Huemer’s essay presents not just a series of arguments for ending the war on drugs, but goes as far as arguing for full legalization of recreational drugs. His strongest moral argument for drug legalization is that individuals have a natural right to use drugs stemming from the right to exercise control over their own bodies.
Although he doesn’t cite other philosophers, Huemer’s argument builds on John Locke’s basic assumption in “Of Property.” Locke wrote, “…every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.” Locke builds his argument for ownership of the fruits of one’s labor on this basic idea that people own their own bodies. Huemer, too, asserts that the idea of self-ownership is “embodied in …show more content…
For example, Huemer recognizes that we do not have a right to use our bodies to attack others, nor should we have a right to take a drug that hypothetically forced us to attack others. But provided that drug users are not harming others in these ways, how can it be justified to prevent them from using their bodies how they see fit?
Implicitly, the argument is refuting drug prohibitionist’s claim that drugs should be illegal because they harm the drug user. But who cares? We have a right to smoke cigarettes, eat nothing but cookie dough and never exercise — all things that inflict self-harm. If we have a right to our own bodies, and we already have some legal rights to destroy our own bodies, why legally discriminate between the different ways to destroy ourselves?
The best response to Huemer’s argument is that drug use is not always a voluntary choice. Evidence that 1) drugs are addictive, 2) that individuals, especially young people, may not be fully informed about the effects of drugs, and 3) that peer pressure commonly plays a role in drug use all needs to be taken into consideration. Would it be moral to allow an addict to continue to harm his or her body despite not wanting
Although he doesn’t cite other philosophers, Huemer’s argument builds on John Locke’s basic assumption in “Of Property.” Locke wrote, “…every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.” Locke builds his argument for ownership of the fruits of one’s labor on this basic idea that people own their own bodies. Huemer, too, asserts that the idea of self-ownership is “embodied in …show more content…
For example, Huemer recognizes that we do not have a right to use our bodies to attack others, nor should we have a right to take a drug that hypothetically forced us to attack others. But provided that drug users are not harming others in these ways, how can it be justified to prevent them from using their bodies how they see fit?
Implicitly, the argument is refuting drug prohibitionist’s claim that drugs should be illegal because they harm the drug user. But who cares? We have a right to smoke cigarettes, eat nothing but cookie dough and never exercise — all things that inflict self-harm. If we have a right to our own bodies, and we already have some legal rights to destroy our own bodies, why legally discriminate between the different ways to destroy ourselves?
The best response to Huemer’s argument is that drug use is not always a voluntary choice. Evidence that 1) drugs are addictive, 2) that individuals, especially young people, may not be fully informed about the effects of drugs, and 3) that peer pressure commonly plays a role in drug use all needs to be taken into consideration. Would it be moral to allow an addict to continue to harm his or her body despite not wanting