Lectures 20 and 21 The Non- Medical Use of Drugs, Paternalism and Autonomy
Lecture 20
Autonomy, Paternalism, and the Non- Medical Use of Drugs I
In all things there is a poison, and there is nothing without a poison. It depends only on the dose whether a substance is poison or not.
Paracelsus
20.1 References for this lecture
Milton Friedman, “An Open Letter to Bill Bennett,” in The Wall Street Journal, September
7th, 1989, A14. In Rachels, ed. The Right Thing to Do pp.248-252
William J. Bennett, “A Response to Milton Friedman,” in The Wall Street Journal,
September 7th, 1989.
Gerald Dworkin “Paternalism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism
John Christman “Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy,” in The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/
The World Health Organization
www.who.int/substance-abuse/facts/psychoactives/en/index.html
National Institute of Drug Abuse
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html
http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/Infofacts/Heroin06.pdf
National Institute on Drugs
http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/RRMarijuana.pdf
National Institute on Aging
http://www.niapublications.org/agepages/alcohol.asp
Geoffrey Stokes, Peter Chalk, Karen Gillen, eds. Drugs and Democracy: In Search of New
Directions Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000.
Roderick Seeman’s JapanLaw.info
http://www.japanlaw.info/law2003/2003_SEX_LAWS.html
Greater Dallas council on alcohol and drug use
http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/alcohol.htm
Narconon Southern California
http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/alcohol.htm
20.2 Preliminary Discussion Questions
1). What are some lethal, but enjoyable activities?
2). Which ones are legal, and which ones are illegal, in Japan?
3). Which ones, presently legal, do you think should be illegal?
4). Which ones have an age limit? Is the age limit appropriate, do you think? Or is it
too low?
5). What does the word ‘drug’ mean?
6). What is the non- legal distinction between legal and illegal drugs?
20.3 General Introduction: Drugs, Paternalism and Autonomy
We can speak of roughly two basic principles in public policy- the principles of paternalism and autonomy. Broadly speaking, a paternalistic approach to policy treats the populace as a father treats his children; the people are considered too uninformed or irrational to decide for themselves, and the State must decide for them what is acceptable or safe conduct. Legislation that respects autonomy, on the other hand, allows people to make their own decisions. Legislation concerning drugs, in most countries, are a mixture of the two approaches. Here we will consider the debate on drugs, which is largely intelligible in terms of paternalism vs. autonomy. In particular, we will consider Milton Friedman’s view that all drugs should be legalized, and William J. Bennet’s view that illegal drugs (note that he does not suggest banning tobacco or alcohol) should remain illegal.
As far as philosophy goes, there is not a lot of fancy debating to really do here. The problem is really down to questions of science (how dangerous are the drugs in question?), sociology (what are the social consequences of banning, or legalizing drugs?) and economics (what are the costs of banning, or legalizing, drugs?). The first lecture will go over a). the autonomy vs. paternalism divide, b). the basic facts relevant to the debate, and c). what the various moral positions and approaches (Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Social Contract, Paternalism, respect for Autonomy) imply concerning drug legislation. The second lecture will concern the specifics of the Friedman vs. Bennet debate (Rachels The Right Thing to Do: pp.248-254). This latter lecture will be mostly concerned with analysing arguments, rather than the debate in general.
20.4 Paternalism
“Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and justified by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected against harm.” (Gerald Dworkin, “Paternalism”). Examples of paternalism: seatbelt and crash- helmet laws, anti- drug legislation, and, in the medical context, withholding of relevant information about an illness or treatment, or forcing the patient to take some medication or accept some treatment against their will. People may be prevented from engaging in paid employment (pornography, prostitution, or being “thrown,” in the bizarre ‘sport’ of ‘dwarf- tossing’) that is considered degrading. The basic philosophical and political question is: what powers should the state have to coerce its citizens? And what are the limits of autonomy?
One of the implications of a paternalistic approach is that it is assumed that the subject is not rational. If the subject is not rational, then (assuming a Kantian approach) they are not morally responsible for doing stupid things, such as riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or taking dangerous drugs. On the contrary, a paternalistic approach would seem to require that drug- users are merely foolish, and should be helped to see the error of their decisions. Retributive punishment would appear to be inappropriate.
20.5 Autonomy
Individual autonomy is [the idea that one should have the capacity] to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces… to be autonomous is to be one’s own person, to be directed by considerations, desires, conditions, and characteristics that are not simply imposed on one, but are part of what can be somehow be considered one’s authentic self. (John Christman “Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy”)
Advocates of drug law reform argue, in the words of Bill Hicks, “it’s not a war on drugs. It’s a war on personal freedom.”
20.6 A Possible Reply: Using Dangerous Drugs is Similar to Selling Yourself into Slavery
…one might prevent people from taking mind-destroying drugs on the grounds that allowing them to do so destroys their autonomy and preventing them from doing so preserves it. This is essentially Mill’s argument [and Kant’s] against allowing people to contract [sell themselves] into slavery. (Dworkin. “Paternalism.”)
Discussion: To what extent do drugs (legal, or illegal) or other activities (gambling, computer games) impair autonomy? Can the state coherently respect autonomy by banning some activities that impair autonomy?
20.8 What does the term ‘drug’ mean?
A drug is any substance that is ingested for non- dietary (food) needs. That is, it is a substance that will cause some effect besides nourishing the organism, whether a mental or a physical effect. The body will produce its own bio- chemicals, such as hormones, that cause changes in the body and mind, so the distinction between drugs and internal chemicals is a little artificial. Insulin, if produced by the body, is a hormone, but if it is external to the body, it is a drug. Drugs used to alter consciousness, that is, psychoactive drugs, work because of this similarity between brain chemistry and the chemistry of the drug.
Why are psychoactive drugs philosophically interesting?
As such, psychoactive drugs are philosophically interesting in a deep way, as they appear to prove that materialism is true. That is, if a physical, chemical change in the body can alter consciousness, this proves that the mind is in a deep sense dependent on the body to exist. Philosophers and others interested in this subject: Jean- Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, Henry James, Humphrey Osmond, Lewis Carroll, Aldus Huxley, Phillip K. Dick.
Here’s what Immanuel Kant has to say on the effects of tobacco:
There is [in our senses of smell and taste] …a susceptibility to certain objects of external sensations which are merely subjective and operate upon the organs of smelling and tasting by a stimulus which is neither smell nor taste…. Apart from any consideration of any medical benefit or injury, which may result from the secretion of fluid in the organs of both senses, this craving is, as a mere excitation of the sense- feeling, an oft- repeated stimulus recollecting attention to one’s own state of mind, which would otherwise lull to sleep or become boring through sameness and monotony. Instead, these means of stimulation always intensify the feeling of the senses as the doses are administered. This kind of familiarity of a man with himself takes the place of fellowship, because in place of conversation it fills an emptiness of time not with conversation but with continuous newly excited and quickly vanishing sensations that have to be renewed as stimuli time and again. (Immanuel Kant Anthropology form a Pragmatic Point of View, 49,7:160-1).
20.7 Prohibition in the United States:
Whisky and beer have their place, but their place is in hell.
Billy Sunday, Prohibitionist
Friedman and Bennett both mention the Prohibition Era, which is central to the current debate on drugs, but which neither author explains. What the Prohibition period was, why it happened, and why it was scrapped are important questions that shed some light on the argument in favour of decriminalizing illegal drugs.
a). What was Prohibition?
Prohibition (capital ‘P’) was the era in the United States when all alcohol sales were banned.
The first anti- alcohol laws were enacted in 1851. By 1893, political groups whose main agenda was to stamp out alcohol, had emerged. From 1920 until 1933, all alcohol was effectively banned from sale.
b). Why was it enacted?
The idea originated with predominantly middle- class Protestant Christian groups (the Catholics opposed the ban). The reasoning was straightforward welfare paternalism: society would be better off without ‘demon rum.’ Employers were concerned that their workers were too drunk. 33 states had banned alcohol sales completely by 1920.
c). Why did it fail?
Public Health
People obtained ‘medicinal’ alcohol (which was still legal) with forged prescriptions, or drank industrial alcohol that had had the poison removed. Illegal manufacturers produced “rotgut” alcohol, which was often toxic. In 1923 coroners reported that one hundred people had died from drinking poisonous, illegal alcohol.
The Creation of Organized Crime Syndicates
America’s Organized crime syndicates- the Mafia and so on, were created by the prohibition of alcohol. Illegal importers (‘bootleggers’) imported alcohol in from Canada and Mexico.
Because of the complexity of the operations, the bootleggers quickly organized themselves into alliances and cartels that could control their activities. Law and order began to break down as corruption spread virus-like into public life. In a famous trial in Indiana in 1923, it was revealed that protection monies were paid to: "the mayor, the sheriff, a judge of the city court, the prosecuting attorney for the county, a former sheriff, a former prosecuting attorney, a deputy sergeant, a justice of the peace, an influential lawyer, and former deputy sheriffs, detectives, policemen, petty lawyers, bartenders, cabaret singers and notorious women." As the cartels grew, and gang rivalry diminished, so the power and profits were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Al Capone's annual earnings were estimated at the time of his arrest to be $60 million. When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, an elaborate syndicate of organized crime, built on the multi-million dollar bootlegging industry, had survived. The American Mafia branched out into narcotics, gambling, prostitution, loan sharking and extortion, concerns they still control today. How much power and influence, financial or political, this phenomenal industry now wields is unthinkable, and unknowable, except by those in charge.
http://www.ephidrina.org/alcohol/prohibition.html
The ban on alcohol was lifted because it was creating crime on a scale that was so vast, it posed a threat to law and order.
20.9 How destructive are drugs?
The entire debate on drugs is due to the fact that illegal drugs are extremely dangerous. They are dangerous in two ways. Firstly, illegal drugs can kill through causing diseases, or (in the case of heroin and AIDS) acting as a vector (‘pathway’) for a disease, through death outright (in an ‘overdose,’ or excessive dose), or in the case of psychedelic drugs, through causing irrational and delusional behaviour, psychosis, or, more subtly, causing sometimes extreme changes in personality and worldview. Suicides apparently caused by psychedelic drug use are known. On the outset, it seems to make good sense to keep such substances illegal. So why do people disagree?
There are two problems that should be clarified before we approach the Friedman- Bennett debate, as they are central to understanding their disagreement.
a). On what grounds should a state ban dangerous activities?
b). Some illegal drugs are less dangerous than some legal drugs. We have, argue many, an inconsistency problem.
Here are some basic facts on drugs, both illegal and legal.
Tobacco:
Diseases caused by:
Number of people killed: Tobacco kills half of all lifetime users. From the World Health Organization website: “Tobacco kills more than AIDS, legal drugs, illegal drugs, road accidents, murder, and suicide combined…of everyone alive today, 500,000,000 will die of tobacco.”
Psychological effects: Improves short term memory and relieves stress.
Heroin:
Diseases/ dangers: fatal overdose, collapsed veins, also risk of infection with another drug through needle- sharing (HIV/AIDS), hepatitis. Street heroin also is full of impurities which makes it far more dangerous than pure heroin. It does not actually cause any disease besides heroin addiction.
Psychological effects: Physical addiction causes extreme distress when the drug is not available. (This can begin only a few hours after the last injection). Withdrawal produces craving, restlessness, muscle and bone pain, insomnia, vomiting, diarrhea, cold flashes and goose bumps, an kicking movements. Sudden withdrawal by unhealthy addicts can be fatal. (Heroin withdrawal is considered less dangerous than barbiturate or alcohol withdrawal).
Number of users: 9 million worldwide. (4% of the world’s population).
1.2 million occasional users in the USA.
Cost of maintaining a heroin addiction in the US: 150-200$ a day. (that’s 23,568 yen- or 8,602,320 yen per year).
Number of heroin- induced deaths in the USA in 1999:4,820
Alcohol:
Psychological problems: Impairs judgment, coordination, and reaction time, increases the chances of accidents, including falls; adds to the risk of car crashes. Alcoholism can lead to conflicts with family, friends, coworkers, and strangers.
Medical problems: Heavy drinking can cause cancer, liver cirrhosis, immune system disorders, brain damage. Drinking can make older people forgetful and confused.
Number of people killed: (USA)
More than 100,000 U.S. deaths are caused by excessive alcohol consumption each year. Direct and indirect causes of death include drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, falls, cancer, and stroke
Traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death for persons aged 6–33. About 45% of these fatalities are in alcohol-related crashes
Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined
Marijuana:
Number of users world wide: 147 million people -2.5% of the world’s population.
An estimated 2.6 million Americans use marijuana for the first time each year. According to a 2003 national survey, 94 million Americans (40 per cent of the population) have used marijuana at least once.
Number of people killed, worldwide, in history, (estimate): 0.
It is not possible to overdose.
Psychological problems: Impairs cognitive (intellectual) development in younger people; impairs coordination for up to a day after smoking. Chronic use is thought to lead to addiction. It may also make schizophrenia worse.
Physical problems: chronic use can cause airway and lung damage. It is thought to perhaps be linked to cancer.
Medical applications: antidepressant, treatment of asthma and glaucoma, appetite stimulant, anticonvulsant, anti- spasmodic, alleviation of nausea.
Sources:
World Health Organization
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Discussion Questions:
Should tobacco products be banned in Japan?
a). What is a Utilitarian reason for such a ban?
b). What is a Utilitarian reason against such a ban?
c). What would a Social Contract theorist say, on this question?
d). What would a Kantian say, on this question?
e). What would a Virtue Ethicist say about the use of tobacco?
f). What would a Cultural Relativist say about the use of tobacco?
g). If people selling tobacco illegally (that is, after it is banned) are punished, what sort of
theory of punishment would be appropriate- retributive, or rehabilitative?
h). If people caught with tobacco for personal use were punished, what sort of theory
of punishment would be appropriate- retributive, or rehabilitative?
i). If tobacco were banned, would the penalties be as harsh as those for possessing
marijuana and heroin, or lighter? Or the same? Why?
.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
You need to know what the terms Autonomy and Paternalism are.
You need to know what the non- arbitrary distinction is between legal and illegal drugs is, or, if there isn’t one, why not.
You need to know what Prohibition in the United States was, and why it failed.
Homework:
Please decide which of the following topics you would like to cover in the last lecture.
Environmental Ethics
Just War Theory
Homosexuality
Animal Rights
Sexism
Racism
(These are all covered in the Rachels text).
Lecture 21
The Non-Medical Use of Drugs II
Friedman vs. Bennett
21.1 References for this lecture
This lecture will be largely concerned with analyzing the arguments in the letters written by Milton Friedman and William J. Bennett.
21.2 Preliminary discussion questions
21.3 James Rachels’ Gloss
In introducing the two letters by Friedman and Bennett, Rachels cites the following statistics:
1). The United States of America has a massive prison population, six times greater than that of any Western European nation. One in six Americans will serve jail time. Rachels notes that this is a direct consequence of the so- called “War on Drugs”: in 1999, 61% of those in jail are there due to drugs charges.
2). Rachels notes also that there is a particularly racial element to this incarceration: 28% of black men will be incarcerated at some point in their lives (he does not, however, say that those 28% will be in jail due to drugs charges).
3). Rachels notes that the “War on Drugs” cost 19.2 billion dollars in 1999, yet in the same year Americans spent 30 billion dollars on (assumedly) illegal drugs.
Discussion questions:
a). How are these figures relevant to the debate on legalizing drugs?
b). What type of moral philosophy is being assumed here?
c). What are some of the problems of this type of moral philosophy?
d). Are these problems (in your answer to question c). relevant to the drugs debate?
21.4 Milton Friedman: The Question of Personal Freedom
Friedman begins the letter with the following line:
The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish. (RTTD:249).
Questions:
a). What tactics does Friedman mean?
b). Friedman evokes the principles of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom.’ What sort of ethical theory is he presupposing, do you think?
21.5 “The War of Drugs is Making the Situation Worse” Argument.
Friedman makes the following claim (RTTD: 249).
The very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore.
What does this mean? It means that the methods used in the United States to control drug use are in fact making the situation worse, and harming society. (Remember the divide between the criminology of Beccaria and Kant. For Beccaria, the justice system is simply a tool for making society happier. For Kant, the Justice System is merely a tool to punish bad people. Which side does Friedman support, do you think? )
How, according to Friedman, do the strategies used in the US to control drug use make the problem worse?
21.5a Illegality creates Profits
As mentioned above, the amount of money spent on fighting the drug problem is already very high, but cannot match the amount of money spent by people on illegal drugs. The better the police control of supply, the rarer the drugs, the higher the price. It is the same principle with rare paintings or coins. An article in The Economist last year put it in these terms: cocaine is so profitable that, were a drug dealer to buy a Learjet, use it to ship a load of cocaine, and then dump the jet, it would only take a 5% increase in the sale of the cocaine to cover the loss. (A secondhand Learjet costs between 500,000 and a million dollars U.S). Drug dealers are reportedly using submarines purchased from the Russians to make shipments.
21.5bi Profits increase organized crime
When Prohibition ended, organized crime dropped by half. Banning drugs creates enormous black markets, and criminal groups generate capital used in other crimes.
21.bi.i Profits create ‘Narco-terrorism’
(Not in Friedman). Heroin is frequently used by terrorist or guerilla groups to generate wealth quickly. Afghanistan is the world’s largest supplier of heroin and opium, and the economy is largely based on drug manufacture. So long as heroin is illegal, the profits will always be high enough for the terrorists/ liberators to buy more weapons to fight the Americans with.
21.5c The War on Drugs draws police resources away from ‘simpler’ (more serious?) crime prevention
“illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.” p.249.
To argue against this claim, we would have to bite the bullet and agree that smoking or selling marihuana is just as great a crime as robbery, theft, assault, or rape.
Punishment in Japan for illegal drug possession: 1-3 years with heavy labour, fine of up to 5,000,000 yen.
Punishment in Japan for assault: 1-2 years in prison; 100,000- 500,000 yen fine
Punishment in Japan for rape: 2 years maximum
Punishment in Japan for robbery: 5 years maximum
Discussion: What do you think?
21.5d The War on Drugs corrupts the police force
“Illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials” p.249.
Just one recent example-
CNN Law Center, “Drug Bust leads to Huge Police Corruption Probe.”
November 3rd, 2006.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/02/sheriff.indictment/index.html
21.5e Making Drugs Illegal makes them Glamorous and more attractive to young people
This argument has been used by others concerning the proposed ban on tobacco.
(Is this plausible, do you think?)
21.5f The Illegality of Drugs makes the drugs less pure, less reliable, and hence more dangerous
If you gave even a seasoned junkie (heroin addict) a syringe of pure heroin, they’d probably die. Why? Because the purity of heroin now is down to 5%. The impurities in street product make it far more dangerous than pure heroin, as pure heroin would be too powerful for the user to handle. Friedman notes that ‘crack’ cocaine was invented because it was more profitable and easier to smuggle than ordinary cocaine. Recall that this happened during prohibition in the US. Arguably, if tobacco was made illegal, the same thing would happen.
Note:
“drugs are a tragedy for addicts…” p. 250.
Friedrich Nietzsche Jean- Paul Sartre Sigmund Freud Aldous Huxley
Dennis Hopper Jack Nicholson Ken Kesey
Louis Blériot Lou Reed David Bowie Mati Klarwein
Phillip K. Dick John Lennon Paul McCartney George Harrison
Syd Barrett Eric Clapton Vincent Van Gogh Oscar Wilde Michel Foucault
Henry James Jimmy Hendrix Jim Morrison Graham Greene Bob Marley
Charles Baudelaire Ernst Fuchs Henri Michaux Bill Hicks Anais Nïn
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
21.6 What is the alternative to treating drugs as a criminal problem?
Holland, Mexico, and other countries treat drug use as a medical issue, rather than a criminal one. The World Health Organization notes that one dollar spent on education and prevention does the work of seven dollars spent on legal and punitive measures. This is Friedman’s suggestion.
…even if a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic (TRTTD:250).
Discussion: What is the moral principle that Friedman is adhering to here?
Is the reasoning sound, do you think?
21.7 The War on Drugs: Critique of Methods Used.
A country in which shooting down unidentified planes “on suspicion” can be seriously considered as a drug- war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations (TRTTD: 251).
What is Friedman talking about?
When the Peruvian air force shot down a civilian Cessna last week, killing missionary Veronica Bowers and infant daughter Charity, it was the CIA-contracted crew of a U.S. surveillance plane who had tagged the tiny craft as a suspected drug carrier. This so-called "liberal shoot-down policy" would never be tolerated in this country, but it's been part of U.S. policy in Latin America for years. In fact, military forces there, aided by the U.S., have "forced down" over 120 planes suspected of transporting drugs, according to the 1999 congressional testimony of General Charles Wilhelm.
JoAnn Kawell “Drug Plane Shoot-Down Policy In Latin America,” International Relations Center
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0105shootdown.html
21.7 William J. Bennett: Counterarguments
Bennett understands Friedman to be making the following claim.
Prohibition is an attempted cure that makes matters worse.
There’s an interesting aspect to this debate: Friedman is an economist, and Bennett used to be a university philosopher. Yet Friedman has better arguments. In fact, Bennett uses some sneaky rhetoric.
21.8 The Proposed Solution is No Solution
First example: the argument for legalizing illegal drugs has been “revived by a small number of journalists and academics who insist that the only solution is no solution at all.”
point 1. A “small number” of people advocate legalizing drugs.
- is this true? Just a small number?
-is it relevant that only a small number hold this view?
point 2. Bennett states that Friedman’s solution is “no solution at all.” Is that accurate?
(Clue: are there laws concerning legal drugs?)
21.9 Legal Availability leads to Mass Addiction
“Addiction is rampant in peasants involved in drug addiction.”
Is wine legal in France? Does Japan produce sake?
21.10 Legalizing drugs will cause harm
Drug legalization will lead to lost productivity, health insurance costs, hospitals “flooded” with overdoses, and more drug caused accidents.
Discussion:
a). What type of moral reasoning is being used here?
b). how many people each year in Japan are admitted into hospital due to overdoses on
marijuana?
c). Is this a good argument?
d). If this argument is sound, shouldn’t we make tobacco illegal?
21.11 Drug users will not seek treatment unless they are forced to.
Bennett writes:
But the simple fact remains that many drug users won’t enter treatment unless they are forced to- often by the very criminal justice system you think is the source of the problem. (p.253).
The argument is this: the laws against drugs are necessary, as they allow the courts to force drug users into therapy.
Question: Under the current laws, for which merely possessing heroin is a serious crime, what risks does a heroin addict face in going to a health clinic voluntarily?
Again, which is better- treating the heroin addict as a patient who needs help, or as a criminal?
21.12 Drug reform may reduce crime, but it will not disappear.
Your proposal might conceivably reduce the amount of gang- and dealer- related crime, but it is fanciful to suggest that it would make crime vanish. (p.253).
21.13 Drug reform would harm children and pregnant mothers
And as for the potential addicts, for the school children and for the pregnant mothers, all of whom would find drugs more accessible and legally condoned, your proposal would offer nothing at all.
What is the argument here?
21.14 Conclusion: more police and more prisons
Bennett concludes his letter by arguing for more police involvement and harsher measures, to “take drug users off the streets.” Why? “I believe drug use is wrong,” and “a true friend of freedom understands that government has a responsibility to craft and uphold laws that help educate citizens about right and wrong.”
-Do all immoral things have to be made illegal? Could there be examples where an immoral act is best not punished by the law? Why not?
-The conclusion is that “drug use is wrong.” Assuming that tobacco and alcohol are dangerous drugs, do you think that Bennett, to be consistent, should advocate prohibition all over again?
-Would that be a good idea? Why, or why not?
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
You need to know the strongest arguments presented by Milton Friedman and Bob Bennett, and how each would reply. You need to be able to defend your view on dangerous drugs, whether legal or illegal.
Autonomy, Paternalism, and the Non- Medical Use of Drugs I
In all things there is a poison, and there is nothing without a poison. It depends only on the dose whether a substance is poison or not.
Paracelsus
20.1 References for this lecture
Milton Friedman, “An Open Letter to Bill Bennett,” in The Wall Street Journal, September
7th, 1989, A14. In Rachels, ed. The Right Thing to Do pp.248-252
William J. Bennett, “A Response to Milton Friedman,” in The Wall Street Journal,
September 7th, 1989.
Gerald Dworkin “Paternalism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism
John Christman “Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy,” in The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/
The World Health Organization
www.who.int/substance-abuse/facts/psychoactives/en/index.html
National Institute of Drug Abuse
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html
http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/Infofacts/Heroin06.pdf
National Institute on Drugs
http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/RRMarijuana.pdf
National Institute on Aging
http://www.niapublications.org/agepages/alcohol.asp
Geoffrey Stokes, Peter Chalk, Karen Gillen, eds. Drugs and Democracy: In Search of New
Directions Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000.
Roderick Seeman’s JapanLaw.info
http://www.japanlaw.info/law2003/2003_SEX_LAWS.html
Greater Dallas council on alcohol and drug use
http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/alcohol.htm
Narconon Southern California
http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/alcohol.htm
20.2 Preliminary Discussion Questions
1). What are some lethal, but enjoyable activities?
2). Which ones are legal, and which ones are illegal, in Japan?
3). Which ones, presently legal, do you think should be illegal?
4). Which ones have an age limit? Is the age limit appropriate, do you think? Or is it
too low?
5). What does the word ‘drug’ mean?
6). What is the non- legal distinction between legal and illegal drugs?
20.3 General Introduction: Drugs, Paternalism and Autonomy
We can speak of roughly two basic principles in public policy- the principles of paternalism and autonomy. Broadly speaking, a paternalistic approach to policy treats the populace as a father treats his children; the people are considered too uninformed or irrational to decide for themselves, and the State must decide for them what is acceptable or safe conduct. Legislation that respects autonomy, on the other hand, allows people to make their own decisions. Legislation concerning drugs, in most countries, are a mixture of the two approaches. Here we will consider the debate on drugs, which is largely intelligible in terms of paternalism vs. autonomy. In particular, we will consider Milton Friedman’s view that all drugs should be legalized, and William J. Bennet’s view that illegal drugs (note that he does not suggest banning tobacco or alcohol) should remain illegal.
As far as philosophy goes, there is not a lot of fancy debating to really do here. The problem is really down to questions of science (how dangerous are the drugs in question?), sociology (what are the social consequences of banning, or legalizing drugs?) and economics (what are the costs of banning, or legalizing, drugs?). The first lecture will go over a). the autonomy vs. paternalism divide, b). the basic facts relevant to the debate, and c). what the various moral positions and approaches (Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Social Contract, Paternalism, respect for Autonomy) imply concerning drug legislation. The second lecture will concern the specifics of the Friedman vs. Bennet debate (Rachels The Right Thing to Do: pp.248-254). This latter lecture will be mostly concerned with analysing arguments, rather than the debate in general.
20.4 Paternalism
“Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and justified by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected against harm.” (Gerald Dworkin, “Paternalism”). Examples of paternalism: seatbelt and crash- helmet laws, anti- drug legislation, and, in the medical context, withholding of relevant information about an illness or treatment, or forcing the patient to take some medication or accept some treatment against their will. People may be prevented from engaging in paid employment (pornography, prostitution, or being “thrown,” in the bizarre ‘sport’ of ‘dwarf- tossing’) that is considered degrading. The basic philosophical and political question is: what powers should the state have to coerce its citizens? And what are the limits of autonomy?
One of the implications of a paternalistic approach is that it is assumed that the subject is not rational. If the subject is not rational, then (assuming a Kantian approach) they are not morally responsible for doing stupid things, such as riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or taking dangerous drugs. On the contrary, a paternalistic approach would seem to require that drug- users are merely foolish, and should be helped to see the error of their decisions. Retributive punishment would appear to be inappropriate.
20.5 Autonomy
Individual autonomy is [the idea that one should have the capacity] to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces… to be autonomous is to be one’s own person, to be directed by considerations, desires, conditions, and characteristics that are not simply imposed on one, but are part of what can be somehow be considered one’s authentic self. (John Christman “Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy”)
Advocates of drug law reform argue, in the words of Bill Hicks, “it’s not a war on drugs. It’s a war on personal freedom.”
20.6 A Possible Reply: Using Dangerous Drugs is Similar to Selling Yourself into Slavery
…one might prevent people from taking mind-destroying drugs on the grounds that allowing them to do so destroys their autonomy and preventing them from doing so preserves it. This is essentially Mill’s argument [and Kant’s] against allowing people to contract [sell themselves] into slavery. (Dworkin. “Paternalism.”)
Discussion: To what extent do drugs (legal, or illegal) or other activities (gambling, computer games) impair autonomy? Can the state coherently respect autonomy by banning some activities that impair autonomy?
20.8 What does the term ‘drug’ mean?
A drug is any substance that is ingested for non- dietary (food) needs. That is, it is a substance that will cause some effect besides nourishing the organism, whether a mental or a physical effect. The body will produce its own bio- chemicals, such as hormones, that cause changes in the body and mind, so the distinction between drugs and internal chemicals is a little artificial. Insulin, if produced by the body, is a hormone, but if it is external to the body, it is a drug. Drugs used to alter consciousness, that is, psychoactive drugs, work because of this similarity between brain chemistry and the chemistry of the drug.
Why are psychoactive drugs philosophically interesting?
As such, psychoactive drugs are philosophically interesting in a deep way, as they appear to prove that materialism is true. That is, if a physical, chemical change in the body can alter consciousness, this proves that the mind is in a deep sense dependent on the body to exist. Philosophers and others interested in this subject: Jean- Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, Henry James, Humphrey Osmond, Lewis Carroll, Aldus Huxley, Phillip K. Dick.
Here’s what Immanuel Kant has to say on the effects of tobacco:
There is [in our senses of smell and taste] …a susceptibility to certain objects of external sensations which are merely subjective and operate upon the organs of smelling and tasting by a stimulus which is neither smell nor taste…. Apart from any consideration of any medical benefit or injury, which may result from the secretion of fluid in the organs of both senses, this craving is, as a mere excitation of the sense- feeling, an oft- repeated stimulus recollecting attention to one’s own state of mind, which would otherwise lull to sleep or become boring through sameness and monotony. Instead, these means of stimulation always intensify the feeling of the senses as the doses are administered. This kind of familiarity of a man with himself takes the place of fellowship, because in place of conversation it fills an emptiness of time not with conversation but with continuous newly excited and quickly vanishing sensations that have to be renewed as stimuli time and again. (Immanuel Kant Anthropology form a Pragmatic Point of View, 49,7:160-1).
20.7 Prohibition in the United States:
Whisky and beer have their place, but their place is in hell.
Billy Sunday, Prohibitionist
Friedman and Bennett both mention the Prohibition Era, which is central to the current debate on drugs, but which neither author explains. What the Prohibition period was, why it happened, and why it was scrapped are important questions that shed some light on the argument in favour of decriminalizing illegal drugs.
a). What was Prohibition?
Prohibition (capital ‘P’) was the era in the United States when all alcohol sales were banned.
The first anti- alcohol laws were enacted in 1851. By 1893, political groups whose main agenda was to stamp out alcohol, had emerged. From 1920 until 1933, all alcohol was effectively banned from sale.
b). Why was it enacted?
The idea originated with predominantly middle- class Protestant Christian groups (the Catholics opposed the ban). The reasoning was straightforward welfare paternalism: society would be better off without ‘demon rum.’ Employers were concerned that their workers were too drunk. 33 states had banned alcohol sales completely by 1920.
c). Why did it fail?
Public Health
People obtained ‘medicinal’ alcohol (which was still legal) with forged prescriptions, or drank industrial alcohol that had had the poison removed. Illegal manufacturers produced “rotgut” alcohol, which was often toxic. In 1923 coroners reported that one hundred people had died from drinking poisonous, illegal alcohol.
The Creation of Organized Crime Syndicates
America’s Organized crime syndicates- the Mafia and so on, were created by the prohibition of alcohol. Illegal importers (‘bootleggers’) imported alcohol in from Canada and Mexico.
Because of the complexity of the operations, the bootleggers quickly organized themselves into alliances and cartels that could control their activities. Law and order began to break down as corruption spread virus-like into public life. In a famous trial in Indiana in 1923, it was revealed that protection monies were paid to: "the mayor, the sheriff, a judge of the city court, the prosecuting attorney for the county, a former sheriff, a former prosecuting attorney, a deputy sergeant, a justice of the peace, an influential lawyer, and former deputy sheriffs, detectives, policemen, petty lawyers, bartenders, cabaret singers and notorious women." As the cartels grew, and gang rivalry diminished, so the power and profits were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Al Capone's annual earnings were estimated at the time of his arrest to be $60 million. When Prohibition was repealed in 1933, an elaborate syndicate of organized crime, built on the multi-million dollar bootlegging industry, had survived. The American Mafia branched out into narcotics, gambling, prostitution, loan sharking and extortion, concerns they still control today. How much power and influence, financial or political, this phenomenal industry now wields is unthinkable, and unknowable, except by those in charge.
http://www.ephidrina.org/alcohol/prohibition.html
The ban on alcohol was lifted because it was creating crime on a scale that was so vast, it posed a threat to law and order.
20.9 How destructive are drugs?
The entire debate on drugs is due to the fact that illegal drugs are extremely dangerous. They are dangerous in two ways. Firstly, illegal drugs can kill through causing diseases, or (in the case of heroin and AIDS) acting as a vector (‘pathway’) for a disease, through death outright (in an ‘overdose,’ or excessive dose), or in the case of psychedelic drugs, through causing irrational and delusional behaviour, psychosis, or, more subtly, causing sometimes extreme changes in personality and worldview. Suicides apparently caused by psychedelic drug use are known. On the outset, it seems to make good sense to keep such substances illegal. So why do people disagree?
There are two problems that should be clarified before we approach the Friedman- Bennett debate, as they are central to understanding their disagreement.
a). On what grounds should a state ban dangerous activities?
b). Some illegal drugs are less dangerous than some legal drugs. We have, argue many, an inconsistency problem.
Here are some basic facts on drugs, both illegal and legal.
Tobacco:
Diseases caused by:
Number of people killed: Tobacco kills half of all lifetime users. From the World Health Organization website: “Tobacco kills more than AIDS, legal drugs, illegal drugs, road accidents, murder, and suicide combined…of everyone alive today, 500,000,000 will die of tobacco.”
Psychological effects: Improves short term memory and relieves stress.
Heroin:
Diseases/ dangers: fatal overdose, collapsed veins, also risk of infection with another drug through needle- sharing (HIV/AIDS), hepatitis. Street heroin also is full of impurities which makes it far more dangerous than pure heroin. It does not actually cause any disease besides heroin addiction.
Psychological effects: Physical addiction causes extreme distress when the drug is not available. (This can begin only a few hours after the last injection). Withdrawal produces craving, restlessness, muscle and bone pain, insomnia, vomiting, diarrhea, cold flashes and goose bumps, an kicking movements. Sudden withdrawal by unhealthy addicts can be fatal. (Heroin withdrawal is considered less dangerous than barbiturate or alcohol withdrawal).
Number of users: 9 million worldwide. (4% of the world’s population).
1.2 million occasional users in the USA.
Cost of maintaining a heroin addiction in the US: 150-200$ a day. (that’s 23,568 yen- or 8,602,320 yen per year).
Number of heroin- induced deaths in the USA in 1999:4,820
Alcohol:
Psychological problems: Impairs judgment, coordination, and reaction time, increases the chances of accidents, including falls; adds to the risk of car crashes. Alcoholism can lead to conflicts with family, friends, coworkers, and strangers.
Medical problems: Heavy drinking can cause cancer, liver cirrhosis, immune system disorders, brain damage. Drinking can make older people forgetful and confused.
Number of people killed: (USA)
More than 100,000 U.S. deaths are caused by excessive alcohol consumption each year. Direct and indirect causes of death include drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, falls, cancer, and stroke
Traffic crashes are the greatest single cause of death for persons aged 6–33. About 45% of these fatalities are in alcohol-related crashes
Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined
Marijuana:
Number of users world wide: 147 million people -2.5% of the world’s population.
An estimated 2.6 million Americans use marijuana for the first time each year. According to a 2003 national survey, 94 million Americans (40 per cent of the population) have used marijuana at least once.
Number of people killed, worldwide, in history, (estimate): 0.
It is not possible to overdose.
Psychological problems: Impairs cognitive (intellectual) development in younger people; impairs coordination for up to a day after smoking. Chronic use is thought to lead to addiction. It may also make schizophrenia worse.
Physical problems: chronic use can cause airway and lung damage. It is thought to perhaps be linked to cancer.
Medical applications: antidepressant, treatment of asthma and glaucoma, appetite stimulant, anticonvulsant, anti- spasmodic, alleviation of nausea.
Sources:
World Health Organization
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Discussion Questions:
Should tobacco products be banned in Japan?
a). What is a Utilitarian reason for such a ban?
b). What is a Utilitarian reason against such a ban?
c). What would a Social Contract theorist say, on this question?
d). What would a Kantian say, on this question?
e). What would a Virtue Ethicist say about the use of tobacco?
f). What would a Cultural Relativist say about the use of tobacco?
g). If people selling tobacco illegally (that is, after it is banned) are punished, what sort of
theory of punishment would be appropriate- retributive, or rehabilitative?
h). If people caught with tobacco for personal use were punished, what sort of theory
of punishment would be appropriate- retributive, or rehabilitative?
i). If tobacco were banned, would the penalties be as harsh as those for possessing
marijuana and heroin, or lighter? Or the same? Why?
.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
You need to know what the terms Autonomy and Paternalism are.
You need to know what the non- arbitrary distinction is between legal and illegal drugs is, or, if there isn’t one, why not.
You need to know what Prohibition in the United States was, and why it failed.
Homework:
Please decide which of the following topics you would like to cover in the last lecture.
Environmental Ethics
Just War Theory
Homosexuality
Animal Rights
Sexism
Racism
(These are all covered in the Rachels text).
Lecture 21
The Non-Medical Use of Drugs II
Friedman vs. Bennett
21.1 References for this lecture
This lecture will be largely concerned with analyzing the arguments in the letters written by Milton Friedman and William J. Bennett.
21.2 Preliminary discussion questions
21.3 James Rachels’ Gloss
In introducing the two letters by Friedman and Bennett, Rachels cites the following statistics:
1). The United States of America has a massive prison population, six times greater than that of any Western European nation. One in six Americans will serve jail time. Rachels notes that this is a direct consequence of the so- called “War on Drugs”: in 1999, 61% of those in jail are there due to drugs charges.
2). Rachels notes also that there is a particularly racial element to this incarceration: 28% of black men will be incarcerated at some point in their lives (he does not, however, say that those 28% will be in jail due to drugs charges).
3). Rachels notes that the “War on Drugs” cost 19.2 billion dollars in 1999, yet in the same year Americans spent 30 billion dollars on (assumedly) illegal drugs.
Discussion questions:
a). How are these figures relevant to the debate on legalizing drugs?
b). What type of moral philosophy is being assumed here?
c). What are some of the problems of this type of moral philosophy?
d). Are these problems (in your answer to question c). relevant to the drugs debate?
21.4 Milton Friedman: The Question of Personal Freedom
Friedman begins the letter with the following line:
The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish. (RTTD:249).
Questions:
a). What tactics does Friedman mean?
b). Friedman evokes the principles of ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom.’ What sort of ethical theory is he presupposing, do you think?
21.5 “The War of Drugs is Making the Situation Worse” Argument.
Friedman makes the following claim (RTTD: 249).
The very measures you favor are a major source of the evils you deplore.
What does this mean? It means that the methods used in the United States to control drug use are in fact making the situation worse, and harming society. (Remember the divide between the criminology of Beccaria and Kant. For Beccaria, the justice system is simply a tool for making society happier. For Kant, the Justice System is merely a tool to punish bad people. Which side does Friedman support, do you think? )
How, according to Friedman, do the strategies used in the US to control drug use make the problem worse?
21.5a Illegality creates Profits
As mentioned above, the amount of money spent on fighting the drug problem is already very high, but cannot match the amount of money spent by people on illegal drugs. The better the police control of supply, the rarer the drugs, the higher the price. It is the same principle with rare paintings or coins. An article in The Economist last year put it in these terms: cocaine is so profitable that, were a drug dealer to buy a Learjet, use it to ship a load of cocaine, and then dump the jet, it would only take a 5% increase in the sale of the cocaine to cover the loss. (A secondhand Learjet costs between 500,000 and a million dollars U.S). Drug dealers are reportedly using submarines purchased from the Russians to make shipments.
21.5bi Profits increase organized crime
When Prohibition ended, organized crime dropped by half. Banning drugs creates enormous black markets, and criminal groups generate capital used in other crimes.
21.bi.i Profits create ‘Narco-terrorism’
(Not in Friedman). Heroin is frequently used by terrorist or guerilla groups to generate wealth quickly. Afghanistan is the world’s largest supplier of heroin and opium, and the economy is largely based on drug manufacture. So long as heroin is illegal, the profits will always be high enough for the terrorists/ liberators to buy more weapons to fight the Americans with.
21.5c The War on Drugs draws police resources away from ‘simpler’ (more serious?) crime prevention
“illegality monopolizes the efforts of honest law forces so that they are starved for resources to fight the simpler crimes of robbery, theft and assault.” p.249.
To argue against this claim, we would have to bite the bullet and agree that smoking or selling marihuana is just as great a crime as robbery, theft, assault, or rape.
Punishment in Japan for illegal drug possession: 1-3 years with heavy labour, fine of up to 5,000,000 yen.
Punishment in Japan for assault: 1-2 years in prison; 100,000- 500,000 yen fine
Punishment in Japan for rape: 2 years maximum
Punishment in Japan for robbery: 5 years maximum
Discussion: What do you think?
21.5d The War on Drugs corrupts the police force
“Illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials” p.249.
Just one recent example-
CNN Law Center, “Drug Bust leads to Huge Police Corruption Probe.”
November 3rd, 2006.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/02/sheriff.indictment/index.html
21.5e Making Drugs Illegal makes them Glamorous and more attractive to young people
This argument has been used by others concerning the proposed ban on tobacco.
(Is this plausible, do you think?)
21.5f The Illegality of Drugs makes the drugs less pure, less reliable, and hence more dangerous
If you gave even a seasoned junkie (heroin addict) a syringe of pure heroin, they’d probably die. Why? Because the purity of heroin now is down to 5%. The impurities in street product make it far more dangerous than pure heroin, as pure heroin would be too powerful for the user to handle. Friedman notes that ‘crack’ cocaine was invented because it was more profitable and easier to smuggle than ordinary cocaine. Recall that this happened during prohibition in the US. Arguably, if tobacco was made illegal, the same thing would happen.
Note:
“drugs are a tragedy for addicts…” p. 250.
Friedrich Nietzsche Jean- Paul Sartre Sigmund Freud Aldous Huxley
Dennis Hopper Jack Nicholson Ken Kesey
Louis Blériot Lou Reed David Bowie Mati Klarwein
Phillip K. Dick John Lennon Paul McCartney George Harrison
Syd Barrett Eric Clapton Vincent Van Gogh Oscar Wilde Michel Foucault
Henry James Jimmy Hendrix Jim Morrison Graham Greene Bob Marley
Charles Baudelaire Ernst Fuchs Henri Michaux Bill Hicks Anais Nïn
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
21.6 What is the alternative to treating drugs as a criminal problem?
Holland, Mexico, and other countries treat drug use as a medical issue, rather than a criminal one. The World Health Organization notes that one dollar spent on education and prevention does the work of seven dollars spent on legal and punitive measures. This is Friedman’s suggestion.
…even if a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to the users could be dramatic (TRTTD:250).
Discussion: What is the moral principle that Friedman is adhering to here?
Is the reasoning sound, do you think?
21.7 The War on Drugs: Critique of Methods Used.
A country in which shooting down unidentified planes “on suspicion” can be seriously considered as a drug- war tactic is not the kind of United States that either you or I want to hand on to future generations (TRTTD: 251).
What is Friedman talking about?
When the Peruvian air force shot down a civilian Cessna last week, killing missionary Veronica Bowers and infant daughter Charity, it was the CIA-contracted crew of a U.S. surveillance plane who had tagged the tiny craft as a suspected drug carrier. This so-called "liberal shoot-down policy" would never be tolerated in this country, but it's been part of U.S. policy in Latin America for years. In fact, military forces there, aided by the U.S., have "forced down" over 120 planes suspected of transporting drugs, according to the 1999 congressional testimony of General Charles Wilhelm.
JoAnn Kawell “Drug Plane Shoot-Down Policy In Latin America,” International Relations Center
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0105shootdown.html
21.7 William J. Bennett: Counterarguments
Bennett understands Friedman to be making the following claim.
Prohibition is an attempted cure that makes matters worse.
There’s an interesting aspect to this debate: Friedman is an economist, and Bennett used to be a university philosopher. Yet Friedman has better arguments. In fact, Bennett uses some sneaky rhetoric.
21.8 The Proposed Solution is No Solution
First example: the argument for legalizing illegal drugs has been “revived by a small number of journalists and academics who insist that the only solution is no solution at all.”
point 1. A “small number” of people advocate legalizing drugs.
- is this true? Just a small number?
-is it relevant that only a small number hold this view?
point 2. Bennett states that Friedman’s solution is “no solution at all.” Is that accurate?
(Clue: are there laws concerning legal drugs?)
21.9 Legal Availability leads to Mass Addiction
“Addiction is rampant in peasants involved in drug addiction.”
Is wine legal in France? Does Japan produce sake?
21.10 Legalizing drugs will cause harm
Drug legalization will lead to lost productivity, health insurance costs, hospitals “flooded” with overdoses, and more drug caused accidents.
Discussion:
a). What type of moral reasoning is being used here?
b). how many people each year in Japan are admitted into hospital due to overdoses on
marijuana?
c). Is this a good argument?
d). If this argument is sound, shouldn’t we make tobacco illegal?
21.11 Drug users will not seek treatment unless they are forced to.
Bennett writes:
But the simple fact remains that many drug users won’t enter treatment unless they are forced to- often by the very criminal justice system you think is the source of the problem. (p.253).
The argument is this: the laws against drugs are necessary, as they allow the courts to force drug users into therapy.
Question: Under the current laws, for which merely possessing heroin is a serious crime, what risks does a heroin addict face in going to a health clinic voluntarily?
Again, which is better- treating the heroin addict as a patient who needs help, or as a criminal?
21.12 Drug reform may reduce crime, but it will not disappear.
Your proposal might conceivably reduce the amount of gang- and dealer- related crime, but it is fanciful to suggest that it would make crime vanish. (p.253).
21.13 Drug reform would harm children and pregnant mothers
And as for the potential addicts, for the school children and for the pregnant mothers, all of whom would find drugs more accessible and legally condoned, your proposal would offer nothing at all.
What is the argument here?
21.14 Conclusion: more police and more prisons
Bennett concludes his letter by arguing for more police involvement and harsher measures, to “take drug users off the streets.” Why? “I believe drug use is wrong,” and “a true friend of freedom understands that government has a responsibility to craft and uphold laws that help educate citizens about right and wrong.”
-Do all immoral things have to be made illegal? Could there be examples where an immoral act is best not punished by the law? Why not?
-The conclusion is that “drug use is wrong.” Assuming that tobacco and alcohol are dangerous drugs, do you think that Bennett, to be consistent, should advocate prohibition all over again?
-Would that be a good idea? Why, or why not?
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
You need to know the strongest arguments presented by Milton Friedman and Bob Bennett, and how each would reply. You need to be able to defend your view on dangerous drugs, whether legal or illegal.
posted by G. Roche at 2:08 PM
<< Home