The problem of drugs legalization is a topic for debate in many countries where politicians, sociologists, philosophers, and other experts try to address the consequences of using drugs illegally. In his article “Don’t Legalize Drugs,” Theodore Dalrymple focused on the situation in Britain. Dalrymple’s position is that drugs should not be legalized because drugs prohibition will not restrict people’s freedoms from a philosophical perspective, and drugs legalization cannot lead to decreasing crime rates from a pragmatic perspective.
The author’s position that drugs need to be prohibited is based on his rebuttal of the philosophical ideas on legalization and pragmatic reasons. Thus, Dalrymple states that the other people’s arguments supporting legalizing drugs are quite mistaken, and they “miss the point,” which leads to concluding that drugs should not be legalized. The author supports his main argument with the help of rhetoric strategies and evidence. Dalrymple actively applies logos in his essay, providing opposing views and detailed rebuttals supported by evidence and examples. Presenting his arguments to refute the philosophical argument, the author concludes that not all freedoms can be considered equal, “and neither are all limitations of freedom: some are serious and some trivial” (Dalrymple). Therefore, the legalization of drugs is not freedom the society needs.
Logos are used to refute the pragmatic argument, but it is also supported by ethos, focusing on the author’s experience. Thus, Dalrymple reasonably states, “officially sanctioned antisocial behavior … breeds yet more antisocial behavior,” crime rates will not decrease, low prices and availability of drugs will increase their consumption. Dalrymple chooses to accentuate his position with the help of ethos, referring to the examples from his experience in Africa and his hospital. The author also applies pathos: “If the war against drugs is lost, then so are the wars against theft, speeding, incest, fraud, rape, murder, arson, and illegal parking” (Dalrymple). Applying to readers’ emotions, the author emphasizes that this does not mean that people need to quit fighting these social problems.
One should agree with Dalrymple’s claim, and the reason is that provided argumentation is presented logically and persuasively. The author effectively refutes his opponents’ arguments, indicating weaknesses, questionable aspects, controversial details in their positions. Dalrymple critiques the points based on John Stuart Mill’s philosophy, and it becomes clear that drugs legalization cannot be supported by other philosophers. According to Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, the emphasis should be on evaluating not consequences but intentions; the use of substances cannot be viewed as a right moral intention as its benefit is not generalizable for society. The more positive intention is associated with harm reduction due to prohibiting drugs.
Dalrymple’s argument should be viewed as rather persuasive and reasonable. The author’s approach to presenting his views is effective and convincing, especially concerning Dalrymple’s ability to refute opponents’ arguments. From this perspective, it is possible to state that the author successfully applied such rhetoric strategies as logos, pathos, and ethos to support his vision regarding the problem of legalizing drugs.
Work Cited
Dalrymple, Theodore. “Don’t Legalize Drugs.” City Journal, 1997.