Why we should decriminalize drug use husak

According to Cbs new. Joycelyn Elders marijuana should be legalized. She is angry over what she says is the high number of American youth now serving time for Much of the supposed danger of these drugs is often disputed. Because they are illegal, however, it is almost impossible to conduct the research necessary to prove that they may be used safely.

Open Document. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. Addressing the seemingly ever-infinite "war on drugs", in "Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use", Douglas Husak argues in favour of the decriminalization of drugs in terms of not criminalizing the use of such recreational drugs.

In this paper, I will dispute that Kusak 's argument succeeds because of the lack of justification for prohibition, and the counterproductiveness and how numerically evident the ineffectiveness of these contemporary punitive policies are.

I will support Kusak 's stand by addressing two …show more content… Approximately given 80 to 90 million Americans have tried an illicit drug at least which once in their lives; marijuana alone is tried for the first time by about 6, Americans everyday.

Furthermore, illicit drugs seem to be relatively easy to attain- in for , 90 percent said which this about marijuana, also 44 percent about cocaine and finally 32 percent about heroin. Yearly, for which 35 million dollars is given just to control illicit drug trafficking. Moreover, over , of drug offenders caught are in jail, of which, some , are which for possession. Not for only are these statistics a international obvious embarrassment but because for these quantities which have been growing throughout history, we can only assume that they will get worse.

We can already begin to for imagine the costs of these numbers which is it not already clear that we need for to find an alternative approach to this …show more content… Perhaps one of the most pressing concerns is health and the assumption that to a certain degree criminalization is justified by preserving health.

Illicit drugs are, in reality, not as hazardous to public health as accustomed views present- particularly in relation to certain recreational activities that are legal. Of the 25, illegal drug use-induced fatalities the National Institute on Drug Abuse has brought to light, the majority is more correctly due to drug prohibition than consumption. Also, some 14, of the casualties are a result of diseases like AIDS, transferred generally because of contaminated drug injection needles.

Drug prohibitions are generally evaluated according to this test. Husak argues that criminal law is importantly dissimilar from non-criminal law, in that it results in state punishment. For this reason, he thinks, the rational basis test is not fit for purpose when evaluating criminal laws. Many philosophers, when discussing drug prohibitions, make reference to the harm principle.

But, unlike, say, theft or rape, it is not clear that drug use harms the rights of others. Husak conceptualizes offenses that create only a risk of harm as inchoate offenses similar to attempt, solicitation or conspiracy. Unfortunately, there is no current theory that seeks to justify the criminalization of such offenses.

Empirical data suggests that drug use very rarely results in significant harm. If this is contrasted with, for example, attempted murder, the result is different. Husak also notes that drug prohibitions unduly affect ethnic minorities and the least powerful in society, while these groups are no more likely to be drug users than members of the privileged majority. In the final section of his paper, Husak considers one possible argument for the criminalization of drug use: that drug use would drastically increase if it were no longer subject to criminal punishment.

This argument, he believes, fails on both empirical and normative grounds. On empirical grounds, Husak argues that we have no basis upon which to predict the outcome of decriminalization. We cannot looks purely to economic models of consumption, because there are simply too many variables which decriminalization will affect. Producers of drugs will be required to pay taxes, settle lawsuits and invest in making their products safer in order to minimise the costs associated with lawsuits.

This is likely to ensure that drugs remain fairly expensive to purchase and consume, unless the drug is particularly safe and unlikely to cause the producer legal issues. If this is the case, then it seems to justify decriminalization. If, and in my opinion when weed is legalized then of course there will be laws against advertising for it on TV or the radio.

Essays Essays FlashCards. Browse Essays. Sign in. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. Show More. Related Documents The Moral Argument Of Michael Huemer While this reasoning is valid, Huemer does not address the claim that the government should protect the autonomy of its citizens. Read More. Words: - Pages: 3. Decriminalization Douglas Husak Analysis The issue should not be looked at was whether or not to decriminalize the users of drugs, but rather the default question should be whether to criminalize the users of drugs.

Words: - Pages: 4. A Brief Summary Of Gun Control Laws Criminals are labeled as criminals because they do not obey laws, so making laws to limit the ownership and usage of guns would not help prevent gun-related crimes. After considering four standard justifications for punishing drug users Husak concludes that "the arguments for criminalization are not sufficiently persuasive to justify the infliction of punishment. Reasons to Criminalize Drug Use. No doubt states are justified in protecting the health and well being of citizens.

But does putting drug users in prison contribute to this worthy goal? Certainly not for those imprisoned. For those who might be deterred from using drugs the question is whether the drugs from which they are deterred by the threat of imprisonment actually pose a health risk.

For one, Husak quotes research showing that currently illicit drugs do not obviously pose a greater health threat than alcohol or tobacco. For another, he quotes a statistic showing that approximately four times as many persons die annually from using prescribed medicines than die from using illegal drugs.

In addition, one-fourth of all pack-a-day smokers lose ten to fifteen years of their lives but no one would entertain the idea of incarcerating smokers to further their health interests or in order to prevent non-smokers from beginning. In sum, Husak accepts that drug use poses health risks but contends that the risks are not greater than others that are socially accepted. Even if they were greater, imprisonment does not reduce, but compounds the health risks for prisoners.

Husak here responds to de Marneffe's essay which focuses on potential drug abuse and promotes the welfare of children as a justification for keeping drug production and sale illegal. Husak finds punishing adolescent users a peculiar way to protect them. To punish one drug-using adolescent in order to prevent a non-using adolescent from using drugs is ineffective and also violates justice. Punishing adult users so that youth do not begin using drugs and do not suffer from neglect -- which is de Marneffe's position -- is not likely to prevent adolescents from becoming drug users, and even if it did, one would have to show that the harm prevented to the youth justifies imprisoning adults.

Husak contends that punishing adults or youth, far from protecting youth, puts them at greater risk. Husak, conceding a connection between drug use and crime, turns the argument upside-down, showing how punishment increases rather than decreases crime.

For one, criminalization of drugs forces the drug industry to settle disputes extra-legally. Secondly, drug decriminalization would likely lower drug costs thereby reducing economic crimes.

Thirdly, to those who contend that illicit drugs may increase violence and aggression Husak responds that: a empirical evidence does not support marijuana or heroin as causes of violence and b empirical evidence does support alcohol, which is decriminalized, as leading to violence. Husak concludes "if we propose to ban those drugs that are implicated in criminal behavior, no drug would be a better candidate for criminalization than alcohol.

In addition to standard philosophical objections to legal moralism, Husak contends that there is no good reason to think that recreational drug use is immoral. Drug use violates no rights. Other recreationally used drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine are not immoral.