Our Right to Drugs
"Please, sir. . . may I have some more?"The Analysis of a Paternalistic GovernmentA Report on Our Right to Drugs by Thomas Szasz You might be tempted to label Thomas Szasz, author of Our Right to Drugs, The Case for a Free Market, a counter-culture hippie. However, this analysis couldn't be further from the truth. Szasz, a Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, is a major supporter of civil liberties. He sees the so-called "War on Drugs" as one of the worst atrocities that the American Government has perpetrated on its people. Szasz contends that the prohibition of certain drugs, including common prescription drugs, is nothing more than the government telling the people that "father knows best". It is this paternalistic attitude that Szasz finds so oppressive. Mr. Szasz makes three key arguments throughout his book. First, the "War on Drugs" is a failure and can never succeed. It should be stopped immediately. Second, drug legalization is not a viable answer. It would only turn into another attempt by the government to control drugs and would not be any more of a free market than the current system of drug prohibition. Third, he propose
Without that amendment, the prohibition of drugs is in direct violation of the Constitution. This should be the government's only role, however. The government convinced me that drugs were evil, something that only hardened criminals did. Thus, Szasz contends that "because both our bodies and drugs are types of property-producing, trading in, and using drugs are property rights, and drug prohibitions constitute a deprivation of basic constitutional rights. According to Szasz, the government should have a passive role in any market, including the market for drugs. From this, we can only conclude that proponents of so called "drug legalization" are only pushing the legalization in order to eliminate or significantly reduce the criminal element. But let's say 70 percent of the market will be using the legal, less potent substance. However, Szasz continues to add that "Undercutting the criminal element is a far cry from seriously engaging the problem of drug controls," (Szasz, page 107). In other words, just like the prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment, so does the prohibition of drugs. This leads directly into Szasz's third argument. He also includes prescription drugs in this solution as well.
Common topics in this essay:
According Szasz,
War Drugs,
Princeton University,
Constitution American,
American Government,
free market,
Thomas Szasz,
Free Market,
Center Syracuse,
Ethan Nadelmann,
szasz page,
market drugs,
,
free market drugs,
according szasz,
war drugs,
prohibition drugs,
drug legalization,
szasz contends,
criminal element,
drugs free,
drugs free market,
free market szasz,
limiting free market,
criminal element szasz,
|
Acceptance Essays
