Bennet argues that legalizing drugs, reducing their cost, and minimizing risks associated with underground drug manufacture will eventually lead to addiction. He backs his argument with a refutation of Friedman’s comparison of drugs to alcohol during the Prohibition Era. Bennet presents statistical data: after the alcohol ban was lifted, its consumption rose to 350 percent; a similar pattern would happen to drug use. Eventually, this jump would lead to more hospitalizations linked to overdoses and addiction.
Bennet rebuts the supposed positive effect of drug legalization on the crime rate in the US. He presents the argument that most crimes are committed before the criminal has started consuming drugs (Boström et al., 2019, p.12). He furthers his thought by claiming that although drugs do increase the probability of breaking the law, this pattern mainly applies to those involved in crime all along.
Bennett responds to Friedman’s argument on treating drug users rather than punishing them: he claims that people with addiction will not be able to get treated unless they want it. This could be considered a rebuttal rather than a refutation on Bennet’s part. The argumentation presented is subjective and is backed by Bennet’s political opinion. He provides the audience with an alternative view on the matter.
Bennett rebuts Friedman’s point that drug addicts only harm themselves, so drug legalization would be advantageous by showing casualties among children who fell victims to drug addicts under the influence. The point on possible dangers for pregnant women is also presented to show how urgent the issue is. Bennet claims that the legalization of drugs might lead to a modern form of slavery that would disable people from living good lives without an addiction clouding their judgment.
References
Boström, M., Micheletti, M., & Oosterveer, P. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford University Press.