Huemer’s Arguments
In a report on the unjust drug war in America, the author proposes that legislation on the use of recreational drugs is improper. His argument proceeds to provide arguments against the top three reasons for prohibition. The first argument for prohibition argues that the drugs are harmful to the users and as such prohibition protects users from harm.
Huemer argues that the prohibition by the government based on this premise is wrong given that several other harmful actions are not prevented by the government (135). Among the examples provided include the consumption of alcohol, cigarette smoking, excessive use of credit cards, promiscuity and risky sexual behaviour, riding motorcycles, and being rude to bosses among others (Huemer 135). In support of this, he provides statistics that indicate that deaths through smoking are much higher than deaths from prohibited drug use.
The second argument for the prohibition of drugs is that they harm people other than the users. In this regard, Huemer argues that it is also possible for an individual to engage in behaviour that will harm others without being under the influence of drugs (136). Since it would be considered irrational to arrest or pass any legal judgment on this individual under their free will in performing such actions; it should be similarly permissible for an individual to take drugs and behave in such a manner (Huemer 139). The only exemption he offers is in the case where the behavior may cause undue risk on other lives as in the case of drunken driving.
The third argument posed by the author is that prohibition law violates human rights. According to the author, the right to use drugs is a natural right that owing to prohibitive law has denied many individuals basic rights and led to an unjust punishment. This position suggests that every individual has the right to do with their body as they please.
Discussion
From the reading, it would appear that Huemer bases his arguments on a Utilitarian approach that would justify the satisfaction of pleasures (Huemer 142). Utilitarianism supports the position that an individual is free to make choices so long as these choices bring pleasure. Such reasoning often disagrees with consequentialism which argues that an action is best judged based on the consequences that follow.
In the case of drug use, much as individuals do have a natural right to act with their bodies as they please it may become difficult to agree with the author. This is because it is based on an assumption that an individual performing any action possesses an accurate knowledge of the consequences of the action (Shafer-Landau 306). Reports discussed later in this paper will help illustrate that based on the trends of many drug users’ knowledge may be inaccurate. Whereas he argues that anti-social behaviour related to drug use can occur even in the absence of drugs, we must also question whether the users are fully aware of the consequences of drug use.
To illustrate this further the discussion will present some facts about heroin for consideration. Whereas an individual is free to act as they please with their body their knowledge of what their action entails is likely to be inaccurate, in which case it may be justified to prevent them from the action (Shafer-Landau 306). Take the case of heroin which has been reported to have the highest ability to produce rapid dependence and addiction of the known opiate narcotics (Schwartz 1462).
Due to the highly reduced purity of the drug in the market, infrequent users can use the drug for long periods without developing an addiction (Schwartz 1462). If the prolonged use by other individuals is the basis for drug use, then the basis on which this prolonged use is possible must be clearly understood. This in turn leads to the question of how many people are privy to this information. These facts suggest a user may begin using heroin on the assumption that the drug is indeed not addictive which is very wrong. It is crucial to point out that these statistics were revealed in a study on heroin use among teenagers. This position implies in allowing the teens an opportunity to experiment they must be informed conclusively about the drugs with which they are experimenting.
However, still based on a consequential approach to ethics, it is sad to note that while recreational drugs continue to receive harsh judgment, more harmful drugs such as nicotine do not draw similar judgment (Huemer 135). The mode of judgment about nicotine has been skewed given that statistics clearly show the harmful consequences of the use of this drug (Huemer 135). As such it is possible to instead suggest a review of legislation to include nicotine in the list of banned substances based on the consequences of prolonged nicotine use.
Works Cited
Huemer, Michael. “America’s unjust drug War.” The New Prohibition (2004): 133-144. Print.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007. Print.
Schwartz, Richard, H. “Adolescent Heroin Use: A Review.” Paediatrics, 102 (2005): 1461-1466. Print.