This is my blody and conclusion of my argumentative essay could people make it better, change sentence is ok!! make it better for me^^ thanks
One of the reasons to show support for a more efficient harm minimization is that the government and the hospitals encourage free syringe exchange. Sharing syringe (needles) can be quite risky and dangerous because while people are sharing the needles, the viruses or diseases could pass through to each other by the remaining blood that is left within the injector. HIV and AIDS are two common viral diseases that people get from sharing syringes, beside people who take drugs through injection have the higher chance to receive the diseases. However, Australia created a needle exchange program to basically giving free syringe to people who needs it, especially for drug users, to prevent them from virus transmission (Arguments for harm minimization, n.d.). Also, from the report it proves that HIV and AIDS rates have been decreasing compared to other countries of the world.
The second most significant reason that explains harm minimization is more effective is the methadone programs. Although only several people will adopt methadone programs, however, it is effectual for dependent heroin users (Arguments for harm minimization, n.d.). Beside, this program will not only minimizes the harm that the drug users have but also helps our community, such as less crime, less frighten of police detection and reduction of the dangerous associated with needle use (Arguments for harm minimization, n.d.). Therefore, Australia has established many different programs and strategies to reduce harms for the multitudes.
In addition to methadone programs, zero tolerance which raises the harm occurrence is also another supporting reason to support that harm minimization is more efficient than prohibition. While carry out zero tolerance principles, polices are performing successfully thus drugs prices increase, however this is when the criminal rates raised. Robbery, stealing and murderer can happen and the community is no longer safe. Prohibition or zero tolerance can maximize the harm to drugs users and it produces more crime, more diseases spread out such as HIV and AIDS and police resources could not be deployed (Arguments for harm minimization, n.d), therefore zero tolerance have no positive impacts to our community.
To conclude, the progress of syringe exchange programs, methadone programs and negative impacts caused by prohibition are the three ideas to prove that harm minimization strategy is more efficient than zero tolerance. In fact, the issue of whether harm minimization or zero tolerance is more effective is important, because it relates to our community and society. There are no easy solutions to solve the problem of people taking illicit drugs, however, harm minimization has been demonstrated some success. If the government spend more time on planning alternative choices for drug users, disseminate information to multitudes about the negative impacts of drugs and work more on teaching school students about the effects of using drugs, it could help the community from avoiding more unnecessary tribulations.
My comments are in square brackets. You have serious issues with verb tense agreement. You should work on the grammatical problems if you intend to go to college.
[Indent paragraph]One of the reasons to show support for a more efficient harm minimization is that the government and the hospitals encourage free syringe exchange. Sharing syringe (needles) [You do not need to put "needles" in parentheses; "syringes" is sufficient.] can be quite risky and dangerous because [while people are sharing the needles, -omit/redundant] the [viruses or diseases -"infectious disease"] could [pass through to each other -"be transmitted"] by the remaining blood that is left within the injector. HIV and AIDS are two common viral diseases that people get from sharing syringes, beside people who take drugs through injection have the higher chance to receive the diseases.[Explain why; is it because drug users have reduced immunity to infection?] However, Australia created a needle exchange program [to basically giving -split-infinitive grammatical error - "to provide" would be better] free syringe[s] to people who needs it, [verb tense error /should be "people who need"] especially for drug users, to prevent them from virus transmission (Arguments for harm minimization, n.d.). Also, from the report it proves ["Also, the report indicates"] that HIV and AIDS rates have been decreasing compared to other countries of the world.
[Indent new paragraph]The second most significant reason that explains harm minimization is more effective is the methadone programs. Although only several people will adopt methadone programs, [comma splice error -should be ";"] however, it is effectual for dependent heroin users (Arguments for harm minimization, n.d.). Beside, this program will not only minimizes [minimize] the harm that the drug users have but also helps our community, such as less crime, less frighten [fear] of police detection and reduction of the dangerous [dangers] associated with needle [syringe] use (Arguments for harm minimization, n.d.). Therefore, Australia has established many different programs and strategies to reduce harms [harm] for the multitudes.
[Indent new paragraph]In addition to methadone programs, zero tolerance[,] which raises the harm occurrence is also another supporting reason to support [another reason supporting the premise] that harm minimization is more efficient than prohibition. While carry[ing] out zero tolerance principles, polices are performing [performed] successfully[;] thus, drugs prices increase, [Start a new sentence -"However,"] however this is when the criminal rates raised.[rise] Robbery, stealing and murderer can happen [Robbery, burglary and even murder increase] and the community is no longer safe. Prohibition or zero tolerance can maximize the harm to drugs users and it produces [produce] more crime, more diseases spread out [increase in the spread of disease] such as HIV and AIDS and police resources could not be deployed (Arguments for harm minimization, n.d), therefore zero tolerance have [has] no positive impacts [impact] to our community.
[Indent new paragraph] To conclude, the progress of syringe exchange programs, methadone programs and negative impacts caused by [the negative impact of] prohibition are the three ideas to prove [indicate] that harm minimization strategy is more efficient than zero tolerance. In fact, the issue of whether harm minimization or zero tolerance is more effective is important, because it relates to our community and society. There are no easy solutions to solve the problem of people taking illicit drugs,[;] however, harm minimization has been demonstrated [has demonstrated] some success. If the government spend[s] more time on planning alternative choices for drug users, disseminate[s] information to multitudes about the negative impacts of drugs and work[s] more on teaching school students about the effects of using drugs, it could help the community from avoiding [to avoid] more unnecessary tribulations. You have a couple of spelling errors and grammar mistakes. But sorry I can't tell you were they are since I would feel like I'm cheating, just read it slowly and you will immediately find it. I do that, read it word,... for,... word,... and i will find mistakes straight away.
Some tips if you want to use them, unless your teacher has said different,...
-Use your opinions at the end of each paragraph of the topic in the paragraph because the marker can't argue with what you say because its your opinion, they have to give you a tick, unless you contradict yourself at the end.
-Don't say "To conclude" you lose marks. It's the last paragraph and is quite obvious it's the last part and you usually write several things after you say that which may also introduce a new topic by mistake.
Other than that it's Great and I hope you get a high mark for it (e.g. 90%)
Hope I helped!!!
|
