Michael Huemer: “America’s Unjust Drug War” Essay

In the probe Americas Unjust dose War by Michael Huemer, Huemer discusses the facts and opinions around the number on whether or non the unskilled utilization of doses should be banned by law. Huemer thinks that the Ameri quarter government should non negative the subroutine of medicates. He brings up the brain on medicines and how they suffering the users and the nation in the users c arer he proves that the prohibition on do do drugsss in raw. Huemer believes that drug prohibition is an injustice to Ameri evicts natural rights and questions wherefore batch can persucute those who do drugs.The more or less prominent argumentation against the use of drugs is the suffering it has on the users. Although drug use is potenti every last(predicate)y very harmful to the users the government should not be allowed to prohibit muckle from harming themselves. some(prenominal) things plenty regularly take partly in are equally as harmful as drug use such as smoking tob acco, drink alcohol, eating too much, riding motorcycles, having naked or promiscuous sex(Huemer, Para. 5). there is no way that the government can prohibit all those acts for it is not both of their business. One might argue that drug use is more harmful therefore those acts, they would be wrong in to the highest degree cases because all of those acts lead to death which is as harmful as you can get. The right of National Drug Control indemnity claims that drugs kill eighteen thousand Americans a year while tobacco kills intravenous feeding hundred and forty thousand Americans per year. other relevant statistic is obesity causes up to quaternity hundred and twenty thousand deaths per year. n all tobacco smokers nor obese sight buzz off been penalize insofar numerous drug users are impris unityd. Another point prohibitionists kindle against the use of drugs is that drugs harm ones quality of lifetime still numerous other things harm ones quality of life such as dr opping out of high civilise or working at the analogous job your entire life all of these are choices people sire and the unaccompanied choice that is persecuted is doing drugs, the others are considered ridiculous to persecute. The funds that drug users use on gold is equivalent to those who gamble or dangle it on frivolous things leaving both lives at smaller quality, yet the drug users are persecuted. Although the use of drugs has the same affects on other peoples life choices drug users are persecuted and people who be equally life-threatening choices are left over(p) to make those choices with no persecutions.Another argument against the use of drugs is the harm it potentially has against the people around the users. People around drug users do have the potential to be harmed from them yet so do m any(prenominal) other things driving could potentially diminished people and numerous other things, yet anyone who has a license can reason a vehicle without being persecu ted. either choice in life has risks of pain in the ass people yet the only one choice is persecuted drugs. Although it seems absurd to punish people for being inconsiderate or do not so good choices the terminus of their choices on the public are standardized to drug users.If drugs are truly unjust thence America has over quadruple hundred and fifty thousand people in jail unjustly. They are not just being punished for no reason they are being punished for example their right as a human, making their own choices. Everyone has the right to need to do drugs or not to do them. If there was a drug that took outdoor(a) the users freedom to make choices or to dishonour and hurt other people then the government could step in and help, however no drug exists that have that make on people. The principle supporting that it is a human right to choose to do drugs comes from the idea that everyone owns their own form. So a person can make any choice as what they can do to their body , harmful or not. An example of this can be seen in the womans right to have or not have an abortion.Some people believe it is the womans choice because it is her body but others believe she should not be allowed to because it hurts the fetus, which is potentially a live human. closely people support the belief that people have the right to choose what the do to their body however with this right you whitethorn not use their body to harm others. Prohibitionists argue that drug use is not ones right over their body because the drugs are making the choices and not the person freely, possibly it is not their fault they have maltreated drugs it could have been psychological compulsion or something similar. It is still unjust to persecute these people because they are not morally responsible for(p) for that choice. However if users do freely get back to use drugs then they are exercising their rights and the government has no right to interfere. overall Huemer looks at all the prohi bitionists arguments that could be vox populi of and disproves their belief on the laws against drug use. Huemer believes it is a human right to choose to do drugs just as it is to eat whatever food you choose even if it makes you obese, or smoke as many cigarettes a day even though you leave probably die, and the choice to have an abortion. With life you have many choices you can make and with that choice comes the chance of hurting yourself either physically or mentally as well as people that butt on you. In conclusion Huemer fully disagrees with the prohibits on the use of drugs in America with his belief that the persecutions are fully unjust as well as inhumane with many people in jail because they chose to use drugs.