The Criminalization of Drug Use Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The Criminalization of Drug Use - Essay Example Husak's background is in the philosophy of law. He wants to examine the reasons why drug use is criminalized and why society attaches such high punitive measures to it. He believes that criminalization is counterproductive and that we should move on from it towards something more equitable. He feels that it provides no real benefit and in fact produces harm. He asks a number of important questions in the course of the article and examines the nature of the debate. In the end, he concludes that drug use should not be criminalized and that drug users should be left to their own devices unless they commit a serious crime. Incarceration only makes their problems worse while costing society massive amounts of money. The author's thinking on this subject is logical and reasonable. He breaks down the debate and examines the premises that both sides use to make their point. Importantly, he suggests that those who support the status quo should have to present evidence that it is working. The burden is not merely on those who oppose the current laws. The author tries to understand why alcohol and tobacco are not banned, while marijuana is, and concludes that there is a dissonance in the current policy. Only the fact that alcohol and tobacco are backed by big businesses prevents them from being banned based on the same logic as the criminalization of marijuana. He explores a number of gaps in the reasoning of those who support the continued criminalization of drugs. He focuses on the issue of justice, which is an important foundation for all law. He explains how this idea can be lost in a swirling debate based on a cost-benefit analysis: â€Å"Considerations of justice will probably seem unimportant if we are fixated on objectives. Justice should not be conceptualized as a goal our policies should try to achieve, but as a constraint that limits what we are allowed to do in pursuing these objectives. In other words, justice rules out some strategies that we otherwise woul d be permitted to adopt in trying to attain our ends† (505). Husak does not spend much time exploring flaws in his argument. His argument is more or less sound, although his conclusion is a little too strongly worded. The idea of mental health courts is a good one. Most proponents of criminalizing drugs would argue that drugs are remarkably dangerous and cause harm. They are highly addictive and therefore cause a great deal of crime. They are not something we want more of; they are something we want less of. These ideas are absent from Husak's article. Ideally, the author would have spent more time discussing drug courts. He does say in his conclusion: Drug courts impress both conservatives and liberals. Admittedly, these courts represent an improvement over traditional criminal courts; most drug users would prefer treatment to incarceration. But this concession provides faint praise for the drug court movement. Virtually anything is preferable to incarceration (513). He then concludes by saying that drugs should be legalized and there should be no requirement to go to a drug court. Of course, he is entitled to this opinion, but it would have been better to spend more time on this issue. These courts represent an effective middle ground in this polarizing debate. They have proven to be fairly successful in reducing crime rates and getting people sober. There can be little doubt that drug use leads to additional criminal behavior—