AMERICA’S UNJUST DRUG WAR

AMERICA’S UNJUST DRUG WAR

Huemer’s argument in section 11; states that one can’t be arrested or jailed on the basis of behaviors’ one does as a result of illicit drugs. Drugs can cause one to be unsympathetic and undutiful and this can also be as a result of one’s character. It is therefore not reasonable to arrest people for drug use on the basis of the undesirable traits one might possess. An example used was Howard; they explain his undesirable actions, one on the basis of drugs and the other on the basis of one’s character not influenced by drugs. They summarize that however bad drugs they may be, one’s actions are independent. 

Is the argument you explained best understood as: Consequentialist; It assumes ones actions are the basis of judgment on whether something is wrong or not. According to the above question, this is not true. One’s actions are based on several factors like one’s character and drugs may or may not influence one’s behavior. 

Deontological; It states that someone’s morality is dependent on whether the action is good or bad based on a set of rules. The use of illicit drugs is bad based on the harm it would bring users and those close to them hence it should not be legalized. 

Virtue Theoretic; It emphasizes more on ones character than one’s duty. An argument in the first question speaks more about one’s character. People should be responsible for their actions whether good or bad and not blame it on illicit drugs as stated by Huemer. The government could continue to prohibit illicit drugs and people would still make terrible choices even while not using drugs. 

Make the best objection you can to Huemer’s argument; Huemer argues that drug prohibition is wrong and should be legalized. I object to their argument. Illicit drugs directly or indirectly caused about 17,000 deaths in the year 2000, which are fewer than the deaths caused by tobacco 435,000. All lives matter and the government should strive to reduce all these deaths however small the numbers might be compared to other causes. We acknowledge that drugs may cause one to be rude, lack any personal relationships and lose finances while someone’s character may also do the same as Huemer argues however, the government is only responsible for any losses occurring due to drugs. They shouldn’t look away and blame it on an individual’s character. They should strive to help their citizens in order to improve their economy and their living standards as a nation. This would significantly reduce the number of people doing wrong due to drugs. 

Answer the objection as best you can on Huemer’s behalf; On behalf of Huemer, I would object and argue that drugs don’t change a person.  If a person was rude, unreliable in the office, married a wrong partner or dropped out of school that is not blamed on drugs but on a person’s character. People should be responsible for their actions and character. The only exception would be careless driving under the influence of illicit drugs. 

Which side wins the argument in the end? The government's prohibition of illicit drugs wins. The government could only help its citizens where allowed. A bad character without any drug influence can’t be changed by the government; they could only change a person who acts while under the influence of illegal drugs. Drug users harm themselves, their families, friends and relatives and its legalization would double deaths occurring each other. The government is a body put in place to fulfil and protect its citizens and turning a blind eye to illicit drugs in society would be a failure for them as they wouldn’t be performing their duty.