Position Statements and Resolutions Published: It would expand the use of drugs. It would remove the social stigma attached to illicit drug use, and would send a message of tolerance for drug use, especially to youth. Drug legalization or decriminalization is opposed by a vast majority of Americans and people around the world.
Politics and law The Social Order There is a progression in the minds of men: This is just what is happening with the idea Essays against drug legalization legalizing drugs: If intoxication in one form or another is inevitable, then so is customary or legal restraint upon that intoxication.
But no society until our own has had to contend with the ready availability of so many different mind-altering drugs, combined with a citizenry jealous of its right to pursue its own pleasures in its own way. The arguments in favor of legalizing the use of all narcotic and stimulant drugs are twofold: Neither argument is negligible, but both are mistaken, I believe, and both miss the point.
The philosophic argument is that, in a free society, adults should be permitted to do whatever they please, always provided that they are prepared to take the consequences of their own choices and that they cause no direct harm to others. Addiction to, or regular use of, most currently prohibited drugs cannot affect only the person who takes them—and not his spouse, children, neighbors, or employers.
Such a principle is virtually useless in determining what should or should not be permitted. But that is precisely the point.
Human affairs cannot be decided by an appeal to an infallible rule, expressible in a few words, whose simple application can decide all cases, including whether drugs should be freely available to the entire adult population.
Philosophical fundamentalism is not preferable to the religious variety; and because the desiderata of human life are many, and often in conflict with one another, mere philosophical inconsistency in policy—such as permitting the consumption of alcohol while outlawing cocaine—is not a sufficient argument against that policy.
We all value freedom, and we all value order; sometimes we sacrifice freedom for order, and sometimes order for freedom. But once a prohibition has been removed, it is hard to restore, even when the newfound freedom proves to have been ill-conceived and socially disastrous.
Even Mill came to see the limitations of his own principle as a guide for policy and to deny that all pleasures were of equal significance for human existence. It was better, he said, to be Socrates discontented than a fool satisfied.
Mill acknowledged that some goals were intrinsically worthier of pursuit than others. This being the case, not all freedoms are equal, and neither are all limitations of freedom: The freedom we cherish—or should cherish—is not merely that of satisfying our appetites, whatever they happen to be.
And we even recognize the apparent paradox that some limitations to our freedoms have the consequence of making us freer overall. The freest man is not the one who slavishly follows his appetites and desires throughout his life—as all too many of my patients have discovered to their cost.
We are prepared to accept limitations to our freedoms for many reasons, not just that of public order. Take an extreme hypothetical case: A corpse has no interests and cannot be harmed, because it is no longer a person; and no member of the public is harmed if he has agreed to attend such an exhibition.
Our resolve to prohibit such exhibitions would not be altered if we discovered that millions of people wished to attend them or even if we discovered that millions already were attending them illicitly.
Our objection is not based upon pragmatic considerations or upon a head count: The fact that the prohibition represents a genuine restriction of our freedom is of no account. It might be argued that the freedom to choose among a variety of intoxicating substances is a much more important freedom and that millions of people have derived innocent fun from taking stimulants and narcotics.
It impairs their ability to pursue more important human aims, such as raising a family and fulfilling civic obligations. Very often it impairs their ability to pursue gainful employment and promotes parasitism.
Moreover, far from being expanders of consciousness, most drugs severely limit it. One of the most striking characteristics of drug takers is their intense and tedious self-absorption; and their journeys into inner space are generally forays into inner vacuums. We lose remarkably little by not being permitted to take drugs.
And when such a narrowly conceived freedom is made the touchstone of public policy, a dissolution of society is bound to follow. No culture that makes publicly sanctioned self-indulgence its highest good can long survive: Distinctions between the important and the trivial, between the freedom to criticize received ideas and the freedom to take LSD, are precisely the standards that keep societies from barbarism.
So the legalization of drugs cannot be supported by philosophical principle. But if the pragmatic argument in favor of legalization were strong enough, it might overwhelm other objections. It is upon this argument that proponents of legalization rest the larger part of their case.
The argument is that the overwhelming majority of the harm done to society by the consumption of currently illicit drugs is caused not by their pharmacological properties but by their prohibition and the resultant criminal activity that prohibition always calls into being.Legalize drugs essays Illegal drugs influence people every day of their lives.
Illegal drugs affect people whether they are users themselves, drug dealers, victims of drug-related crime, or dealing with a friend or family member's addiction Illegal drugs influence people every day of their live. So the legalization of drugs cannot be supported by philosophical principle.
But if the pragmatic argument in favor of legalization were strong enough, it might overwhelm other objections. It is upon this argument that proponents of legalization rest the larger part of their case.
- Drug Legalization Drug legalization has become a great issue among Americans for many years, and there have also been those that try to stop that legalization. The article, “Legalizing Drugs is Not the Solution” by Gerald W.
Lynch, has a good argument based on . Drug Legalization Drug abuse has progressively, over the last thirty years, become a tool for crime organizations and bureaucracies, independent and under the control of the federal government, used to transform drug addiction into a profit through the passage of countless laws against drug abuse.
Jennifer Hall Legalization of Marijuana (Short Essay) POL American National Government Instructor: Saundra McDavid January 11, The legalization of medical marijuana is a current policy issue that has caused much tension between the different levels of .
Against Legalization or Decriminalization of Drugs. Print; Email; Details Category: Position Statements and Resolutions Published: 01 August The legalization or decriminalization of drugs would make harmful, psychoactive, and addictive substances affordable, available, convenient, and marketable.
Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization.