Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction David Boaz, “Drug-Free America or Free America?” Boaz favors the legalization of marjiuana, heroin, and cocaine. Two lines of argument: 1. A rights-based argument: People have a natural right to live as they choose so long as they do not violate the equal rights of others. 2. A consequentialist argument: Drug prohibition causes more harm than it prevents.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction David Boaz, “Drug-Free America or Free America?” To support the consequentialist line of argument: Boaz cites statistics allegedly showing that the government has been strongly committed to winning the “drug war.” He cites statistics allegedly showing that prohibition has done little to reduce drug use, despite the government’s efforts. He gives an explanation for how prohibition creates the social problems he claims it does. To support the rights-based line, Boaz appeals to the intuition that what one puts in one’s own body is a personal choice that one has the right to make without governmental interference.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Peter de Marneffe, “Decriminalize, Don't Legalize” Drug prohibition: criminal penalties for the manufacture, sale, and possession of large quantities of drugs Drug criminalization: criminal penalties for using drugs and possessing small quantities of drugs De Marneffe supports decriminalization; he argues that there should be no penalties for the use and possession of small quantities of drugs. He leaves open the question of whether the benefits of drug prohibition outweigh its costs.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Peter de Marneffe, “Decriminalize, Don't Legalize” Some relevant differences between decriminalization and legalization Drug criminalization prohibits individuals from having certain enjoyable and illuminating experiences; prohibition does not. Drug criminalization prohibits the use of drugs and the making of them for personal use; prohibition does not. de Marneffe cites these reasons and others to show that while drug criminalization seems incompatible with respect for persons, prohibition does not.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Robert E. Goodin, “Permissible Paternalism: Saving Smokers from Themselves” Goodin’s article is intended to show that some forms of control and interference may be morally justified on paternalistic grounds. Paternalistic policies are those “designed to promote people’s interests…even when those people [are] themselves opposed to such policies.” Goodin focuses on paternalistic policies that can be justified by appeal to the preferences of those affected, rather than some purportedly objective standard.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Robert E. Goodin, “Permissible Paternalism: Saving Smokers from Themselves” According to Goodin, public officials should refrain from paternalistic interference only when they are convinced that you are acting on preferences that are: Relevant: Relevant preferences are based on accurate and relevant information. Settled: Settled preferences are stable; they are not merely part of an some transitory phase of the individual. Preferred: Preferred preferences are preferences the individual prefers to have. Addictions, for example, typically involve preference that the addicted person would rather not have. Goodin then discusses what it might mean for a preference to be one’s own.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Robert E. Goodin, “Permissible Paternalism: Saving Smokers from Themselves” Goodin uses the case of Rose Cipollone as an illustration of when one’s preference to smoke is neither relevant, nor preferred, nor one’s own. He adds that preventing her from starting to smoke could have been justified by reference to her future stable preferences. Goodin concludes by mentioning a variety of public policies against smoking that can be paternalistically justified.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Daniel Shapiro, “Addiction and Drug Policy” The “standard view” of addiction: Drugs like heroin and cocaine are addictive largely because of their effects on the brain owing to their chemical constitution (i.e., their pharmacology). Shapiro claims that the standard view plays an important role in arguments for banning such drugs.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Daniel Shapiro, “Addiction and Drug Policy” The standard view, argues Shapiro, is false. Withdrawal effects, the only pharmacological effects that could explain addictive behavior, don’t explain it. The best explanation for drug addiction, he argues, appeals to one’s individual mindset and social setting. Shapiro cites empirical data allegedly showing that illegal drugs are not inherently addictive. Conclusion: Legalizing “hard” drugs would not produce a significant increase in addiction.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Peter Collins, “Is Gambling Immoral? A Virtue Ethics Approach” Collins focuses on “the morality of individuals’ playing games of chance in commercial contexts where the odds are systematically stacked against them.” Utilitarian arguments: Mill has the resources to advance two utilitarian arguments against gambling, neither of which is convincing, says Collins. Kantian arguments: Various Kantian arguments could be advanced against gambling, but the most plausible of these fails.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Peter Collins, “Is Gambling Immoral? A Virtue Ethics Approach” Puritan arguments The stewardship argument Religious version: We must live in a manner befitting creatures of God Secular version: We should do everything in our power to live as well as we can

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction Peter Collins, “Is Gambling Immoral? A Virtue Ethics Approach” Eudaimonic ethical theory Collins’ preferred theory; he argues it captures what is most plausible about the stewardship argument Collins’ conclusion (based on eudaimonic theory): Gambling, by and large, has no significant effect on a gambler’s moral character. Therefore, it is largely a trivial matter.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction David B. Fletcher, “Gambling and Character” Fletcher, like Collins, proposes a virtue-based argument about gambling. Unlike Collins, however, Fletcher concludes that gambling is morally objectionable Five arguments: 1. Gambling injures self-control. Gambling is fun in a bad way. “The thrill of gambling is a delight in irrationality and placing valuables at unnecessary risk.” 2. Gambling is an expression of greed.

Chapter 5: Drugs, Gambling, and Addiction David B. Fletcher, “Gambling and Character” Five arguments: 3. Gambling promotes indifference to others. “Gambling is inconsistent with an appropriate concern for the welfare of others…” The gambler “damages most directly the interests of his family and others in his immediate circle.” 4. Gambling promotes disregard for money. Fletcher suggests that gamblers use their money in socially irresponsible ways. 5. Gambling is irrational. Relying on luck is “an abdication of reason”