The Classical Versions of the Design Argument a. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.
Efficiency[ edit ] Drug laws are effective[ edit ] Supporters of prohibition claim that drug laws have a successful track record suppressing illicit drug use since they were introduced years ago.
With illicit drug use peaking in the s in the United States, the "Just Say No" campaign, initiated under the patronage of Nancy Reagan, coincided with recent past month illicit drug use decreases from Sweden is an excellent example. Drug use is just a third of the European average while spending on drug control is three times the EU average.
For three decades, [nb 1] Sweden has had consistent and coherent drug-control policies, regardless of which party is in power. There is a strong emphasis on prevention, drug laws have been progressively tightened, and extensive treatment and rehabilitation opportunities are available to users.
The police take drug crime seriously. Governments and societies must keep their nerve and avoid being swayed by misguided notions of tolerance.
They must not lose sight of the fact that illicit drugs are dangerous — that is why the world agreed to restrict them. After so many years of drug control experience, we now know that a coherent, long-term strategy can reduce drug supply, demand and trafficking.
If this does not happen, it will be because some nations fail to take the drug issue sufficiently seriously and pursue inadequate policies.
Many countries have the drug problem they deserve. Inefficiency[ edit ] Drug laws are ineffective[ edit ] One of the prominent early critics of prohibition in the United States was August Vollmerfounder of the School of Criminology at University of California, Irvine and former president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
In his book The Police and Modern Society, he stated his opinion that: Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and imprisonment of addicts and peddlers have proved not only useless and enormously expensive as means of correcting this evil, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims.
Repression has driven this vice underground and produced the narcotic smugglers and supply agents, who have grown wealthy out of this evil practice and who, by devious methods, have stimulated traffic in drugs. Finally, and not the least of the evils associated with repression, the helpless addict has been forced to resort to crime in order to get money for the drug which is absolutely indispensable for his comfortable existence.
The first step in any plan to alleviate this dreadful affliction should be the establishment of Federal control and dispensation — at cost — of habit-forming drugs.
With the profit motive gone, no effort would be made to encourage its use by private dispensers of narcotics, and the drug peddler would disappear. New addicts would be speedily discovered and through early treatment, some of these unfortunate victims might be saved from becoming hopelessly incurable.
Drug addiction, like prostitution, and like liquor, is not a police problem; it never has been, and never can be solved by policemen. It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution it will be discovered not by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite.
There should be intelligent treatment of the incurables in outpatient clinics, hospitalization of those not too far gone to respond to therapeutic measures, and application of the prophylactic principles which medicine applies to all scourges of mankind.
Consensus is growing within the drugs field and beyond that the prohibition on production, supply, and use of certain drugs has not only failed to deliver its intended goals but has been counterproductive.
Evidence is mounting that this policy has not only exacerbated many public health problems, such as adulterated drugs and the spread of HIV and hepatitis B and C infection among injecting drug users, but has created a much larger set of secondary harms associated with the criminal market.
These now include vast networks of organised crime, endemic violence related to the drug market, corruption of law enforcement and governments. The United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime has also acknowledged the many "unintended negative consequences" of drug enforcement.
Danny Kushlik, head of external affairs at Transform, said the intervention of senior medical professionals was significant.
The Hippocratic oath says: Physicians are duty bound to speak out if the outcomes show that prohibition causes more harm than it reduces.
Notwithstanding the vast public resources expended on the enforcement of penal statutes against users and distributors of controlled substances, contemporary drug policy appears to have failed, even on its own terms, in a number of notable respects.
This conclusion becomes more readily apparent when one distinguishes the harms suffered by society and its members directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of drug use upon human behavior, from those harms resulting from policies attempting to eradicate drug use.
It does so by permitting and indeed, causing the drug trade to remain a lucrative source of economic opportunity for street dealers, drug kingpins and all those willing to engage in the often violent, illicit, black market trade. Meanwhile, the effect of present policy serves to stigmatize and marginalize drug users, thereby inhibiting and undermining the efforts of many such individuals to remain or become productive, gainfully employed members of society.Arguments about the prohibition of drugs, and over drug policy reform, are subjects of considerable controversy.
The following is a presentation of major drug policy arguments, including those for drug law enforcement on one side of the debate, and arguments for drug law reform on the other. Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ.
By - January 03, The majority of people in the world today assume or believe that Jesus Christ was at the very least a . Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE)..
Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good . There is a variety of evidence for God's existence, ranging from deductive arguments for a "First Cause" to personal testimony of a personal God.
Evidence does not constitute logical, mathematical, nor scientific proof, but is instead facts and arguments which . Arguments for the Existence of God Philosophers have tried to provide rational proofs of God's existence that go beyond dogmatic assertion or appeal to ancient scripture.
The major proofs, with their corresponding objections, are as follows: 1. Ontological: It is possible to imagine a perfect being. God in this argument refers to the standard omni Christian god, but is applicable to any metaphysical, supernatural entity.
Premises 1 and 2 assert the fact that no evidence of the existence of god has been produced to date that is self-evident, observable, or can be reproduced.