|
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||
An Argument For The Legalization Of Drugs, Based On John Stuart Mills RevisedHar
An Argument for the Legalization of Drugs, Based on John Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle" An Argument for the Legalization of Drugs, Based on John Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle" The question of whether or not to legalize certain drugs has been debated for decades. Although opponents have thus far been successful in preventing this, there are nonetheless a substantial number of people who believe that legalization should be given a chance. Their arguments range from the seeming ineffectiveness of current drug laws to the simple premise that the government has no right to prohibit its citizens from using drugs if they choose to do so. This essay will address the issue from the standpoint of John Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle˛," which asserts that people should be free to do what they want unless they threaten the vital interests (i.e., security or autonomy) of others. Using Mills' principle as a litmus test for this issue leads one to come down on the side of legalization. Since Mills is concerned not with individual rights, but with the consequences of one's actions on other people, the question becomes: Is drug use an action that, although performed by an individual, threatens the vital interests of others? Using the example of a casual, responsible drug user who is a contributing (or non-detracting) member of society, it is clear that more harm is done to others if the user must resort to illegal methods to obtain his drugs. The very act of buying drugs is intrinsically illegal and carries the threat of establishing a criminal record for the buyer. This can have a devastating effect on his family, his lifestyle, and his career. The effects on society as a whole include more crowded jail cells (prompting politicians to demand more jails be built), higher taxes to support these jails, and the loss, or at least diminution, of a productive citizen. In order to buy drugs illegally, the user may be forced to expose himself to the fringes of the criminal world--something he would never do under any other circumstances. If drugs were legalized, the criminal stigma would be removed from their purchase, possession, and use. The government would collect taxes on drug sales and, conversely, would not be spending millions of dollars to stem the flow of illegal drugs. This increase in tax dollars could be put to use in drug education and treatment programs for those individuals who are unable to moderate their intake and subsequently become addicts. Then the government would be intervening with its citizens' lives in a benevolent manner (and only when asked) rather than in a forceful, punitive way. Many opponents to legalization point out that drug use leads to spousal and child abuse, random criminal acts precipitated by the effects of drugs on a user's inhibitions, and crimes committed to support drug habits. This argument is fundamentally defective because it addresses the abuse of drugs, which is not the issue here. When an individual's use of drugs leads him to harm others, it becomes a behavioral problem. That is, the issue is no longer drugs, but the behavior of the individual. If that behavior breaks a law, the individual should be punished for that specific conduct--not for drug use. In its pure f...This is ONLY a preview of the article. If you would like to view the entire document, you must subscribe to Electronic References. Please register below now! Get This Full Article After Registration
|
 Home | Register | Login | Logout | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Help | FAQ | Contact Us | Cancel Subscription Copyright 1998-2007 Electronic References. Electronic References is designed only to assist students and researchers in the preparation of their own work. Anybody who use our services are responsible not only for writing their own papers, but also for citing Electronic References as a source when doing so. By accessing and using this page you agree to the Disclaimer. |
