THE FAILURE OF THE “FAILURE ARGUMENT” IN ETHAN NADELMANN’S THE CASE FOR LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS
THE FAILURE OF THE “FAILURE ARGUMENT” IN ETHAN NADELMANN’S THE CASE FOR LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS

Summary/Abstract: This article examines Ethan Nadelmann‘s critique of drug prohibition in his paper; The Case for Legalization. Nadelmann argues that one of the fundamental reasons why it is important to think about drug legalization is because current drug control policies have failed, are failing, and will continue to fail in good part because they are fundamentally flawed. Contrary to Nadelmann‘s view, the paper argues that Nadelmann‘s argument is not only an exaggerated view but also fallacious. The paper further argues; (i) assuming that drug policies actually failed, the failure of the drug policies in the past and present does not necessarily guarantee the future failure, (ii) that the failure of the drug policies does not necessarily justify legalisation of drugs, (iii) that if the policies has succeeded in deterring potential criminals in the past and present, it will be wrong to conclude that it has failed. Finally, the paper concludes by showing through logical analysis, how and why Nadelmann‘s failure argument is an exaggerated view.

• Details
• Contents