Legalization of the Use and Sale of Drugs

This essay aims to discuss the question of whether the sale and use of drugs should be legalized. Gore Vidal presents the idea that the legalization of drugs will create benefits to society and the individual, whereas Tom Morangthau argues the opposite and points out the complications. Although both arguments have their strengths, I will conclude that drugs should not be made legal.

The Arguments For and Against Legalization: are the benefits and costs legitimate?

Gore Vidal attempts to argue that the legalization of the use and sale of drugs could provide benefits to society such as stopping drug addiction in the United States. The basis of Vidal's argument for this is that if drugs were made available and a label was attached explaining exactly what the effect of each drug was then the majority of people would be able to refrain from becoming drug addicts. He also says that there will always be those for whom addiction is inevitable, and this will be the case no matter what. Tom Morangthau argues against this by suggesting that it cannot be known whether addictions will increase or decrease, as the legalization of drugs would only be a social risk that could possibly go wrong, and he even proposes that drug addictions would be more likely to increase. Vidal also makes the point that refusing to allow people to do something that they enjoy or believe they might enjoy only increases their desire to do these things, due to human nature.

From Vidal's argument it is evident that it has been the case that the prohibition of drugs has led to undesirable circumstances, such as the crime wave and deaths caused when alcohol was forbidden by Congress, and the deaths caused by the limit on Mexican marijuana. Morangthau accepts that drug legalization may decrease crimes related to drugs, but he also argues that there is a problem with the social morality of freely available drugs. He suggests that legalizing drugs would be confusing for the population as behavior that was once considered taboo would suddenly be appropriate, and also anti-drug campaigns would clash with the legalization.

Vidal's argument that the legalization of drugs will contribute to reducing drug addiction in the United States can be argued against since, as pointed out by Morangthau, it is not possible to determine whether this will actually be the case. The American people may or may not increase drug abuse, so perhaps it is too big of a risk to take, especially with hard drugs such us cocaine and heroin which are dangerous to those who become addicted. Although Vidal points out that there will always be those people who are prone to addiction, it might not be moral to give these people easier access to what is killing them. Vidal's claim that human nature creates the desire to always do what is forbidden is also not strong as he does not have the authority to assume this. A good point that Vidal does bring up is the possible reduction in crimes related to drugs, although Morangthau also suggests that this is wishful thinking and a best case scenario. His idea that there would be confusion for the American people is a valid claim as messages about the danger of drugs will still be circling despite the legalization.

In this essay I have attempted to show that the arguments against the legalisation of the use and sale of drugs is the stronger argument in this case, as there is no promise that there will be improvements in drug addiction and crime rates, but rather it is too big of a social experiment.