Lack Of Trust example essay topic

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 categorize 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. Can't find it here Try Collegiate Care Trust By: James Kyle E-mail: 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 Hamilton 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.