In Douglas Husak’s “Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use”, he states that all drugs should be decriminalized. The strongest argument that I believe Husak gives in this article is that there is not a better reason to criminalize any drug other than prediction and correlation, and we cannot restrict individual liberties because of a prediction or correlation to a social issue. I will show an objection to this using Mill’s Harm Principle, and further show my support that heroin and cocaine should be decriminalized and not be kept illegal.
Laws regarding the use of heroin and cocaine are paternalistic and interfere with the liberty of mentally competent adults. Although the government thinks these laws are to prevent harm to others, it greatly …show more content…
John Stuart Mill would object this premise with his Harm Principle. In his Harm Principle, he states that the only purpose that it is morally legitimate for government to interfere with anyone’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. (Mill) This cannot apply to laws regarding individual liberty because we can’t predict what harm could happen to someone. For example, it would not be justified to outlaw driving cars because I might crash into somebody and that would cause them harm. We can relate this example to the use of heroin and cocaine, in saying that just because somebody is using the drug does not mean that they are going to harm someone. That does not give the government justification to outlaw the …show more content…
Husak says that even if drug use does contribute to social problems such as stealing and child neglect, just as eating pizza contributes to obesity, it was not justified in the first place, and we can’t keep heroin and cocaine illegal and continue punishing the users for doing them. There are some laws that are enforced that are preventative to harm such as drinking and driving, texting and driving, or shooting fireworks while there is dry grass because of the risk of wild fires. All of these things can cause serious harm to oneself and to others, and there is evidence and should be prevented. There is no law against the use of alcohol as long as you are of age. There is no law saying we cannot text while we are sitting on our couch, so why would or should there be a law saying that someone should not be able to choose if they can or cannot use heroin or cocaine. Like Husak said, that would be like prohibiting pizza, we cannot redistrict individual liberties based on a correlation to some social problem. We should be punishing the ones doing the crimes such as selling the drugs, manufacturing them, murdering people, not innocently choosing to get “high” on their own time.
Laws regarding the use of heroin and cocaine are paternalistic and interfere with the liberty of mentally competent adults. Although the government thinks these laws are to prevent harm to others, it greatly …show more content…
John Stuart Mill would object this premise with his Harm Principle. In his Harm Principle, he states that the only purpose that it is morally legitimate for government to interfere with anyone’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. (Mill) This cannot apply to laws regarding individual liberty because we can’t predict what harm could happen to someone. For example, it would not be justified to outlaw driving cars because I might crash into somebody and that would cause them harm. We can relate this example to the use of heroin and cocaine, in saying that just because somebody is using the drug does not mean that they are going to harm someone. That does not give the government justification to outlaw the …show more content…
Husak says that even if drug use does contribute to social problems such as stealing and child neglect, just as eating pizza contributes to obesity, it was not justified in the first place, and we can’t keep heroin and cocaine illegal and continue punishing the users for doing them. There are some laws that are enforced that are preventative to harm such as drinking and driving, texting and driving, or shooting fireworks while there is dry grass because of the risk of wild fires. All of these things can cause serious harm to oneself and to others, and there is evidence and should be prevented. There is no law against the use of alcohol as long as you are of age. There is no law saying we cannot text while we are sitting on our couch, so why would or should there be a law saying that someone should not be able to choose if they can or cannot use heroin or cocaine. Like Husak said, that would be like prohibiting pizza, we cannot redistrict individual liberties based on a correlation to some social problem. We should be punishing the ones doing the crimes such as selling the drugs, manufacturing them, murdering people, not innocently choosing to get “high” on their own time.