Drugs are widely used around the world and continues to be a huge issue. Many philosophers debate on the effects of making drugs legal. Some say that the forbidden fruit effect helps reduce the urge of doing drugs; however, Wilson believes that an increase of supply at a lower price will increase the amount of people taking these drugs. In addition, many argue that if drugs are not allowed then alcohol should be prohibited as well. This brings up many questions and the philosophers seem to have a few answers. Wilson and Husak are two philosophers that have very different opinions on the legalization of drugs and its effects and both bring thought experiments that help their case. James Q. Wilson is greatly against the legalization of drugs
…show more content…
Husak believes that it is morally right to use drugs. Husak believes that instead of ignoring the problem, we should be trying to change the reasons why America has so many recreational drug users. He urges that a better strategy “to combat drugs might attempt to identify and change the conditions peculiar to America that have led to widespread use” (Husak 234). Husak blames America for the amount of users taking drugs and suggests that America fixes itself, instead of the drug users. Husak quotes Hamowy when he states that the drug war is “’the most expensive intrusion into the private lives of Americans ever;’” however, Husak believes that the war on drugs cannot be measured by the amount of money used to correct users (Husak 233).
It is also important to know that the definition that Husak refers to in his writing is “any substance other than food which by its chemical nature affects the structure or function of the living organism” (Husak 235). Husak then explains that this common definition is too broad with no distinction between illegal and legal drugs. A survey showed that “95 percent of adults recognize heroin as a drug, only 39 percent categorize alcohol as a drug” (Husak 235). This supports that the definition of a drug is not widely known or
Husak believes that it is morally right to use drugs. Husak believes that instead of ignoring the problem, we should be trying to change the reasons why America has so many recreational drug users. He urges that a better strategy “to combat drugs might attempt to identify and change the conditions peculiar to America that have led to widespread use” (Husak 234). Husak blames America for the amount of users taking drugs and suggests that America fixes itself, instead of the drug users. Husak quotes Hamowy when he states that the drug war is “’the most expensive intrusion into the private lives of Americans ever;’” however, Husak believes that the war on drugs cannot be measured by the amount of money used to correct users (Husak 233).
It is also important to know that the definition that Husak refers to in his writing is “any substance other than food which by its chemical nature affects the structure or function of the living organism” (Husak 235). Husak then explains that this common definition is too broad with no distinction between illegal and legal drugs. A survey showed that “95 percent of adults recognize heroin as a drug, only 39 percent categorize alcohol as a drug” (Husak 235). This supports that the definition of a drug is not widely known or