Against America's Drug War

Over the past four decades, drugs use remains a very serious problem in the US, even though the drug war has made these substances less accessible. There are a lot of supporting views for the motion that government should legalize drugs, the reasons being: to spend less on war drugs, to make drugs more accessible to people and scientists in need of drugs, to collect tax revenues, etc. Two well-known professors and authors, Michael Huemer and Gabor Maté, argue, in their articles, against America’s drug war with two different approaches. Even though some might agree on Huemer’s point of legalizing drugs on the basis of individual freedom, I noticed some claims that I believe are not moral to the Kantian and Utilitarian point of views. On the
Huemer makes a claim that, “a person has the right to use drugs because he has the right to exercise control over his own body … in a manner similar to the way one may exercise control over one’s property” (Huemer 424). He also asserts that there are some cases in which drug use does threaten others, which he agrees ought to be prohibited; however, in all other situations, drug use ought to be legally permitted (Huemer 416). Here, Huemer is arguing that possessing drugs should be legalized because one has the right to do whatever one wants to one’s body, if one’s action does not threaten others. Although I agree that everyone has human rights, his whole argument is not valid from a Kantian point of view. As stated by Kant, an action is morally acceptable if it can be universalized. Let us consider an example of Huemer’s argument: one has a car and one has the right to exercise control over one’s property. One can speed, drive slow, and stop in the middle of the street as out of interest as long as one does not threaten other drivers. Is it universalizable? It might be, in areas where there are not many cars on the streets. However, in big cities, if everyone does that, then the public safety would decrease. Therefore, the government decided to help the drivers by
He clearly notes that decriminalization does not mean legalization. Decriminalization refers only to allowing drugs possession for personal use that should be medically supervised when necessary (Mate 320). I agree with him on his idea of harm reduction for this reason: since drugs are illegal, the price of drugs rises due to scarcity. As a result, addicts will find ways to afford the drugs, even by buying impure drugs off the streets or sharing needles to save money. Certain drugs are not harmful when it is consumed with supervision. Legalizing the use of the certain drugs for medical treatment with supervision will not only reduce the risk of overdose and chemical impurities, but make it safer for them to consume their