Wilson "Against the Legalization of Drugs"

1972 National Advisory Council for Drug Abuse Prevention enacted laws that made heroine more costly to use: higher price, harder to find, poorer quality, more risk of punishment.

Crack cocaine is a more recent and pressing problem: It is highly addictive; addict's behavior can be uninhibited and violent; addict will pursue drug to the exclusion of other considerations; children born to women on crack can have serious medical problems.

Friedman's arguments that drugs should be legalized involve the following claims:

The government has no right to tell people not to use drugs.

It cost's more to prohibit drug use than to allow it.

Costs of drug use:

Harms to individuals -- addiction, destructive behavior. Using drugs is harmful to physical and mental health, well being, ability to make rational choices, autonomy.

Drug addiction is dehumanizing and can cause premature death.

Harms to society -- Burden on health care system, public safety on roads, etc.

Connection to crime:

Addicts steal to pay for drugs (they don't make good employees)

Some drugs lead to irrational, violent behavior.

Organized crime is involved in drug trade.

Pro-Drug Legalization and Anti-Drug Legalization Debate:

Pro-DL:

• If drugs were legal, they wouldn't be on the black market, and they wouldn't be tied to organized crime.
• If drug providers didn't have to avoid the law, drugs would be less expensive.
• If drugs were less expensive, addicts wouldn't need to get so much money to pay for them.
• If addicts didn't need so much money, they wouldn't have to steal to get drugs.
• Therefore, if drugs were legal, there would be less crime.

Anti-DL:

• There would be more social problems, health problems, people unable to work, and theft.

Pro-DL:

• We could tax drugs to pay for treatment programs, welfare, and education.

Anti-DL:

• But then drugs would cost more, drug addicts would steal to get them, and a black market for cheaper drugs would be likely.

Wilson's conclusion: The cost of the war on drugs is substantial, but not so great as the cost of legalizing drugs.

John Stuart Mill On Liberty -- "Freedom of Action"

Paternalism --

The Harm Principle --

You can not justify restricting someone's freedom simply because

it would be better for him

it would be wise

it would be deemed immoral by society

What are the benefits of following the Harm Principle

To the individual?

To the society as a whole?

What costs are avoided by following the Harm Principle?

Mill's conclusion: Humanity gains more by permitting freedom of action than it would by being paternalistic.