Enemy Essay, Research Paper
war on drugs
War On Drugs This is supposed to be a free country. I don’t see that it would harm you
or anybody else if someone smokes a few joints a week in moderation. What is the harm
done to you? Is this enough to take fathers and mothers away from children? I know I’m
not the sharpest knife in the draw but to say that drug users might abuse the stuff and
cause problems for their family or neighbors is not very far from saying that because you
have a knife in your kitchen draw that you might choose to use it to cause trouble for you
family or neighbors. Please tell me, by what reason should marijuana be illegal and please
speak from first hand experience if you can. Isn’t twenty years of doing the same thing
long enough? Isn’t it time to step back, gather accurate information and objectively
consider alternatives? Wasn’t there an objective once? Distinguish between soft and hard
drugs like Holland did and reduce actual drug crime by 75%, actual crime, not just
prohibition violations. Treat addiction as a health problem, instead of a crime-just like
alcohol is treated-and you reduce HIV infection and decrease the costs to society. I am
a very opened minded person and have listened to a lot of opinions and read a lot of
articles on this subject. It seems that anything we find that stimulates us or alters our state
of mind in some way is a stamped as a drug. How can we take something like cocaine,
which is so addictive some people have to go to a hospital to get off it and many people
have died from overdoses, and put it in the same catagorize as marijuana, a part of a
plant which nobody has ever overdosed from. From my perspective, the government has
no reason to make marijuana illegal, except that it acts as a stitch. I will get to that in a
minute. If it were legal, I really doubt we would have as much drug dealing and drug deal
related deaths and crimes. It could be treated like alcohol, same rules, maybe more, but
we could have an age limit and everything. (Its (marijuana) defiantly much safer than
alcohol I don’t know anybody in the right mind who could argue with that. Alcohol is one
of the biggest killers in the world, who do you ever here on the news dying of marijuana
use? Sure it may cause long cancer, but you can eat it too. Sure somebody might be too
high to drive but make rules against it. Its too bad we couldn’t replace alcohol with
marijuana. I would much rather see people in my family as well as my parents smoke pot
than drink alcohol. I could go on and on with this forever. You probably are getting the
impression that I am a pot head but believe me I am not. This subject just irritates me
how we can serve alcohol which makes people violent and go home and beat their wives
in front of their kids but the government can’t sell a part of a plant that makes people at
ease. I feel I’m getting off subject so I’m gonna get back to my point. But, if it were legal,
a lot of marijuana dealers who base most or all of their business on marijuana would turn
to other drugs such as crack to base their business upon. That is what I mean by the
stitch. Because we all know how crack changed the inner cities of America. Crack
definitely increase the number of street gangs, deaths, and crimes of all kinds in this
country and we all know crack is made from cocaine. So what I am saying, is that
instead of trying to shoot at all drugs at once, only go after cocaine. Forget marijuana,
make it legal, the government sure made a profit from cigarettes and alcohol. Make a
profit from marijuana. Use the profits to fight the war on cocaine and heroin. Because
you know when the cocaine supply is weakening, so is the crack. Most of the crack sold
on our streets is made inside our country by dealers who buy the cocaine that comes
from outside the country. But when the cocaine supply is dying down, heroin is going to
take over so that’s why we have to fight that too. It’s the hardcore drugs that ruin our
society, not marijuana. Sure there are many other drugs that are addictive, and we need
to separate hardcore life destroying drugs from the recreational not so addictive drugs.
We need to take things one step at a time. If you’re a thief you can’t steel everything in
the store at once, you gotta take what you want most and work on getting that. (I know
that’s a terrible example but I think it’s a good one to get my point across). There are
many drugs that are used for many reasons. We need to sort through the good (at least
not so bad), bad, and ugly and make zero tolerance for the bad and ugly, and really
reconsider the good (referring to marijuana). I think reconsidering some laws and
opening our minds and putting our brains to work a little harder on this whole issue will
get us the results a lot quicker and cheaper than what we are doing about the problem
right now.Annotated Bibliography The topic I choose was Iraq and its past and still
ongoing problems with the United Nations. The reason I choose this topic as
oppose to another topic is war and the United Nations has always fascinated
me. With Saddam Hussein still being stubborn with UN weapons inspectors
it was incredibly easy to obtain information regarding this topic. The Los
Angles Times; California; Feb 12 2000; The newest article I attained was
from the February 12 edition of the Los Angles Times. It was entitled
“Compromise Broached on issue of Arms Inspectors in Iraq”. It discussed
how Iraq is still refusing to allow the UN weapons inspector into the nation. It
also talks about the UN feelings on the chance of inspectors ever being
allowed to do their job. Apparently the Vice President has no intention of
ever letting the inspectors into the country. Last Thursday he said, ” There
shall be no return of the so-called inspection teams. We reject the infiltration
by spies using such cover.” In my humble opinion it would make life in Iraq
better if the inspectors where just allowed into the country. Most importantly
sanctions the UN has placed upon Iraq would be removed. Apparently the
really don’t care about the sanctions according to their deputy foreign
minister Nizar Hamdoun who said they can live without sanctions “forever”.
The UN has a different opinion they believe they cannot. I believe they can,
they have done fine up to this point and I think they will continue to do fine. I
think Iraq has many things they don’t want the UN to know about such as
chemical and biological weapons. They are a threat and need to be dealt with
accordingly. New York Times; New York; Feb 8, 2000; Barbara Crossette
The next article I choose was from the February 8 issue of the New York
Times. This article was entitled “Iraq Suspected of Secret War Effort”. This
article sort of scared me. It was about in Britain, research and intelligence
experts, also convinced that there are more germ warfare agents left in Iraq
than previously known, have suggested that Iraq may have produced the
organism that causes bubonic plague. But no evidence has been published in
support of that theory, but American experts say, and United Nations
inspectors found not trace of the plague in Iraq. This is only because Iraq not
allowing them to inspect and when the UN inspectors where allowed in they
where only allowed to inspect “certain” areas. This statement made by the
so-called American experts was bull*censored*; they only said to comfort
the American public. This expert Milton Leitenberg from the Center for
International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland has been
collecting information about Iraqi weapons sites and activities from two Iraqi
defectors. Milton is really not sure if the new thing is a virus and not a
bacterial agent but he said in an interview that Hans Blix, the new chief
inspector for Iraq might need to focus his attention on Biological weapons.
Milton and other British experts say inspector will have to be more aggressive
in demanding access in Iraq. I think so to, biological weapons are illegal as a
form of warfare since the Geneva Convention outlawed them. And the fact
that there are not allowed to be used as a form of warfare should be reason
enough to be more aggressive not to mention the fact that these weapons of
mass destruction will be if not are already in the hands of a mad man! Also
according to this article the eradication of biological weapons in Iraq may be
as important or more important to the people of Iraq as to the outside world.
Experts working with the United Nations Special Commission, the first
disarmament task force created for Iraq after the Gulf War said some of the
bacterial and viral agents Iraq was producing then had little application for
war. Evidently a fungal agent called aflatoxin can lead to liver cancer, and
rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in children and the elderly. This is just
another reason for the inspectors to be more insistent in their attempt to gain
entry into Iraq, their military compounds, and laboratories. World History
Volume II; William J. Duiker & Jackson J. Spielvogel Pages 1136-1137
Duiker provided some insight on the history of this conflict. According to
Duiker “Saddam Hussein, assumed power in Baghdad in 1979, then accused
Iran of violating the territorial agreement and launched an attack on his
neighbor.” (1136) It seems Saddam has been a problem from the beginning
and should have been taken care of before he became a real threat like he is
now. Duiker also says during the war between Iraq and Iran poison gas was
used on civilians and also defenseless children were used in the minefields.
Then in August 1990 Hussein’s military forces went into the small country of
Kuwait and claimed that they were stealing oil from Iraqi land. This is when
the United Nations decided to get involved, after all not only was this small
defenseless country under attack but our nations oil supply was endangered.
Really in my opinion this is the main reason we got involved not for the moral
reasons but the financial reasons. From here the book taught me no new
information. We restored peace to Kuwait and destroyed much of Saddam’s
forces. The only problem is we did not destroy enough of his forces because
they are better equipped than they ever were. I have herd that Saddam if he
did posses such chemical weapons that the article spoke of he does not have
the launch capability, meaning he does not posses sufficient I.C.B.M.s (Inter-
Continental Ballistic Missiles) but how long before he does posses such
devices. Only time will tell but for now it is high time we tell Saddam and the
Iraqi government to let us in or else threaten another military strike maybe
even nuclear attack. Annotated Bibliography The topic I choose was Iraq
and its past and still ongoing problems with the United Nations. The reason I
choose this topic as oppose to another topic is war and the United Nations
has always fascinated me. With Saddam Hussein still being stubborn with UN
weapons inspectors it was incredibly easy to obtain information regarding this
topic. The Los Angles Times; California; Feb 12 2000; The newest article I
attained was from the February 12 edition of the Los Angles Times. It was
entitled “Compromise Broached on issue of Arms Inspectors in Iraq”. It
discussed how Iraq is still refusing to allow the UN weapons inspector into
the nation. It also talks about the UN feelings on the chance of inspectors
ever being allowed to do their job. Apparently the Vice President has no
intention of ever letting the inspectors into the country. Last Thursday he said,
” There shall be no return of the so-called inspection teams. We reject the
infiltration by spies using such cover.” In my humble opinion it would make
life in Iraq better if the inspectors where just allowed into the country. Most
importantly sanctions the UN has placed upon Iraq would be removed.
Apparently the really don’t care about the sanctions according to their deputy
foreign minister Nizar Hamdoun who said they can live without sanctions
“forever”. The UN has a different opinion they believe they cannot. I believe
they can, they have done fine up to this point and I think they will continue to
do fine. I think Iraq has many things they don’t want the UN to know about
such as chemical and biological weapons. They are a threat and need to be
dealt with accordingly. New York Times; New York; Feb 8, 2000; Barbara
Crossette The next article I choose was from the February 8 issue of the
New York Times. This article was entitled “Iraq Suspected of Secret War
Effort”. This article sort of scared me. It was about in Britain, research and
intelligence experts, also convinced that there are more germ warfare agents
left in Iraq than previously known, have suggested that Iraq may have
produced the organism that causes bubonic plague. But no evidence has been
published in support of that theory, but American experts say, and United
Nations inspectors found not trace of the plague in Iraq. This is only because
Iraq not allowing them to inspect and when the UN inspectors where allowed
in they where only allowed to inspect “certain” areas. This statement made by
the so-called American experts was bull*censored*; they only said to
comfort the American public. This expert Milton Leitenberg from the Center
for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland has been
coll
defectors. Milton is really not sure if the new thing is a virus and not a
bacterial agent but he said in an interview that Hans Blix, the new chief
inspector for Iraq might need to focus his attention on Biological weapons.
Milton and other British experts say inspector will have to be more aggressive
in demanding access in Iraq. I think so to, biological weapons are illegal as a
form of warfare since the Geneva Convention outlawed them. And the fact
that there are not allowed to be used as a form of warfare should be reason
enough to be more aggressive not to mention the fact that these weapons of
mass destruction will be if not are already in the hands of a mad man! Also
according to this article the eradication of biological weapons in Iraq may be
as important or more important to the people of Iraq as to the outside world.
Experts working with the United Nations Special Commission, the first
disarmament task force created for Iraq after the Gulf War said some of the
bacterial and viral agents Iraq was producing then had little application for
war. Evidently a fungal agent called aflatoxin can lead to liver cancer, and
rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in children and the elderly. This is just
another reason for the inspectors to be more insistent in their attempt to gain
entry into Iraq, their military compounds, and laboratories. World History
Volume II; William J. Duiker & Jackson J. Spielvogel Pages 1136-1137
Duiker provided some insight on the history of this conflict. According to
Duiker “Saddam Hussein, assumed power in Baghdad in 1979, then accused
Iran of violating the territorial agreement and launched an attack on his
neighbor.” (1136) It seems Saddam has been a problem from the beginning
and should have been taken care of before he became a real threat like he is
now. Duiker also says during the war between Iraq and Iran poison gas was
used on civilians and also defenseless children were used in the minefields.
Then in August 1990 Hussein’s military forces went into the small country of
Kuwait and claimed that they were stealing oil from Iraqi land. This is when
the United Nations decided to get involved, after all not only was this small
defenseless country under attack but our nations oil supply was endangered.
Really in my opinion this is the main reason we got involved not for the moral
reasons but the financial reasons. From here the book taught me no new
information. We restored peace to Kuwait and destroyed much of Saddam’s
forces. The only problem is we did not destroy enough of his forces because
they are better equipped than they ever were. I have herd that Saddam if he
did posses such chemical weapons that the article spoke of he does not have
the launch capability, meaning he does not posses sufficient I.C.B.M.s (Inter-
Continental Ballistic Missiles) but how long before he does posses such
devices. Only time will tell but for now it is high time we tell Saddam and the
Iraqi government to let us in or else threaten another military strike maybe
even nuclear attack. Annotated Bibliography The topic I choose was Iraq
and its past and still ongoing problems with the United Nations. The reason I
choose this topic as oppose to another topic is war and the United Nations
has always fascinated me. With Saddam Hussein still being stubborn with UN
weapons inspectors it was incredibly easy to obtain information regarding this
topic. The Los Angles Times; California; Feb 12 2000; The newest article I
attained was from the February 12 edition of the Los Angles Times. It was
entitled “Compromise Broached on issue of Arms Inspectors in Iraq”. It
discussed how Iraq is still refusing to allow the UN weapons inspector into
the nation. It also talks about the UN feelings on the chance of inspectors
ever being allowed to do their job. Apparently the Vice President has no
intention of ever letting the inspectors into the country. Last Thursday he said,
” There shall be no return of the so-called inspection teams. We reject the
infiltration by spies using such cover.” In my humble opinion it would make
life in Iraq better if the inspectors where just allowed into the country. Most
importantly sanctions the UN has placed upon Iraq would be removed.
Apparently the really don’t care about the sanctions according to their deputy
foreign minister Nizar Hamdoun who said they can live without sanctions
“forever”. The UN has a different opinion they believe they cannot. I believe
they can, they have done fine up to this point and I think they will continue to
do fine. I think Iraq has many things they don’t want the UN to know about
such as chemical and biological weapons. They are a threat and need to be
dealt with accordingly. New York Times; New York; Feb 8, 2000; Barbara
Crossette The next article I choose was from the February 8 issue of the
New York Times. This article was entitled “Iraq Suspected of Secret War
Effort”. This article sort of scared me. It was about in Britain, research and
intelligence experts, also convinced that there are more germ warfare agents
left in Iraq than previously known, have suggested that Iraq may have
produced the organism that causes bubonic plague. But no evidence has been
published in support of that theory, but American experts say, and United
Nations inspectors found not trace of the plague in Iraq. This is only because
Iraq not allowing them to inspect and when the UN inspectors where allowed
in they where only allowed to inspect “certain” areas. This statement made by
the so-called American experts was bull*censored*; they only said to
comfort the American public. This expert Milton Leitenberg from the Center
for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland has been
collecting information about Iraqi weapons sites and activities from two Iraqi
defectors. Milton is really not sure if the new thing is a virus and not a
bacterial agent but he said in an interview that Hans Blix, the new chief
inspector for Iraq might need to focus his attention on Biological weapons.
Milton and other British experts say inspector will have to be more aggressive
in demanding access in Iraq. I think so to, biological weapons are illegal as a
form of warfare since the Geneva Convention outlawed them. And the fact
that there are not allowed to be used as a form of warfare should be reason
enough to be more aggressive not to mention the fact that these weapons of
mass destruction will be if not are already in the hands of a mad man! Also
according to this article the eradication of biological weapons in Iraq may be
as important or more important to the people of Iraq as to the outside world.
Experts working with the United Nations Special Commission, the first
disarmament task force created for Iraq after the Gulf War said some of the
bacterial and viral agents Iraq was producing then had little application for
war. Evidently a fungal agent called aflatoxin can lead to liver cancer, and
rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in children and the elderly. This is just
another reason for the inspectors to be more insistent in their attempt to gain
entry into Iraq, their military compounds, and laboratories. World History
Volume II; William J. Duiker & Jackson J. Spielvogel Pages 1136-1137
Duiker provided some insight on the history of this conflict. According to
Duiker “Saddam Hussein, assumed power in Baghdad in 1979, then accused
Iran of violating the territorial agreement and launched an attack on his
neighbor.” (1136) It seems Saddam has been a problem from the beginning
and should have been taken care of before he became a real threat like he is
now. Duiker also says during the war between Iraq and Iran poison gas was
used on civilians and also defenseless children were used in the minefields.
Then in August 1990 Hussein’s military forces went into the small country of
Kuwait and claimed that they were stealing oil from Iraqi land. This is when
the United Nations decided to get involved, after all not only was this small
defenseless country under attack but our nations oil supply was endangered.
Really in my opinion this is the main reason we got involved not for the moral
reasons but the financial reasons. From here the book taught me no new
information. We restored peace to Kuwait and destroyed much of Saddam’s
forces. The only problem is we did not destroy enough of his forces because
they are better equipped than they ever were. I have herd that Saddam if he
did posses such chemical weapons that the article spoke of he does not have
the launch capability, meaning he does not posses sufficient I.C.B.M.s (Inter-
Continental Ballistic Missiles) but how long before he does posses such
devices. Only time will tell but for now it is high time we tell Saddam and the
Iraqi government to let us in or else threaten another military strike maybe
even nuclear attack.Can’t find it here?
Try Collegiate Care Trust
By: James Kyle
E-mail: J44Kyl@aol.com
Justin Cameron February 1st, 1999 Lack of trust is a reoccurring theme
through out the three cases. One might ask, why you need trust in any civil
society? Lack of trust in a civil society has the society with no real stability.
Trust in authority is lacking in each case. The approval rating for Bill Clinton
is high. Does this mean that most Americans trust Bill Cliton? Most polls
would tell that trust is a serious issue. So, what is the consequences of
Americans not having trust in there president? It can’t be to bad because the
economy is doing great and the budget and finally balanced. Most Americans
are happy so what is the problem? The lack of trust is a direct correlation
with weak and/or illegitimate authority. Trust with our president has always
been a sensitive issue. Richard Nixion broke that trust with the country and
sealed the fate for himself and his party for a short term. No one really
understood why Nixon had ordered the break in of the democratic offices in
the first place. What made matters worse is Nixion never came out and
admitted his mistake even when the evidence was overwhelming. Clinton’s
case has some similarities to it. While he finally did come out and admit what
he had done he showed little remorse and accusations still remain about a
cover up. The lack of trust in a political position in this country tends to the
norm. It is created and redefined every day in Washington with a political
figure. This creates an image and a strong stereotype for all political figures.
This in turn hurts all of our civil society. Without the trust then how do you
have the legitimate authority to lead the country. Most would say that
Clinton’s leadership really is not the question but his judgment is. To me, that
is a contradiction and that poor judgment leads to poor leadership. His poor
judgment leads to his ethics and morals that he has. People with weak family
values will have a hard time trusting Cliton with just recognition of their own
problems. The lack of trust is not just with Cliton in the impeachment
arguments. All of the political system seems to be lacking credibility. How
mush faith do people have that their representative will represent their opinion
and not act in the best interest of their party? Who in all this has the best
interest in the country? If Congress does not represent the majority and
decides on the rational of what party they are in then it is a illegitimate use of
authority. Cananada’s theme in the early part of the book was an issue with
trust. In such a community, trust was not apparent and was earned. The lack
of trust went further then authority. In his neighborhood trust was earned the
hard way by a serious of tests. The policy matrix in that community dictates
that trust when earned is essential for survival. Trust within sub cultures of the
society also lead to survival. Even with individual families trust was earned.
Geoffrey Canada’s mother sent his bothers out to retrieve a jacket to prove
that the family could trust in each other in adversity. Federal mandates
dictated massive efforts to extent efforts to improve the equality of the
educational opportunity. A lack of trust was apparent in Hamiltion High in the
60’s and 70’s. This was in part do to the end of segregation of schools. At
such a great time of transition there were so many outside influences trying to
control the policy matrix. Most notable was the federal government
mandating the segregation. The lack of shared values during the transition
played a crucial role in the process. The civil rights was suppose to be a
trickle down effect from the federal government. The problem there is that
not all respected government officials believed in equality for education.
Conflict arose and with it side were drawn. Ho could the government decide
on what a “moral education” is when such confusion existed on what morals
were for many political figures. The lack of shared values weighed heavily
with trust of many just to provide a safe educational environment. The lack of
values can be an argument traced back to the Clinton’s scandal. Who is to
say that Clinton himself did not help dictate what many people believe is a
society that is severely lacking values. To many, he began