How does the abuse of drugs affect families (break them) Essay

How does the abuse of drugs affect families (break them) - Essay Example There are moms like Charlotte Sanders (2006) who experimented with drugs at 16 but took methamphetamines as a regular habit in her twenties in order to cope with the pressures of motherhood; or Lynn Smith, who resorted to drugs as an actress in New York; or even Mike Shirley, a father of a family. In 2004, more than 3.5 million persons who were 18 years old or over admitted that they had, at some point in their life, taken at least one injection of an illegal drug. (National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), 2006). The NDIC also reports that drug abuse in the US is cost it $181 billion in 2002 alone, and that amount continues to rise every year. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) defines drug addiction as â€Å"a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences.† It must be understood that, under this definition, specialized agencies such as the NIDA and the NIDC classify alcoholism and smoking as forms of substance abuse classifiable as drug addiction. Regular use of alcohol and nicotine, the so-called â€Å"legal drugs,† are prone to abuse with the same resultant effects as narcotic abuse. Also, prescription drugs are also prone to abuse when the user administers them in the inappropriate amounts, or resorts to their regular use even when the reason or medical condition that required their use no longer exists. Recently, more teens have been experimenting with combinations of prescription drugs that increases the danger of fatalities due to toxic reactions of drugs with each other. (Buddy T., 2007). Rather than being viewed as mere socially deviant behaviour, drug addiction is viewed by the medical community as a disease. Drugs alter the brain’s structure and the way it works, usually with permanent effects when left untreated. Initially, the individual embarks on his first drug trip out of curiosity and

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development in Thank You for Smoking (2005) Essay

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development in Thank You for Smoking (2005) - Essay Example Some of the characters in the film swing across these moral stages, depending on their changing goals and target audiences. Characters in â€Å"Stage 1: Obedience and Punishment† display morality that comes from following authority (Crain, 1985). Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) shows Stage 1 morality because he is initially focused on what his boss and company think is right. Instead of following the government or traditional social norms, Naylor follows the goals and norms of his company and boss. Naylor’s boss BR (J.K. Simmons) seeks for ideas on making smoking a more lucrative business. He tells Naylor: â€Å"We don't sell Tic Tacs, we sell cigarettes. And they’re cool, available, and addictive† (Sacks & Reitman, 2005). Naylor responds with a recommendation of product placement in the movies. He is responding to the pressure of doing what is right, based on what his company demands from him. Furthermore, Naylor displays loyalty to his boss, even when the latter does something wrong. BR steals Naylor’s idea of product placement in the movies and presents it to Captain (Rob ert Duvall) as his own. Naylor does not correct Captain anymore for fear of reprisal. Morality, in this stage, is â€Å"external† to the people, and not something they feel they must be personally responsible for, so they follow their bosses as the basis of their morality (Crain, 1985). Aside from Stage 1, characters in Thank You for Smoking exhibit morality in â€Å"Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange,† when they focus on the relativity of morals and the importance of making compromises to gain something. Naylor shifts to Stage 2, when he explains to his son that being right heavily relies on one’s argumentation skills. He tells his son: â€Å"That’s the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong.† Morality is relative to the person doing the argumentation and his/her persuasiveness. Furthermore, flexible morality is another indicator of an individualistic approach to morality. Naylor admits to his son that to be in his job, he must have â€Å"flexible morals† (Sacks & Reitman, 2005). Flexible morals allow him to stay unaffected of the negative views on tobacco smoking. Jeff Megall (Rob Lowe) is another example of someone who manifests Stage 2 because he is not concerned of maintaining the social order or universal principles. Megall emphasizes that individuals have different opinions, so he calls himself a â€Å"facilitator† because â€Å"people decide for themselves† (Sacks & Reitman, 2005). He believes in the individual differences of morality and does not judge them. Heather Holloway (Katie Holmes) illustrates Stage 1 morality too because she exchanges something to gain another. She enters into a sexual affair with Naylor, so that she can access and expose his secrets as a reporter (Sacks & Reitman, 2005). These are examples of people, who believe in individualistic views of morality, as well as the flexibility needed to undergo social transactions for the purposes of personal gai n. The next stage is â€Å"Stage 3: Good Interpersonal Relationships,† and characters show this level of morality, when they do what is good based on what their family and community value as good behaviors (Crain, 1985). Naylor wants to be a better father to his son. In order to do this, he thinks that it is right to spend more time with him. Joey’s mother and stepfather are alarmed of what he is learning and inhaling from his father, but Naylor does not care, because he simply wants to have more quality time with Joey (Sacks