Essay on Morality: Drug Legalization versus Drug Prohibition of Hard Drugs

Introduction

Is the human able to decide individually for what is right or wrong for either himself or herself and friends, family and the society at large or do humans need to be regulated? When drug use becomes the issue of contention between personal decision and regulation, this simple question takes a turn towards the complicated. There is so much involved in drugs and substance use and abuse. There is the obvious reward from using the drug (the high and the escapism), personal risks including health ramifications addiction, dependence, and withdrawal and so on, the effects on close friends, family and professional acquaintances all the way to possible effects on the economy. The topic of discussion, in this case, is not whether drug use is good or harmful to a person but rather if the personal choice should play a role over government regulation and vice versa. A philosophical approach to both arguments; for legalization and prohibition will be used.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In the article, "An Argument for Drug Prohibition" Peter de Marneffe argues out that if governments legalize the use of hard drugs such as heroin, people will go overboard and be worse off than ever. On the other hand on the article "Drug Prohibition is Both Wrong and Unworkable," Tibor Machan argues out that the prohibition of drugs such as heroin is the reason people seek hard drugs in the first place and re-legalization of these drugs would have the opposite effect. In reading through both articles, I got the general arguments that both authors had. Peter de Marneffe is concerned about the greater good and argues out using utilitarianism ethics to support regulation of hard drugs. Tibor Machan sides with universal ethics and specifically the innate personal decision-making ability that the "self" is naturally endowed with as argued out by John Locke.

Hypothetically speaking let us assume that heroine was legalized just yesterday. I would want to take a sniff of it just to experience how it feels. Once I get to know the feeling of being high on heroin, I would remember the feeling and describe it to my friends. Since I only wanted a taste of how heroin feels, I would make the first try the last one also. I think this hypothetical example is how Machan saw how personal choice would be effective in the use of hard drugs. However, in my experimental consumption of heroin, I might overlook the fact that heroin is a very addictive substance. There is a myth that has long been going around in social circles that heroin addiction can set in immediately after using it for the first time. First-time addiction to heroin may be a myth but continued use within a short span of time may cause cravings for the drug, and more use leads to dependence and addiction.

Heroin has an instant effect on the brain; it brings about feelings of euphoria and general well-being. The high of heroin is very dangerous especially for addicts who use it to get away from reality. However, with more use, the body's tolerance levels go up, and for the same effect, one has to use more of the heroin. The legalization of heroin would have to be followed by relevant policies and laws governing its use such as a sale in legal chemists, in very small doses and routine check-ups for the users to ensure that the substance is not harming them. The suggestions are of course theoretical, and there are expected to be challenges such as the black market providing the substance at a much more affordable cost compared to over-the-counter buying. The government would have to put special measures to clamp down the operations of the black market. Fighting organized crime is much harder in practice, but at least legalization would make organized crime syndicates to follow suit and go legal.

If a father or mother starts using heroin and gets addicted, he or she may neglect her children, choosing to satisfy the urge for a sniff of heroin instead. Marneffe claims that children and adolescents need attentive parents because, at these stages of life, growth and development is delicate and has a life-long impact on their quality of life as adults. Also, Marneffe would argue that reverse psychology may work for children but adults (and parents) may not trick themselves that easily. Tibor Machan argues that legalization of heroin would make people not care much about it. Hence, Machan uses reverse psychology by seemingly encouraging people to use hard drugs to discourage them.

Reverse psychology works especially for children for example if a parent tells a six-year-old not to read his nine-year-old sister's storybook, most likely he will read it enthusiastically to find out what his father does not want him to know. However, the six-year-old does not know that his father wanted him to read the book all along and knew that telling a child to do something he would rather not be less effective. Peter de Marneffe would counter-argue against Tibor Machan's reverse psychology by saying that while it is effective for getting children to do the opposite because, at that young age, they are naturally curious, the same effects for a twenty-one-year-old is highly unlikely. Peter de Marneffe would say that legalizing hard drugs is the same as telling people that it is alright to use a drug which is a false claim. There are obvious effects of drug dependence which include neglect of family and professional responsibilities and the risk to personal health (heart attack, stroke or even death) among others.

Marneffe argues that due to the euphoria and feelings of happiness brought about by heroin use, legalization of the drug would increase the use of it, opposite to the expectations of reverse psychology. Machan would concede that indeed some hard drugs such as heroin have special properties; hence requiring special attention. The government could put in stronger policies, more stern warnings on the packet labels and educating the public more on the effects of heroin, the risks of buying from the black market, protection from children and adolescents and so on. Marneffe would counter-act this argument by asking how children and adolescents would be protected from using hard drugs which are now easier. Teenagers under the age of 18 sometimes go to strip clubs and adult sex clubs using fake identification cards which show that they are of legal age. A better example is when sixteen-year-olds buy alcohol using fake IDs or identification cards belonging to older relatives. If this can happen in the case of alcohol, what makes it impossible for the case of heroin, cocaine or marijuana?

Machan may add "protecting children and teenagers from the adverse effects of the adults using hard drugs" on the part of his article titled "Private Prohibitions." Where drugs such as heroin and cocaine are legal, private prohibition means that any use of such drugs on or near premises such as schools, residential areas, playgrounds, family-themed places such as amusement parks and cinemas is considered a criminal offense and the offender will be liable. Marneffe would probably argue that schools and homes occupy a special place; teachers and parents have to set a good example. Machan may have to concede Marneffe's point and revise private prohibitions to include restrictions placed on parents and teachers because they have to be good role models to their children. Maybe parents and teachers can use these drugs only on special occasions where the children are not nearby.

Marneffe claims that legalization of drugs is not only complex and unnecessary but costly and irresponsible. Marneffe would point out that hard drugs are addictive and expensive. Machan would again concede and add that people have to be responsible in deciding whether to use the drug, how much of it to use, where and other considerations. Cartels in countries like Colombia and Afghanistan make billions of dollars every year from cocaine and heroin trade. Machan addresses this fact by proposing that the governments could be involved in the production of these drugs. Can you imagine the public outcry of the government started producing cocaine or heroin?

Conclusion

In conclusion, governments all over the world have tried unsuccessfully for decades to stop the illegal drug industry. Machan argues that if the government that if the government is involved in the industry, it would be easier to manage the use of illicit drugs. Marneffe notes that legalizing drugs would be as expensive if not more expensive than fighting the illegal drugs trade. Both of them make a good argument, but in the end, it is hard to imagine a world where heroin and cocaine are legal because of the addictive nature of the drugs and the fact users tend to avoid responsibility. Following Machan's argument it is possible, but realistically, seeing how governments are inclined to control their subjects, it is not practical.