Drug Policy, Paternalism and the Limits of Government Intervention

Daniel Hirst

doi:10.22609/1.4.1.3

Abstract

Gerald Dworkin provides an insightful starting point for determining acceptable paternalism through his commitment to protecting our future autonomy and health from lasting damage. Dworkin grounds his argument in an appeal to inherent goods, which this paper argues is best considered as a commitment to human flourishing. However, socialconnectedness is also fundamental to human flourishing and an important consideration when determining the just limits of paternalistic drug controls, a point missing from Dworkin’ essay. For British philosopher Thomas Hill Green, regulation of alcohol sales emerged from the social ideal. Green argued that policy interventions, including restricted opening hours and locations, improved the conditions for humans to flourish. Green offers a compelling political vision but fails to account for the fact pleasure is also an inherent good. He focused excessively on our social nature, excluding our more pleasure-seeking and egoistic characteristics. In contrast, a more realistic and complete vision of human flourishing can be found in an amended version of Gerald’s Dworkin’s arguments. In conclusion, this paper argues drug policy makers should remain committed to the harm principle as applied to criminal law whereby a person should never be criminalized for self-harm. Such a limit on paternalistic interventions is deemed necessary when eudaimonia is the end of government action. In practical terms, this means that the criminalization of drug use, as opposed to drug production, is always unjust.

Highlights

This essay establishes the theoretical framework against which policy makers can assess the benefits and harms of government interventions
Gerald Dworkin provides an insightful starting point for determining acceptable paternalism through his commitment to protecting our future autonomy and health from lasting damage. Dworkin grounds his argument in an appeal to inherent goods, which this paper argues is best considered as a commitment to human flourishing
Dworkin argues these goods are autonomy, life, health, and pleasure, and allows a narrow range of strong paternalism if it can be clearly shown doing so is necessary for the maximization of essential human goods across society, the one essential human good Dworkin fails to account for in his theory of acceptable paternalism is the social aspect of our nature

Summary

Introduction

This essay establishes the theoretical framework against which policy makers can assess the benefits and harms of government interventions. To maximize human flourishing no one should be criminalized unless they violate the rights of another by harming their body or property This version of the harm principle is necessary for the protection of our inherent human right to moral independence from unjust state interference with our body and action. The conclusion this produces for the drug policy maker is that drug users should never be criminalized

The importance of Negative Freedom

Limitations on Negative Freedom

Atomism and Positive Freedom

Thomas Hill Green and the social ideal

Conclusion