This article by George Sher talks about the argument that none of the standard arguments for criminalization of drugs are good. I agree with George Sher in the paternalistic, protective, and perfectionist arguments. The first argument states that many drugs are very addictive and can hurt the body and mind in several ways. I believe that this is true, and this is why there are many efforts by commercials that show many of the after effects of using drugs such as car accidents. The protective argument states that not only can drug use harm the user, but it can also harm others. Sher makes a good argument in the protective case by saying that some of the detrimental side effects of drug use entail shootouts and car crashes. The perfectionist argument testifies that drugs are dangerous because the person that uses them has a distorted view of reality and has no goals in life. I don't totally agree with this because some people in other countries use hallucinogens as parts of their culture. I don't believe that they think they are wasting their lives by doing so. I agree strongly with Sher in the point that we are not justified criminalizing behavior merely on the grounds that it imposes a risk of harm. I disagree with the claim made by Sher that we can hold the harms below the threshold by legally permitting either elicit drugs or alcohol but not both. I believe that even though many of the consequences of consuming too much alcohol are similar to those of elicit drugs, drugs still pose a higher harm level than that of alcohol. I believe this because the majority of the harm that comes not from consuming small amounts, but large amounts of alcohol.
             ...