Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Let us start with the most general and strongest thesis: “drugs are awful,” which could be reformulated as “drugs cause harm.” In his essay “Unjust Drug War,” Huemer challenges this thesis in terms of prohibiting drugs in terms of harm to humans (Huemer, b). If we believe that the state should prohibit those phenomena and processes that harm a person, then many situations that are legalized fall under this thesis. An interesting argument in support of drug legalization here is that drugs should be equated with alcohol. The US experience in banning alcohol in the first half of the 20th century has led nowhere, and, ultimately, any other drug will have to be allowed. Of course, alcohol is harmful, like other drugs, at least “light” ones, but unlike any drug, alcohol has taken root in society more than a century ago. History knows many attempts to eradicate alcohol, which later ended in failure.
In addition, the thought experiment shows the ethical inadmissibility of such a prohibition from the point of view of moral philosophy. Imagine that a person announces to everyone that no one in their village now has the right to use substances that she has identified as harmful. She then goes around the village and kidnaps those who use these substances, and then she locks them in cages for years. This behavior of mine will immediately seem unacceptable. However, offhand, her behavior is similar to the authorities’ policy related to the prohibition of drugs. This establishes the presumption of inadmissibility of the prohibition of narcotic drugs. Please note that her kidnapping will not be acceptable if she shows convincingly that these substances are indeed harmful for her peers. They will also not be acceptable if she demonstrates how some of them became unemployed. Since, at first glance, it is evident that such reasons are not sufficient to justify her actions, the government does not get the right to do the same.
Thus, drug prohibition is unjustified government interference with individual freedom of choice. A person is free to independently decide what and how to do, what to use, and in what amounts. “Light” drugs are no more harmful to human health than alcohol or tobacco, which are legal and widely used and regulated by the government, which uses the sale of alcohol and tobacco products to replenish the state budget by introducing a system of excise taxes.
The other side of the issue is harm to other people from certain actions. The argument outlined earlier also applies to this position. There are many other activities that lead or could potentially lead to harm to others and are not regulated by the government—for example, psychological abuse and manipulation. Thus, the argument for banning drugs because of harm to others is logically flawed. At the same time, crime and violence are increasing significantly due to the illegal sale and purchase of drugs. Legalization would logically terminate the need for such criminal behavior, transferring the entire shadow business to the legal field while discarding the need to commit crimes.
On the other hand, supporters of the prohibition of drugs appeal to the destruction of a person from a moral standpoint. As Huemer summarizes this position, “Democracies can flourish only when their citizens value their freedom and embrace personal responsibility. Drug use erodes the individual’s capacity to pursue both ideals. It diminishes the individual’s capacity to operate effectively in many of life’s spheres — as a student, a parent, a spouse, an employee — even as a coworker or fellow motorist” (Humer, b, para. 19). Here, Humer debates from the standpoint of moral philosophy and introduces the concept of “moral intuition.” He believes that moral intuition belongs to the intellectual vision before argumentation and may be in conflict with the generally accepted understanding of morality, which has come to us as a result of the development of social culture, religion, and ideology. Intuition can become distorted or cease to be felt altogether under the influence of ideological, religious, and cultural processing (Huemer, a). However nevertheless, moral intuition, according to Humer, is as reliable a tool for cognizing moral truth as a sensory perception for cognizing the physical world. In this sense, his position is rooted in the Kantian premise of human morality, preceding any other action. Thus, morality and moral intuition cannot be distorted by the subsequent use of narcotic substances since this logically contradicts the essence of morality.
Finally, my point of view on this issue is similar to that of Michael Huemer. Despite all the problems associated with drug use, their criminalization is not logically and ethically justified. Caring for citizens is selective and similar to parental prohibitions on a child. Obviously, parents forbid, say, smoking their child insofar as they care about them and wish for the best. However, such harsh prohibitions often lead to even worse child behavior outside the family.
Works Cited
Huemer, Michael, a. Ethical intuitionism. Springer, 2007.
Huemer, Michael, b. “America’s unjust drug war.” The New Prohibition (2004): 133-44.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.