Douglas Husak begins his argument with shocking facts about moral and legal issues concerning illicit drugs. He states approximately 80 to 90 million people have used illicit drugs at some point in their lives; there are 400,000 drug offenders in jail. Out of those 400,000 people 130,000 are in jail for the possession of drugs alone. Husak believes it is a reasonable idea not to punish drug users at all. The foundation of his argument is centered on the idea that drug use should be decriminalized. Husak breaks down the meaning of decriminalization for the sake of clarifying the bases of his argument. In the context of his argument, the term decriminalization means the use of drugs would not be a criminal offense. People using drugs
…show more content…
The issue should not be looked at was whether or not to decriminalize the users of drugs, but rather the default question should be whether to criminalize the users of drugs. Husak argues that there is not a single argument that is good enough to justify criminalization. He explains that most drugs have a genuine use, for the majority this use is to experience a state of intoxication or high. Husak believes no one should be punished for wanting that state of intoxication or high. The act of punishing one because of these factors would be robbing one of their autonomy, and in his views, punishment without significant reasoning is the worst thing the State can do to a …show more content…
Many suggest that the drug user population would rise drastically if people were not punished for using them. Although, Husak states that predictions show that decriminalization will not change the amount of drug consumption. Many people may question these predictions, but if we look at this concept involving many different variables one may understand. Let's say the law states it is perfectly legal to murder people, would this increase the amount of murders? No, because the reason people aren't murdering other people is not because there is or isn't a law in place. The reason you're not doing something, for example, doing drugs or killing a person is not because of the illegality, but rather of the morality. So in Husak's argument taking away the punishment that is inflicted on drug users is not going to increase the amount of people using drugs, but rather people that do use drugs will not fear arrest and
The issue should not be looked at was whether or not to decriminalize the users of drugs, but rather the default question should be whether to criminalize the users of drugs. Husak argues that there is not a single argument that is good enough to justify criminalization. He explains that most drugs have a genuine use, for the majority this use is to experience a state of intoxication or high. Husak believes no one should be punished for wanting that state of intoxication or high. The act of punishing one because of these factors would be robbing one of their autonomy, and in his views, punishment without significant reasoning is the worst thing the State can do to a …show more content…
Many suggest that the drug user population would rise drastically if people were not punished for using them. Although, Husak states that predictions show that decriminalization will not change the amount of drug consumption. Many people may question these predictions, but if we look at this concept involving many different variables one may understand. Let's say the law states it is perfectly legal to murder people, would this increase the amount of murders? No, because the reason people aren't murdering other people is not because there is or isn't a law in place. The reason you're not doing something, for example, doing drugs or killing a person is not because of the illegality, but rather of the morality. So in Husak's argument taking away the punishment that is inflicted on drug users is not going to increase the amount of people using drugs, but rather people that do use drugs will not fear arrest and