Butts
Analytical Essay Outline
In "Against the legalization of Drugs", We've seen how James Q. Wilson says that Heroin and Cocaine should be kept illegal. Perhaps the strongest argument Wilson gives to support this claim, is that a government may rightly restrict an individual's liberty to prevent harm to others. Although this is in violation with an individual's freedom of thought and speech. In this paper, I will present two arguments from Kantian ethics and Douglas Husak that refute this idea, and further show that heroin and cocaine should not be kept illegal. Again in "Against the legalization of drugs", Wilson argues that drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, lead users to harm others in various indirect ways "The notion that abusing drugs such as cocaine is a "victimless crime" is not only absurd but dangerous" (p. 332). In Wilson, is referring to how drugs like cocaine and heroin can do lots of indirect damage to others. For example, cheat their employers of work, neglect their children, and waste their family's resources. So far this is good. However, Wilson also claims that keeping heroin and cocaine illegal contains the number of users, and so prevents a great number of harm. This is where I disagree. In Douglas Husak's, "Why we should decriminalize drug use", he argues against Wilson's claims. If frequency of drug use is a function of cost, then use will go up when as the cost goes down. and it is also true that economic models claim that cost will drop after decriminalization and would have an increase in use. But the predictions of cost and use after decriminalization assume that nothing else will change. However, many other things will change that could raise the price, reduce the use, and reduce the amount of harm that results from use. Therefore, the prediction of soaring use and harm is unsupported. Another argument Wilson makes, is that the government may rightly restrict individual liberty to prevent people from making
In "Against the legalization of Drugs", We've seen how James Q. Wilson says that Heroin and Cocaine should be kept illegal. Perhaps the strongest argument Wilson gives to support this claim, is that a government may rightly restrict an individual's liberty to prevent harm to others. Although this is in violation with an individual's freedom of thought and speech. In this paper, I will present two arguments from Kantian ethics and Douglas Husak that refute this idea, and further show that heroin and cocaine should not be kept illegal. Again in "Against the legalization of drugs", Wilson argues that drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, lead users to harm others in various indirect ways "The notion that abusing drugs such as cocaine is a "victimless crime" is not only absurd but dangerous" (p. 332). In Wilson, is referring to how drugs like cocaine and heroin can do lots of indirect damage to others. For example, cheat their employers of work, neglect their children, and waste their family's resources. So far this is good. However, Wilson also claims that keeping heroin and cocaine illegal contains the number of users, and so prevents a great number of harm. This is where I disagree. In Douglas Husak's, "Why we should decriminalize drug use", he argues against Wilson's claims. If frequency of drug use is a function of cost, then use will go up when as the cost goes down. and it is also true that economic models claim that cost will drop after decriminalization and would have an increase in use. But the predictions of cost and use after decriminalization assume that nothing else will change. However, many other things will change that could raise the price, reduce the use, and reduce the amount of harm that results from use. Therefore, the prediction of soaring use and harm is unsupported. Another argument Wilson makes, is that the government may rightly restrict individual liberty to prevent people from making