Essay On Paternalism

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, drug use became a major concern for most Americans. As the War on Drugs and “Just Say No” campaign were being thrust into the spotlight by the government and media, the public became more aware of the scope of drug use and abuse in this country. The federal and states’ governments quickly responded by creating and implementing more harsh and punitive punishments for drug offenses. Most of these laws have either remained unchanged or become stricter in the years since then.

For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.

The Principle of Legal Paternalism justifies State interference with personal rights to protect individuals from self-inflicted harm and to guide them toward their own good. Legal Philosophers have often drawn a distinction between “soft” and “hard” Paternalism. “Soft” Paternalism restricts an individual’s actions in circumstances where the conduct is insufficiently voluntary. In contrast, "hard" Paternalism restricts an individual's actions in circumstances where the conduct is sufficiently voluntary.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the legalization of marijuana in Colorado as well as the Netherlands drug policy. It has been found that even though Colorado has legalized marijuana, there are provisions that must be followed. The Netherlands however have not legalized marijuana, but they do feel that seeing possession of marijuana is not a crime, so therefore marijuana is tolerated. Colorado’s society does not agree with this legalization due to adolescent use, however the Colorado Amendment 64 protects this. The Netherlands is seen as too liberal, but they are only doing what is in the best interest of the users.

“Drug policy regarding the control of the traditional illicit substances (opiates, cocaine, cannabis) is currently moving through upbeat times in almost all Western countries. Prohibition on the basis of repressive law enforcement not only seems to fail on a large scale, but also to create vast additional costs, problems, and harm for drug consumers, who often find themselves in extreme social, economic, and health conditions” (Fischer 1995: 389).

There are many differing viewpoints in the United States when dealing with drug policy. Within the political arena, drug policy is a platform that many politicians base their entire campaigns upon, thus showing its importance to our society in general. Some of these modes within which drug policy is studied are in terms of harm reduction, and supply reduction. When studying the harmful effects of drugs, we must first to attempt to determine if drug abuse harms on an individual level of if it is a major cause of many societal problems that we face today. In drawing a preliminary conclusion to this question we are then able to outline the avenues of approach in dealing

At first Chapman does not limit his perspective to one side of criticizing the use of illegal drugs in society. Instead, he deals with this subject in a broad way. He argues over the fact that the use of these prohibited drugs costs the government a lot of money, police time and prison space and how in spite of taking several administrative steps, the government has suffered from a colossal failure in stopping the drug abuse. He provides the data in support of his argument which is direct and precise. Through the example of Bennett, he tries to convey the message that people are not willing to have the spread of drug abuse in citizenry. A survey was conducted asking people to respond to the following question: if illegal

But it should not be regarded as a crime or (mental) disease, justifying or warranting the use of the police powers of the state for its control. Therefore, it is absurd to deprive an adult of a drug (or of anything else) because he might use it to kill himself.(Thomas Szasz, "The Ethics of Addiction)Answer

As a major policy issue in the United States, the War on Drugs has been one of the most monumental failures on modern record. At a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, thousands of lives lost and many thousands of others ruined by untreated addiction or incarceration, America's policy orientation concerning drug laws is due for reconsideration. Indeed, the very philosophical orientation of the War on Drugs and of the current drug policy in the United States has been one of prosecution and imprisonment rather than one of decriminalization, treatment and rehabilitation. As our medical and scientific communities characterize addiction as a disease, the United States government continues to characterize this disease as a crime. And in doing so, it has created an unnecessary criminal class in the United States. The research, supplemental political cartoons and proposed research will set out to prove that stiffer drug laws will only have the impact of criminalizing countless drug addicts who might otherwise benefit substantially from rehabilitation and other treatment-based strategies. With a specific focus on the prohibition of marijuana even for medical use, and using the Toulmin model for putting forth and completing the argument, the research will set out to demonstrate the irrational

At first glance, creating exemptions from the law seems like a deceptively simple choice, something that could be considered obtuse. However, this case is a profound contradiction of that as it deals with something commonly viewed as immoral and indeed illegal by the law: the use of hard drugs and abuse of narcotics. Since this case deals only with drug use in places such as the Insite clinic, the scope of this essay is limited to these boundaries as well. The case of the appellant deals with the potential risk to life and limitation of section seven of the charter and security of the person, by limiting resources per person searching for a way to better themselves physically and mentally through either abstinence or controlled use of drugs.

When it comes to drug legalization, many people think that drugs should be legalized. It would stop drug traffic, its use would be safer, and would be a better drug control under the state and government. Obviously, the harm principle is linked to this opinion due to, “If a person does no one else harm by a moderate drug intake, then he or she should be allowed to continue using drugs” (Rosenstand, 256).

There was a great push for a non-judgmental approach that would ‘reduce physical, social and psychological risks to individuals who use drugs and to society as a whole’ (McCann & Temenos, 2015, p. 217). Never the less, this was a highly contested set of policy formulation across all levels of governance.

Libertarian paternalism, a mix of libertarianism and paternalism, is an ideology by Sunstein and Thaler. It holds that humans should have free will and should be able to have the freedom to decide what to do with their own body and life, but with some government interference. This ideology does not take away any choices but it does basically manipulate people into making choices that are good for them; therefore a libertarian paternalist would agree with the decriminalization of drugs and prostitution but would nudge people away from it. Libertarianism is the belief that someone 's liberty should not be restricted even if it is for their own good. Libertarians would agree with the legalization of drugs and prostitution even though they may harm people. The opposing view of libertarianism is paternalism which is the belief that it is justified to restrict someone’s liberty for their own good. Gerald Dworkin (1968), a pro-paternalistic philosopher, believes that coercing someone to do something is “justified by the reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person being coerced” (p. 108). This is pure paternalism. On the other hand, impure paternalism is restricting the freedom of people who do not benefit from it, such as imposing laws that regulate the sale of cigarettes. Paternalism does not allow for the legalization of drugs or prostitution. In this paper, I will argue that the state may legitimately interfere with our

     John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks

In pre-modern times, drugs took on a role of medicinal use. As they were distributed in a free market without any constraints, Opium was recommended for sleepless nights, Cocaine for anesthesia, Hashish for relaxation (Hart, Ksir & Ray). These drugs were not dubbed as harmful, therefore, under the appropriate circumstances, provided beneficial effects to its users. More recently, individuals are more inclined to use drugs as an ‘escape’. Stimulants provide a sort of alternate existence which tends to reduce mental tension, increase energy, or induce euphoria (Hart, Ksir & Ray). Argumentatively speaking, drug use only affects the user, so there is no valid reasoning for impairing the freedom of citizens by prohibiting them. Individuals benefit by having the freedom to use