This timely and important book is the first serious work of philosophy to address the question: Do adults have a moral right to use drugs for recreational purposes? Many critics of the "war on drugs" denounce law enforcement as counterproductive and ineffective. Douglas Husak argues that the "war on drugs" violates the moral rights of adults who want to use drugs for pleasure, and that criminal laws against such use are incompatible with moral rights. This is not a polemical tract but a scrupulously argued work of philosophy that takes full account of all available data concerning drug use in...
This timely and important book is the first serious work of philosophy to address the question: Do adults have a moral right to use drugs for recreati...
The use or possession of many drugs is currently a criminal offense in the U.S. Can these criminal laws be justified? What are the best reasons to punish or not to punish drug users? These are the fundamental issues debated in this book by two prominent philosophers of law. Douglas Husak argues in favor of drug decriminalization, by clarifying the meaning of crucial terms, such as legalize, decriminalize, and drugs. Peter de Marneffe argues against drug legalization, demonstrating why drug prohibition, especially the prohibition of heroin, is necessary to protect youth from self-destructive...
The use or possession of many drugs is currently a criminal offense in the U.S. Can these criminal laws be justified? What are the best reasons to pun...
In this trenchantly argued text, both students and the general public will find a clear statement of the arguments for the decriminalization of recreational drugs.
In this trenchantly argued text, both students and the general public will find a clear statement of the arguments for the decriminalization of recrea...
This book argues that ignorance of law should usually be a complete excuse from criminal liability. It defends this conclusion by invoking two presumptions: first, the content of criminal law should conform to morality; second, mistakes of fact and mistakes of law should be treated symmetrically. The author grounds his position in an underlying theory of moral and criminal responsibility according to which blameworthiness consists in a defective response to the moral reasons one has. Since persons cannot be faulted for failing to respond to reasons for criminal liability they do not believe...
This book argues that ignorance of law should usually be a complete excuse from criminal liability. It defends this conclusion by invoking two presump...