Argument Against the Criminalization of Drugs

Peter de Marneffe’s argument against the legalization of drugs requires that the burdens to those caused by criminalization are outweighed by the benefits to those who would be deterred from drugs. If it is either the case that there are harms that remain even in a revised punishment system, and those harms outweigh any benefits, or that under legalization/decriminalization, a similarly restructured system addresses the harms of drug use, then de Marneffe’s argument does not stand. I will argue that both the burdens of punishment and benefits of deterrence are miscalculated by de Marneffe, even in his idealized system, and decriminalization of drug use is preferable in the balance of burdens and benefits. This argument for criminalization relies heavily on the grounds that heroin use and abuse would increase given the legalization of that drug. For the purposes of this paper, I will assume that the following premises of de Marneffe’s argument are true: 1. Heroin prohibition decreases use when compared to legalization. 2. Heroin use increases heroin abuse. 3. If heroin is legalized, abuse would increase. 4a. Heroin abuse among adults damages future prospects of children, and an increase of abuse will increase the chance of significant losses for children. 4b. Heroin use among adolescents will similarly increase the chance of significant losses. 5. Even with policy changes to the punishment to decrease burdens, prohibition will decrease use and abuse. What must be shown to be true to justify prohibition of drugs it that “the reasons for some young people to want to be protected from an environment in which heroin is legal outweigh the reasons of others to want to be in an environment where heroin is legal (provided that the external costs of violence and intimidation that arise from the drug trade can be defrayed by more funding and other changes in policy) (De Marneffe 123). The first piece in determining the reasons that some people may want an environment of prohibition is what de Marneffe calls the independent harms of use. In the case of heroin, he believes that “drug prohibition now reduces risks of premature death, accidental bodily injury, violence, vandalism, marital instability, child neglect, and failure at important educational and occupational tasks” and these are the harms that would remain given legalization (De Marneffe