Cocaine Legalization Essay Sample

An individual's personal liberty is assumedly something of great value, and therefore, any interference with said liberty must require a moral justification. Liberty limiting principles were created so as to allow the government to morally justify the passage of laws that interfered with the liberties of members of society who are both mentally competent and adult, who are typically afforded the liberty of making their own decisions. These principles are put in place under the defense that they are necessary and important to the functioning of society. There are four liberty limiting principles that have been focused on in this class. The first of these is the principle of legal moralism. This principle was created to limit immoral behavior. A second of these is the harm principle, which limits the possibility of causing harm to others. A third of these principles is the offense principle, which is put on place to prevent offense to others. The final principle, and the main focus of this essay, is the principle of legal paternalism. The principle of legal paternalism, in which individual liberty is limited to prevent harm to self, is the main principle in which the government can rely on in it’s argument to not legalize the use of cocaine. 

The principle of legal paternalism can often be discussed in the concepts of preventative measures. These are laws such as the requirement to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, or to wear a seatbelt when driving a car. In both of these cases, if one is caught in an accident, it is much more likely that they will not only survive, but they will also have fewer or less severe injuries from the crash. There is proven evidence from both real life events and studies that helmets and seatbelts aid in preventing injury in the event of a crash, and therefore the government has a moral justification to require the use of both, as they protect their citizens from harm. As discussed by Robert E. Goodin in his essay Permissible Paternalism: Saving Smokers from Themselves, the scope of legal paternalism is limited to what can be construed as the “‘big decisions’ in people’s lives,” (fourth edition of textbook page 199). The decisions discussed are what are considered life and death decisions, such as drug use or dropping out of high school. These decisions are also usually irreversible, and the consequences are as well, and the government sees these as valid reasons for which to intervene in the decision making process, as you will not be able to learn from your mistakes, likely due to their deadly consequences.

In his work On Liberty, published in 1859, John Stuart Mill made his case that the only legitimate liberty limiting principle is the harm principle. Regarding the principle of legal paternalism, he stated “The only purpose 

for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” However, many individuals disagree with his point, including Ernesto Garzon Valdes, the author of On Justifying Legal Paternalism. He argues that legal paternalism is not only ethically permissible, but also ethically required as “an efficient means for the elimination of inequalities” (Valdes, 183). He believes it is necessary to help overcome basic incompetence (which he sees as situations such as a smoker, who is shortening his life by smoking) as well as to prevent the inequalities he discusses.

With respect to deadly consequences mentioned earlier, this liberty limiting principle can be applied to the argument against the legalization of cocaine. Due to its properties, cocaine is a highly addictive drug. “Cocaine effects are powerful, but because they are so short, tolerance to the drug can develop quickly causing the user to be at an increased risk of becoming addicted rather quickly as well” (Cocaine.org). It is practically impossible to know the purity of the cocaine you are ingesting, as well as to what level you will become addicted to the substance. The short term effects of cocaine may include restlessness, heightened anxiety, and suppression of appetite. Long term effects of cocaine include symptoms such as loss of sense of smell, lung issues from inflamed lungs to lung disease, and weight loss and malnourishment. Cocaine use is also accompanied by psychological effects, including those such as paranoia, hallucinations, and panic. For many users of cocaine, there may be limited or no side effects, but for many others, effects can be severe and long term, affecting them for up to months or years after they stop using the drug. There is also no way to tell what form these side effects will take in any given individual.

All of these risk factors create a distinct position for the government to use its power to disallow the use of cocaine. They act as an entity similar to a parental figure in this situation, in which individuals have an incredibly limited amount of opportunities in which to obtain the substance, as it is illegal, and when they do manage to acquire it, the consequences of being found with it are severe. For example, the punishment for possession of cocaine in the state of Nevada is a year to six years in prison, and a fine of $5000. Similar to a child facing consequences, subsequent offenses also have increased punishment, the second being one to ten years in prison and a fine of $10,000, and the third offense and past can constitute prison time up to twenty years and a fine of $20,000.

With all aspects of the argument considered, it appears that the use of legal paternalism to disallow the legalization of cocaine is both a valid decision as well as a morally sound one. The effects of cocaine on the human body can be incredibly detrimental, and are sometimes impossible to recover from. These effects are unpredictable, and those who suffer from them are unlikely to have the capacity to learn on their own time that the decisions they have made are injurious. With the support of proven research, legal paternalism is a solid argument against legalizing cocaine.