Michael Huemer and Dougal Husak are two philosophers who present strong arguments for the advocation of drug decriminalization and legalization. Both Huemer and Husak take the stance that drug users should not be punished, for a multitude of reasons. A heavy weight is placed on the matter of individual rights. It is almost like our country was founded and grounded in that notion. In Huemer’s work, America’s Unjust Drug War, he starts off by defining the two sides of the matter: prohibitionist vs legalizers. Huemer and Husak are obvious legalizers, but their two stances, although similar in the desire to decriminalize drugs, differ in a few regards. The first comparison that can be found between the two philosophers is within the resemblance between the war on drugs and slavery. The war on drugs is a comparable radical prejudice that our previous generation have already battled, as Huemer states in his conclusion.

On page three of Huemer’s work, he quotes: “before we put people into prison for corrupting their souls, we should require some objective evidence that their souls are in fact being corrupted.” Upon what basis is this soul corruption drawn from? Both Huemer and I seem to be unaware that morality is now a statewide matter and priority. Huemer also draws an interesting comparison to those prohibitionists who would quickly take the stance of protecting their individual rights regarding their property (Huemer5). Huemer makes another comparison to a terrible person who has no desire to do better for himself while drawing detrimental effects upon his family that he is supposed to be carrying for and chasing the American dream that prohibitionist claim is the apparent goal. We aren’t going to throw that guy in jail just because he sucks. Although a subjective matter to say that he sucks, it is like the morality line that states are attempting to draw upon citizens, as I stated previously. Huemer takes it a step further and makes the statement that it is our individual right to use drugs.

Husak takes a slightly different approach in his work, Four Points about Drug Decriminalization, and starts off by stating that drug users should not be punished at all. Similarly, to Huemer, Husak states that applying the harm principle to drug users is unnecessary. Drug users are not ‘harming,’ or using, upon anyone other than their own bodies. The harm principle is applied in cases under the rational basis test, yet Huemer makes the claim that it makes no sense, seeming how the harm principle applies under offenses that violate others. The difference in Huemer and Husak’s approach is found later in Husak’s work when he begins assessing the effects of decriminalization. Husak conceptualizes the outcome of the monetary effects, incarceration rates, as well as continuous state drug prevention efforts. Husak states, the worst thing that a state can do to its citizens is punish them in the way that we are to drug users.

Huemer goes on to completely defeat the prohibitionist argument and provides a strong conclusion. Although Huemer makes many valid points that I agree with, I find myself leaning towards Husak’s argument. My inclination comes from page twenty-eight of his work when correlating the creation of drugs to pharmaceutical companies. If the government is so concerned with drugs, maybe they should place some further regulation, compliances, or research upon those companies into creating safer policies or implementation strategies. Husak also elaborates the effect of decriminalization with ways states can still implement and promote safe drug practices and preventions if they are not punitive. 

-Azlee