Welcome to our free-to-use Q&A hub, where students post questions and get help from other students and tutors.

Follow the trail of responses and if you have anything to add please sign up or sign in.

You can ask your own question or look at similar Citizenship questions.

Hi Aman, 

I would be interested to see what ideas you have around this topic and unpick this further with you, for an essay if this is what it is for.
It is a very complex debate. In some respects the public do have choice to use 'over the counter' drugs and whether to accept drugs from doctors. On the other hand there may be adverse side effects to over the counter drugs or illegal drugs and this situation who should be responsible for the safety of all the public if one individual is taking drugs that cause side effects? Should thst person take individual responsibility but might not, and in this case the police force and other agencies are in control of ensuring safety of civilians. 
There are many more points you could argue in a well structured argument. Let me know if you need more support. 

Do you really think people should have right to choose something which is something dangerous for their life.

As a student of pharmaceutical sciences i will say that its all about Pschylogy and experience. i must say bad experience either to person himself or his surrounding. actually all drugs possess some adverse effect . in some persons the ratio of adverse effects appear to be more. This important point is not in focus of most of the humans. And when person uses drug the bad symptoms sometime worsen due to the bad choice of drug. All these circumstances collaboratively results in that people have not choice whether to use drugs or not.

Hi there,

I'm not sure if that is an essay question or not. The issue is complicated, not least because drugs became illegalised at certain moments of time, for various reasons.

The obvious answer is that of health and potential damage that can be done to the minds and bodies or users, as well as the knock on effects of crime committed by users who need money to continue to buy or the crimes committed by those who make them as well as inter-gang wars that can swallow up communities.

However, it might also be said that the first (health and addiction) are used by a state that chooses to see people as unable to make choices for themselves; it might be said that those who try and use drugs (some of them) for part of their lives do not go on to become habitual users, and that cocaine (for example) tends to be used by the wealthy and there is little or no problem with procurement.

It could also be said that addiction cannot be considered a given by product of drug use, and that addiction is a form of illness - in the same way alcohol is.

It might be argued that to legalise drugs would help release it from crime and could safeguard users from 'dirty' drugs and criminals who sell them. It would also enable people to come forward for help as well as free adults to properly explore drug usage with young people instead of setting themselves against the spirit of exploration that characterises that particular developmental phase.

Why can't people have the choice whether to use drugs or not? The answer might be found in the ideological positons of those who illegalised them and imposed a 'war' on drugs. It might be found in the responses of the USA to the south American countries where drugs production could be found (Columbia, for example).

Hi there,

I'm not sure if that is an essay question or not. The issue is complicated, not least because drugs became illegalised at certain moments of time, for various reasons.

The obvious answer is that of health and potential damage that can be done to the minds and bodies or users, as well as the knock on effects of crime committed by users who need money to continue to buy or the crimes committed by those who make them as well as inter-gang wars that can swallow up communities.

However, it might also be said that the first (health and addiction) are used by a state that chooses to see people as unable to make choices for themselves; it might be said that those who try and use drugs (some of them) for part of their lives do not go on to become habitual users, and that cocaine (for example) tends to be used by the wealthy and there is little or no problem with procurement.

It could also be said that addiction cannot be considered a given by product of drug use, and that addiction is a form of illness - in the same way alcohol is.

It might be argued that to legalise drugs would help release it from crime and could safeguard users from 'dirty' drugs and criminals who sell them. It would also enable people to come forward for help as well as free adults to properly explore drug usage with young people instead of setting themselves against the spirit of exploration that characterises that particular developmental phase.

Why can't people have the choice whether to use drugs or not? The answer might be found in the ideological positons of those who illegalised them and imposed a 'war' on drugs. It might be found in the responses of the USA to the south American countries where drugs production could be found (Columbia, for example).

is this a set question or one you have picked? you can argue that people do have a choice to take them. they are illegal but still people have access to them. you could identify the reasons they take drugs ,access and  prevention.

Are you looking to answer if drugs should not be illegal ? If so you need to discuss the pros and cons of both sides and why they are not legal.

Jude

Footer Graphic