James Wilson Legalization Of Heroin Analysis

James Wilson begins his argument by informing the reader of his position of power. President Nixon appointed him the chairman of the National Advisory Council for Drug Abuse Prevention in 1972. His primary role was to provide direction on the war on drugs, essentially focusing on the impermissibility of the legalization of cocaine and heroin. Wilson attacks the well-known economist Milton Friedman in his publication addressing the call for the legalization of heroin. Friedman made this claim based on a two-prong argument. The first prong, the government does not have the right to tell people not to use heroin, or in other instances, the government doesn't have the right to tell one not to drink, or commit suicide. The second prong, the …show more content…
He explains that many people agree there are risks with the legalization of cocaine and heroin, but they are still supporting it because they feel the war on drugs was lost. Wilson explains this mindset is not the case. The war on drugs was not surrendered; the people fighting for it did not give up, the nation accomplished saving people from themselves, the drug problem was contained and the numbers lessened. He understood they had not diminished the whole war on drugs, but grants that the money law enforcement has spent and the increase of crime due to people needing to pay for the drugs was all worth the dent that was placed on the war on drugs. For the sake of the argument, Wilson adds the idea that if drugs were legalized the black market for those drugs would be eliminated but this gain would be strongly offset by the surplus number of addicts. Wilson adds that advocates for the legalization of drugs argue that having more addicts would largely be offset by the mass amount of money accessible to treat and care for them. This money would come from taxes placed on heroin and cocaine. This is another concept Wilson finds incoherent, the higher taxes would create a higher price on drugs, which in return would increase the crime rate in order for addicts to obtain the money needed for the drugs. Wilson adds that school systems are starting to invest in drug-education programs that are showing to have promising positive outcomes. Although the question must be asked, how will an education class work if you’re telling students to not do something that is perfectly legal, like drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes? Wilson proclaims that the message about nicotine or cocaine is found at the moral root; people look at nicotine and cocaine differently even though they are both extremely harmful to the human body. Why is this? Wilson suggests this is because nicotine does not destroy the user’s essential