Unformatted Text Preview: A Critical Essay Legal Drugs Unlikely to Favor the Zombie Nation In the passage “Legal Drugs Unlikeley to Foster Nation of Zombies” (Chapman, 2012), it becomes clear that the author concludes that drugs should be legalized. But would we become a nation of zombies caught in a haze of drugs? The author, Stephen Chapman, doesn`t think so. However, throughout the passage, there seemed to be points that lead you to believe that he really thinks drugs are bad, leaving you wondering if he is questioning himself. His conclusion is based on the premise that people have restraint and willpower when it comes to using drugs, and also says that it is prohibition and strict rules that are the problem. The ban causes more harm than good, according to Chapman, as it later contributes to illegal activities, gangs and other crimes. In addition, it contributes to wasted prison space and unnecessary government spending. Chapman makes a number of arguments suggesting that legalizing drugs would not lead to an increase in use or dependence. To support his arguments, Chapman attempts to discredit the opposing view by presenting polling results that indicate that only a small number of people would try drugs if legalized. This passage and conclusion is based on a convergent argument with three main premises, which are discussed as follows: drugs are not a problem for most people, the war on drugs does more harm than good to society, and countries that have legalized drugs, especially marijuana, have experienced a decline in the popularity of these drugs. Chapman`s first premise that drugs are not a problem for most people is supported by a Drug Policy Foundation survey, which indicates that “of those who claim to have never used cocaine, only 1% said they would try it for a test drive if it were legal (Chapman, 2012).” The first problem with this survey is that Chapman does not tell us whether this survey was for Americans, or the size of the subjects tested, location, etc. In addition, there is always the distortion of investigations. For example, where does this subgroup of people come from? Maybe the people who created the survey removed people from homeless shelters, or maybe they were even paid to get a certain result. As mentioned above, this passage presented itself as a converging argument, as independent reasons for a conclusion are given, each of which provides some support (Cederblom and Paulsen, 2012).
Here`s what it can prove: Drug prohibition has wasted money, prison space, and police time, and produced violent crime. The legalization of drugs would not lead to a significant increase in consumption. The legalization of drugs would not result in a significant increase. (all things considered) Drugs should be legalized = drugs should be legalized Reconstruction as a deductive argument: (1) Drug prohibition has wasted money, prison space and police time and produced violent crime. (2) The legalization of drugs would not lead to a significant increase in consumption. (3) The legalization of drugs would not lead to a significant increase in dependence. (4) If the prohibition of a drug causes significant harm (of the type cited in premise (1)) and the legalization does not cause significant harm (as indicated in premises (2) and (3)), then the substance should be legalized. -‐– Criticism: The reconstructed argument is valid. Therefore, is solid. Perhaps the most questionable premise is 2. As mentioned above, Chapman cites a survey about support, but people may not have answered it honestly or know how they would behave if judged by legal drugs.
The statistics from the Netherlands are for marijuana, but cocaine or methamphetamine are probably more tempting for some. Premise (4) certainly needs support because everything is implicit. This reconstructed argument is valid because the conclusion follows the premises. The validity of the argument is still half questioned because the premises are a bit flawed. Finally, Chapman makes a mistake of the false dilemma when he says, “Even if everyone were tempted to try the newly legal drugs, very few monkeys would imitate. (2013, paragraph 3) ». Yes, it may be true that people don`t use drugs, especially cocaine, until they starve, but there are other options. People may use other drugs and become addicted or become regular users.
There is more than one option here, so the wrong dilemma has been committed. The war on drugs does more harm than good to society The second premise of this passage is that the war on drugs does more harm than good to society. As mentioned earlier, the main reasons are increased money consumption, police time, prison use, and how it has “spawned epidemics of downtown violent crime (Chapman, 2012).” Chapman presents this information in a way that shows that he wants readers to see it, but does not give them the whole story behind it. Yes, there is an increase in prison use, police time and money, but what it does not mention is the increase in population and other types of crime that have not been factored into the equation. So how much of the increase is really the fault of the “drug wars”? He doesn`t say it explicitly. There are also gaps in the figures presented to us regarding users and potential users. We see how many Americans have used cocaine at least once, how many in the last year, and then how many use it every week. There is no indication of those who use it less than every week, but more than once a year.