Customer Reviews

Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs (Practical Ethics)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Many get the terms legalization and decriminalization confused; although each term has many variations of definition, the denotation of each term has a definite political, moral, and/or social end -- and this is where the most profound difference lies between them. An important thing to remember is that legalizers want drugs to be legally regulated and accessible to citizens just as alcohol is available, whereas decriminalizers support a policy that does not punish drug users as criminals for carrying and/or using personal amounts of drugs for recreational purposes; nonetheless, they still favor the criminalization of drug producers and drug dealers. Even this dichotomy between legalizer and decriminalizer is oversimplified.

The complexities of drug policy and all the human aspects that are involved in policymaking are both fascinating and intimidating. Douglas Husak is an articulate arguer for the position of decriminalization. He attempts to clarify some of the legal complexities in this excellent, well reasoned argument. He addresses many basic tenets of criminal theory and applies them to how drug users are being treated in this country. Unlike those who embrace the rigid attitude: 'If you're not with us, you're against us,' (meaning good v. evil) a convenient dialectic you will most likely find informing the minds of the current 'drug warrior' regime leaders, you will not find this authoritarianism in Husak's treatise. If he cannot be categorized as a legalization proponent, he is like them in one respect, he is highly disturbed by the inane drug policies of this country and is part of an ever growing population of dissenters who see a need for change.

High recommendation; good start to understanding the issue as whole. An even higher recommendation goes to "Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times & Places" by Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter (2001). This is an excellent, exhaustive, and disinterested study of drugs use in our society and is easy for those not well versed in the complexities of public policy issues (which is most of us)

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BOOK.
Here's a splendid, novel, thoughtful view of prohibition that not only teaches readers a ton about the drug war but also educates them about how to think. Unlike other books that focus primarily on the costs and benefits of decriminalization, Husak's work turns to the moral question: Is it just to punish recreational drug users? No matter where you stand on the issue, you will find Husak's accessible, enjoyable prose gets you thinking about morals, justice, drugs, and people in ways you've never thought before. He has a writing style that pulls you right in, making you feel as if you're just having a beer with a buddy. He defends his conclusions so logically and so well that it seems impossible for any rational person to disagree!

What I took from this book changed my life!

I came across this book while writing a research paper at University. The subject was the Shafer Commission, or Nixon's National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. The research included selecting a few reliable sources on: the History, Politics, Sociology, Law, & International Drug Policy during Nixon's presidency along with the long history of "The War on Drug." After combing literally 100's of books on these subjects, Husak's book was one of the few left standing and I am so grateful it was.

Others have provided testimony on how logical this book is in proving Husak's conclusions for this subject, but how it changed my life was in the methods of approach when analyzing a subject (the logic vs. the subject). Unlike most of the books I found on this subject, Husak takes a mix of philosophical, ethical, and legal (constitutional) approaches, instead of just one (which is usually historical). The topic of drug legalization is only an example to the larger picture of how to think. He teaches you about "anecdotal arguments" and of the flawed methods that most people use in such debates. Then he explains, in an understandable language, how each approach comes to a logical conclusion outside of any biases. It has sincerely helped teach me how to approach and analyze any subject.

The only "love/hate" side-effect I had after reading and understanding this book was that it became so evident how little most people use good logic in such publicly debated subjects. It became hard to watch/listen/read most mainstream media on any controversial subject. I saw how unproductive, flawed, and illogical their narrow quips usually are and had to stop relying on them for information because it was a waste of time.

This is a book that provides (what seems to me) solid reasons to decriminalize drugs. Backed up with statistics and clear arguments, the author demonstrates how the major replies in support of prohibition are not sound or at best - shaky.

To sum up briefly Husak's words - the right question to ask is not "why should we decriminalize?" but "why should we criminalize?". Clearly we must have a good reason to put someone in jail, and we can come up with a myriad of reasons for crimes such as theft and rape; but why should one be penalized sometimes with harsher jail-times for taking a drug? The responses to this difficult question are analyzed clearly in this book, and (I think) shown to hold no water.

For a more philosophically serious book, read Husak's book "Drugs and Rights" (and for more - see his "Overcriminalization" - out Dec 2007)

Overall, this book is excellent. The writer is clearly pro-legalization (as am I), but tries to balance this with an analysis of the opinions and positions of prohibitionists. Husak acknowledges that he cannot truly be objective.

Husak takes a somewhat different approach from the norm of the pro-legalization camp in that he doesn't rely primarily on the Libertarian argument of the right of self abuse-the position of John Stuart Mill. While much of the book is devoted to the inherent injustice of America's war on drugs and its erosion of our civil liberties and the deterioration the health of drug users, he also tackles the entrenched Prohibition-Industrial complex. However, his approach is 1 primarily of cost benefit analysis. Husak argues convincingly that prohibition is simply too expensive-not to mention unhealthy and unjust-for it to be feasible or fair.

The single drawback to the book is that the author reveals himself to be a prof of Philosophy. The book begins VERY slowly and is often overly abstract and bloviating. His book is so engaging at most points though that I was able to overlook this to come away even more enlightened on this oversimplified problem than before.

This book explores the legal, social, economic, and political issues surrounding the banning of certain addictive substances by the government, emphasis on the banning of marijuana, heroin and cocaine by the US government. The author provides a brief history of these substances, how each came to be widely used within the US, and the history of how and why they were banned. The author explains how the legal and criminal justice system evolved to deal with the banning of these substances, and in turn how criminals and criminal organizations evolved to evade law enforcement authorities in the production and distribution of these same substances. The author also shows how prosecuting the drug war has inspired police corruption, invasion of privacy, and creates financial drains on the burses of local, state and federal governments that are much worse than the actual effects of substance abuse.

The author then delves into the moral and legal justification for banning these substances. The book goes into the physiological effects of consuming these substances, and distinguishes them from the effects of being incarcerated / criminally penalized for consuming the same substance. By doing so, he shows how the legal consequences (which are permanent) are often worse than the actual health affects (which are often temporary). By the end of the book, the author has come up with a convincing argument that some of the currently controlled substances should be decriminalized, if not outright legalized.

Overall, a good book on the subject of illecit drugs. The emphasis is on the US, so nothing much in the way of Colombian drug lords or opium smuggling in SE Asia. I recommend this book for all US citizens.

Some good information, but chapters are too long and poorly organized, particularly the chapter on arguing for criminalization. This chapter needs to be broken down into subsections. This would be okay, but there are only three pages on prescription drugs and Husak's casual dismissal of legalizing prescription drugs is devastating to his overall point of view. If doctors should control the use of pain meds, like Vicoding or Percocet, why shouldn't illegal drugs be placed in the prescribed category and give all power to doctors and pharmacies. This book contains some excellent ideas, but overall it fails to adequately address the legalization of all drugs. I don't think Husak really cares about the stranglehold drs have on tranquilizers and pain meds, when these easily should be legal, if marijuana or cocaine is legal. Also, he doesn't convincingly make the case that people should be allowed to use drugs for recreational purposes. This is a hugely disappointing book--as are virtually all books that see the War on Drugs as a problem. Finally, there is absolutely no hope for legalizing drugs until prominent physicians speak out for legalization.