Legalisation of Recreational Drugs

2426 Words10 Pages
SHOULD RECREATIONAL DRUGS BE LEGALISED The law is not absolute and it is not the same as morality. If this is the bone of contention then this essay serves to investigate the moral issues that have been extensively articulated for and against the legalisation of recreational drugs to prove that prohibitionists of recreational drugs themselves are culprits of immorality. The generic ideology shared by philosophers is that something that is morally wrong can be perfectly legal as has been seen in the legalisation of abortion and homosexuality. The debate on the legalisation of marijuana, cocaine and heroin as recreational drugs has proven to be more complex and dynamic because philosophers and think tanks seem not to agree on a definitive distinction between poor execution of freedom, individualistic autonomy and a personal choice that is deemed to be socially unfit and destructive. This piece of literature will discuss debate and dissect the arguments that have been presented on the legalisation of recreational drugs; oscillating between individual choices, the limitations of a paternalistic state and the role of a justice system. The harm principle argument against the legalisation of recreational drugs dismally fails to argue constructively about the distinct link between moral wrong and criminal behaviour. The harm principle as presented by Smith (2002, 176) states that adults have the right to make informed choices about their course of life but this should be within the confines of one’s right, hence the decision should never spill over and violate another person’s right. In this regard, Smith (2002, 176) argues that when recreational drugs are legalised, drug users will be less economically active and deprive family members of quality attention in a move that will be economically and socially destructive. This premise in itself is ignorant of the

More about Legalisation of Recreational Drugs

Open Document