towards the reduction of the rate of drug addiction in the society is to decriminalize the use of the hard drugs (De Marneffe 200). In that case, it would be important to note that if the use of the hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin does not amount to any form of criminal charge, there would be the significant reduction in the rate of drug addiction in the society (De Marneffe 201).
Increased Supply and Addiction
This argument holds water since it is important to note that people do always abuse drugs since they enjoy the act and perceive it as a source of relaxation and fun. Therefore when the drugs would be legalized, it means that there would plenty supply of the drugs in the society hence many people would be lured into drug abuse and eventual addiction. He further supports his argument by pointing out that if there are high chances of doing something which is full of fun and relaxing at a lower price, there would be a high possibility of people doing such acts more often (De Marneffe 201). Hence it is important to take into considerations that if these hard drugs are legalized, people will apply fewer efforts in obtaining them at lower prices hence increasing the rate of drug addictions in the society.
Hard Drugs and Addiction
Drug abuse an act which do always take place more frequently in the society. According to Daniel Shapiro's argument, he categorically illustrated that most of the drug users, be it the legal or illegal group of drugs, and do not always become drug addicts (Shapiro 217). This argument can be used to further support the aspect legalizing the use of the hard drug for the purpose of reducing significant addiction rates in the society.
Availability and Addiction
If Peter De Marneffe argued that legalization of drugs will lead to increased supply of those hard drugs in the society, therefore his argument could not hold water since it is always not a must that everyone who uses such drugs would become drug addicts. In many of the hospitals, or during the production of different types of medical drugs, there is the use of the massive doses of narcotic drugs, yet there have not been any cases whereby a person will suffer from drug addiction effects or crave for those narcotic drugs after being released from the hospital (Shapiro 217). This is a clear indication that drug addiction is the creation of the mind and is not caused by continuous expose to those hard drugs.
The Vietnam Vets Study
According to Shapiro, there are different studies which have been conducted on the levels of hard drug addiction among the Vietnam vets which have indicated that three-quarters of those who used heroine while in Vietnam developed an addiction towards the hard drugs. This was a dramatic change in the observation later after they returned home, the study indicated that only half of the heroine users continued to use the drug, and only twelve percent of them later became addicted to the use of heroine (Shapiro 218).
Conclusion
As much as this point can be used to support the argument of Shapiro about the legalization of the hard drugs, it can also be used against the same argument. This is because there are possibilities that those Vietnam vets who did not get addicted to the use of heroine were not able to easily access the drugs while they were at home as compared to when they were in Vietnam where there was plenty supply of heroine. Therefore if the argument of Daniel Shapiro about the relationship between the legalization of drugs and their eventual addictions in the society hold water and therefore become realistic as compared to the argument which was raised by Peter De Marneffe.
In most of the cases, the availability or continuous use of the hard drugs does not lead to eventual drug addiction among the people in the society. Based on the augments were obtained from the argument of Shapiro, it would be important to note that legalization of the hard drugs would not to a large extent lead to increased addiction rates. It is also important to take into consideration that hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine are not inherently addictive but rather the addictive nature of these drugs depend on the different perception of addiction such as pharmacology, mindset, and the setting.
Support for Shapiro's Argument
Most of the arguments which were put across by Shapiro make a lot of senses and full of logics. A good example is the fact that the narcotic drugs which are always used in the hospital do not in most cases make the patient become addicts (Shapiro 218). It can be said that this was possible since the medical application of such drugs is legalized and that it was why they are not causing any addiction effects to the users.
Summary
Taking into consideration of the arguments for Daniel Shapiro and Peter De Marneffe, there is the development of the conflicting ideas based on the process of drug legalization and drug addiction. According to Peter De Marneffe, the process of legalizing the use of hard drugs would lead to significant increase in the number of drug addicts in the society, hence it would be productive if the act is decriminalized and not legalized. Based on the arguments put across by Daniel Shapiro, legalization of the hard drugs would not lead to substantial increase in the number of drug addicts in the society since it would make these hard drugs to safe for use as compared to when they are not legalized.
To support this argument, Shapiro illustrated it using the fact that there is application of high doses of narcotic drugs in the hospitals yet the patients do not always become addicted to those drugs. Based on the argument by Shapiro, it can be said that there is not high level of addiction these drugs when used in the hospital settings since they are legalized by the federal government. In that case, it would be important to note that Daniel Shapiro made substantial argument on drugs and addiction as compared to Peter De Marneffe.
Works Cited
De Marneffe, Peter. "Decriminalize, Don't Legalize." Drugs and Addiction, 1999, pp. 200-204.
Shapiro, Daniel. "Addiction and Drug Policy." Drugs and Addiction, 1999, pp. 216-222.
