The Question: should law prohibit the recreational use of drugs? Prohibitionist say yes Legalizers say no The prohibitionist Drugs & Harm to Users Is it proper role of the government to prevent people from harming themselves? The argument for saying yes P1: drug use is very harmful to users. P2: the government should prohibit people from doing things that harm themselves. C: therefore, the government should prohibit drug use But p2 is extremely implausible, given the many very harmful things that the government allowsbad diet, abusive relationship, tobacco, etc. Potential responses: Isnt drug use more harmful than those things the government allows? But drug use harms your quality of life, too. Does drug use cause a special kind of harm? None of these responses seems to pass muster. Other types of harm: What about harm to personal relationships? Being rude to others can have the same effect, but theres no law against being a jerk. And we dont think people should be jailed for ruining their personal relationships. What about financial harm? We dont arrest people for losing their own money. What about harm to ones character? Sure, drug use might cause you to lose your sympathy and sense of duty. But we dont put people in jail who merely have little to no sympathy or sense of duty. Drug use only carries with it the chance that it will lead to the aforementioned harms it is not a guarantee A reasonable principle: IF it would be wrong to punish people for directly bringing about some result, then it would also be wrong to punish people for some other action on the grounds that the action has a chance of bringing about the result indirectly. Drugs and harm (to others) Drug use erodes the users capacity to value freedom and personal responsibility. Drug use erodes the users capacity to operate in many of lifes spheres. The exception is driving while using drugs. Why? You risk physical bodily harm The injustice of drug prohibition If drug laws are unjust, then over half a million people in America are unjustly imprisoned. Why think they are unjust? Because it is unjust for the state to punish people without having a good reason for doing so. But Huemer endorses a stronger principle Because the state is not merely punishing people for no good reason, it is punishing people for exercising their natural rights. If you believe in rights at all, then A) how could you deny that individuals have rights over their own bodies and minds? B) how could you deny that drug use is an example of the exercise of such a right. How could the prohibitionist respond to B? Either the prohibitionist says youre not in control when youre altering your mind with drugs, so youre not actually exercising your natural rights. But, we dont punish people for things outside of their control. There are grave injustices at stake in this debate.