Does Prohibition of Drugs Maximize Utility?

Prohibition of Drugs
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Lecturer's Name
Prohibition of Drugs
Prohibition of hard drugs has always raised controversy, with various philosophers arguing for or against it. The argument revolves around addiction, abuse, health problems, and crime associated with the prohibition and legalization of hard drugs. For this reason, it is essential to evaluate the prohibition of hard drugs like cocaine and heroin from the utilitarian viewpoint by determining whether the war on drugs creates the greatest happiness. In this paper, I will argue that the prohibition of hard drugs maximizes utility; therefore, policymakers should continue supporting it.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that suggests, "an action is right if it maximizes utility" (Smith, 2002). Maximizing utility refers to an action's or policy's ability to promote the greatest happiness (Smith, 2002). A utilitarian must view how drug use would affect society once it is legalized and whether or not it benefits society and maximizes utility for everyone affected by it. From a utilitarian perspective, prohibition of drugs maximizes utility because it minimizes the availability and usage of hard drugs by various means. The illegality of these drugs deters many users due to the fear and consequences of breaking the law. Compared to legal trade, prohibition increases the price of drugs and thus, reduces demand and availability (Smith, 2002). It also condemns drug use, but legalization can encourage drug use and undermine drugs education since anti-drug programs would incorporate more objective messaging around drug use instead of using scare tactics and harsh language around hard drugs and their negative effects.
Proponents of prohibition of hard drugs, such as James Q. Wilson, argued that legalization condones drug use, promotes addiction, and undermines efforts to discourage hard drugs (Wilson, 1995). If drugs such as cocaine and heroin are legalized, their price will decline sharply, hypodermic needles would be readily available at the local drug store, and purchase drugs would occur anywhere (Wilson, 1995). There would be no loner medical or financial reason to avoid drug use. Arguably, prohibition reduces drug use through availability, price, deterrence, and denunciation. As a result, it minimizes its associated harms such as ill-health, addiction, stupefaction, death, child neglect, abuse, and crime and violence (Smith, 2002). The role of prohibition in minimizing the harms caused by hard drugs makes many people happy, hence, maximizing utility.
Wilson (1995) noted that cocaine is worse than heroin by all measures, and prohibiting it would reduce its adverse effects. He highlighted that heroin produces pleasant drowsiness. Its Physical side effects include sexual impotence and constipation (Wilson, 1995). Regular usage incapacitates users for any productive task or social responsibility. On the contrary, cocaine produces instant, intense, and short-lived euphoria when smoked or injected (Wilson, 1995). The experience produces a strong desire to repeat it. Repeat use will occur, provided the drug is readily available. Individuals who progress to cocaine bingeing become devoted to the drug, result...