NCJ Number
158172
Journal
Connecticut Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1995) Pages: 659- 691
Date Published
1995
Length
33 pages
Annotation
This analysis of Steven Duke's arguments against the current policies of drug prohibition concludes that drugs, at least hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin, should remain illegal.
Abstract
Duke and other proponents of drug legalization fail to take seriously the extremely complicated problem of protecting children from parental drug abuse and personal addiction, they cannot present a realistic estimate of the costs of legalization. In addition, their promise of less crime upon repeal of prohibition seems unlikely. However, it is not easy to dismiss their concern about prohibition's offensiveness to basic notions of personal autonomy. Places in a framework of human rights, supporting prohibition can become uncomfortable. However, supporters can rely on Mill's famous statement that acts that harm others require a totally different approach from acts that do not harm others. They can emphasize the vulnerabilities of children and the problems this poses for drug legalization. They can also argue that widespread drug use will increase the risks everyone faces while driving their cars or out in public. In addition, Duke is unwilling to follow a human rights perspective to its logical conclusion and propose the elimination of all controls on drugs. In addition, legalization proponents put the cost of drug treatment on taxpayers and not the person who exercised the privacy right to choose drug abuse. Figures and footnotes