American Unjust Drug War - Research Paper Example

Such premises, as will be discussed below, are stronger than those which seek to justify the state’s tough anti-drug laws. II Thesis This paper asserts that America’s war against illegal drug use is unjust because it does not simply violates but violently repress the drug user’s inherent right to choose, putting the American society at greater risk. This argument strongly weakens the popular assertion of prohibitionists that illegal drug use poses extreme harm not only against users but the society as a whole, thus must be prohibited at all costs (Huemer 135).

Moreover, this vividly illustrate that a law founded on distorted truth could create more rather than resolve problem, demonizing rather than humanizing society. Essentially so, the end could not justify the means; neither the means could justify the end. Democracy, which the American society proudly upholds, is founded on giving due respect to the inherent rights of every individual, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the Unites States Constitution. Violating any of these fundamental rights contradicts American principles on civil liberties, that could weaken the very foundation of this powerful nation.

One of the rights inherent in every individual is no other than the right to choose, as this acknowledges the individual’s freedom to make personal decisions. This means, the body, self and life of the individual is his/hers alone. Whatever he/she would like to do about it is his/her sole right. Meaning, an individual has the fundamental right to choose and the freedom to decide whether or not he/she will use drugs, despite knowing the harm such choice may effect on him/her. As such, the government has no business over an individual’s decision on what to do with his/her body, self, and life.

Therefore, America’s war against drug is unjust, because anti-drug laws do not simply deny but violently attack drug users of their personal autonomy, subsequently violating their other basic human rights such as the right to liberty and the right to life. This is not to say that criminalizing drug use unjustly tarnishes the user’s reputation, causing him/her to be socially isolated and depriving him/her of opportunities and decent life. Furthermore, since the right to choose is inherent in every individual, no one – not even the majority will and not even legislation – can take away this right from an individual; only the individual him/herself can surrender this right if he/she freely chooses to do so.

Meaning, if the individual knowingly decides to subject him/herself to drug use regulation or prohibition, for example under medical care, then that is the only time that his/her drug use, specifically related only to the health problem being medicated, can become the business of the authority – in this case the medical health professional. But even under such circumstance, the failure of the individual to regulate or forbid him/herself of drug use as medically prescribed does not make him/her a criminal.

If the prohibition of drug use already violates the individual’s right to choose, criminalizing it is tantamount to state repression, further proving therefore, that America’