Analysis Of Why Punish Drug Users At All? By Douglas Husak

The “war on drugs” in America has been a popular and controversial political topic of conversation since 1971 when President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse as an imminent threat to public health. President Ronald Reagan reinvigorated the topic in 1986 when he insisted there was a drug crisis in America; as a result, the number of people brought up on drug charges multiplied by ten during that time. However, in recent years the idea of drug decriminalization has gained ground. In the article, “Why Punish Drug Users at All?” Philosophy professor Douglas Husak suggests this may be necessary from a moral perspective, positing that punishing people as a means to condition them against an action violates their freedom of choice. With this
in mind, where is the line drawn between freedom of choice and the greater public safety; when do the needs of the many begin to truly outweigh the personal freedoms of the one?
Douglas Husak starts off by stating that there needs to be full decriminalization of drug use because it is unjust to punish people without a valid reason.
Drugs could only potentially harm the user, and even then, Husak references studies which state that Americans who use drugs have nearly the same health and life expectancy as those who do not. He also notes that punishment does not do much as a deterrent, because most drug users do not believe they will be caught, and in most case, are correct. This means that punishing people to deter the usage of drugs does not really benefit anyone. In fact, punishment for using drugs is often worse than any possible harm using drugs could cause. Husak states that criminal law and punishment should not be used in order to promote healthy and productive life. Although using recreational drugs is not considered healthy, each individual person should have the freedom to make that decision to use if they want. This certainly matches with the free-market libertarians view on decriminalization of
drugs.
There are several different positions when looking at the decriminalization of drugs and Erich Goode breaks each one down, along with their underlying ideology, in his article, “Strange Bedfellows: Ideology, Politics, and Drug Legalization.” Of these positions, the one most similar to Douglas Husak’s view point is that of the free-market libertarians, who want a laissez-faire approach to drugs, where anyone is free to use or not use drugs. Free-market libertarians want complete decriminalization, with each person taking responsibility for their own actions, meaning the government does not have the right to punish users because that would be interfering with someone else’s freedom. “The government has no right to intervene in the lives of its citizens, nor should the government set up controls or regulations that attempt to protect citizens from their own behavior.” (Szasz) Nonintervention is their biggest concern, because they believe the good to the majority will be largest when the government does not force or prevent citizens to do something against their will.
On the other side, however, are cultural conservatives who believe that we, as a country, have too much freedom and not enough self-control. Although they also believe that everyone is responsible for their own actions, they think that each action is a moral choice, and that as a society, we are moving more and more toward immoral behavior. However, when we cannot or will not make the steps toward moral behavior, then the government and the law must step in to restore order. Drug usage falls under these immoral behaviors. Cultural conservatives also believe that more money should be put into our justice system and that,
“Juveniles who commit violent crimes should be tried as adults; convicts should serve out at least half their sentences, and less parole should be granted; fewer cases should be dismissed on technicalities; less probation and fewer suspended sentences should be handed out; and so on.” (Goode)
Their solution is a return to traditional values with zero tolerance toward drug usage and the government’s help in enforcing such laws.
The issue with both of these positions is that each is too extreme. With free-market libertarians, there is the issue of too much freedom. If the people were given full autonomy, there would be no rules and no punishment, which could easily become anarchy. With the cultural conservatives, they are wanting everyone in society to conform to what they consider traditional values, under threat of the government. However, if people are being forced to do things against their will, their autonomy is being violated, and the people no longer have freedom of choice. There needs to be some sort of middle ground so that people are still given the freedom of choice, but that the government can still step in when necessary. For example, if drugs were to be decriminalized, then a new law could be set in place, stating that if while under the influence of drugs, a person caused another person harm, then they are to be arrested. Such laws could be similar to those about driving while intoxicated or under the influence. This way, if a drug user were to use cause harm to someone other than themselves, then they would be held responsible. Personally, I do agree with Douglas Husak that we should decriminalize drugs.
We are free agents after all, and we should be allowed to do as we please, so long as our actions do not cause harm to others. After all, we are not punished by the government for overeating, nicotine dependency, or alcoholism. I also believe that punishment should not be given out purely because we want someone to stop doing something. We are not animals to be trained, we are humans who are allowed to choose what we want to do with our life and threating prison time for drug usage is no different than keeping a dog outside because it jumped on the couch. Along with that, threatening punishment is not going to completely stop people from using drugs, just like threatening punishment has not stopped underage drinking. However, I would not consider myself a free-market libertarian, because I do believe the government should have the right to step in during certain cases. I do believe the state should have the right to control legalized drugs because it is certainly safer for users and sellers. Also, in cases when a drug user causes harm to another person while under the influence, the police should take the user into custody, or in cases when a user begins to abuse a substance, the police should be able to step in, but they should treat it as a medical matter. Out of Erich Goode’s positions, I would consider myself a progressive advocate of
legalization.
Although drugs are often thought to cause terrible consequences for users and those around them, should they really be illegal, assuming the user is only harming themselves? Punishing people for their drug usage has not proven very effect, as most do not believe they will get caught, and is usually more harmful for the user than the actual drug itself. Although drugs are certainly far from the traditional family values, users should not be punished for their use simply because of that. After all, we are free agents to do as we please. And if what one pleases is drugs, then they should be free to do so, without concern about the government’s interference.