Chapter 5 Drugs and Addiction David Boaz DrugFree

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction David Boaz, “Drug-Free America or Free America? ” Boaz favors the legalization of marjiuana, heroin, and cocaine. Two lines of argument: 1. A rights-based argument: People have a natural right to live as they choose so long as they do not violate the equal rights of others. 2. A consequentialist argument: Drug prohibition causes more harm than it prevents. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction David Boaz, “Drug-Free America or Free America? ” To support the consequentialist line of argument: Boaz cites statistics allegedly showing that the government has been strongly committed to winning the “drug war. ” He cites statistics allegedly showing that prohibition has done little to reduce drug use, despite the government’s efforts. He gives an explanation for how prohibition creates the social problems he claims it does. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction David Boaz, “Drug-Free America or Free America? ” To support the rights-based line, Boaz appeals to the intuition that what one puts in one’s own body is a personal choice that one has the right to make without governmental interference. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Peter de Marneffe, “Decriminalize, Don't Legalize” Drug prohibition: criminal penalties for the manufacture, sale, and possession of large quantities of drugs Drug criminalization: criminal penalties for using drugs and possessing small quantities of drugs de Marneffe supports decriminalization; he argues that there should be no penalties for the use and possession of small quantities of drugs. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Peter de Marneffe, “Decriminalize, Don't Legalize” He leaves open the question of whether the benefits of drug prohibition outweigh its costs. Some relevant differences between decriminalization and legalization Drug criminalization prohibits individuals from having certain enjoyable and illuminating experiences; prohibition does not. Drug criminalization prohibits the use of drugs and the making of them for personal use; prohibition does not. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Peter de Marneffe, “Decriminalize, Don't Legalize” de Marneffe cites these reasons and others to show that while drug criminalization seems incompatible with respect for persons, prohibition does not. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Robert E. Goodin, “Permissible Paternalism: Saving Smokers from Themselves” Goodin’s article is intended to show that some forms of control and interference may be morally justified on paternalistic grounds. Paternalistic policies are those “designed to promote people’s interests…even when those people [are] themselves opposed to such policies. ” Goodin focuses on paternalistic policies that can be justified by appeal to the preferences of those affected, rather than some purportedly objective standard. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Robert E. Goodin, “Permissible Paternalism: Saving Smokers from Themselves” According to Goodin, public officials should refrain from paternalistic interference only when they are convinced that you are acting on preferences that are: Relevant preferences are based on accurate and relevant information. Settled: Settled preferences are stable; they are not merely part of some transitory phase of the individual. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Robert E. Goodin, “Permissible Paternalism: Saving Smokers from Themselves” According to Goodin, public officials should refrain from paternalistic interference only when they are convinced that you are acting on preferences that are (cont'd): Preferred preferences are preferences the individual prefers to have. Addictions, for example, typically involve a preference that the addicted person would rather not have. Goodin then discusses what it might mean for a preference to be one’s own. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Robert E. Goodin, “Permissible Paternalism: Saving Smokers from Themselves” Goodin uses the case of Rose Cipollone as an illustration of when one’s preference to smoke is neither relevant, nor preferred, nor one’s own. He adds that preventing her from starting to smoke could have been justified by reference to her future stable preferences. Goodin concludes by mentioning a variety of public policies against smoking that can be paternalistically justified. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Daniel Shapiro, “Addiction and Drug Policy” The “standard view” of addiction: Drugs like heroin and cocaine are addictive largely because of their effects on the brain owing to their chemical constitution (i. e. , their pharmacology). Shapiro claims that the standard view plays an important role in arguments for banning such drugs. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Daniel Shapiro, “Addiction and Drug Policy” The standard view, argues Shapiro, is false. Withdrawal effects, the only pharmacological effects that could explain addictive behavior, don’t explain it. The best explanation for drug addiction, he argues, appeals to one’s individual mindset and social setting. © Oxford University Press

Chapter 5: Drugs and Addiction Daniel Shapiro, “Addiction and Drug Policy” Shapiro cites empirical data allegedly showing that illegal drugs are not inherently addictive. Conclusion: Legalizing “hard” drugs would not produce a significant increase in addiction. © Oxford University Press