De Marneffe and Shapiro on Drug Legalization

Peter de Marneffe on Heroin Prohibition

• Main Conclusion: The legalization of heroin should not occur because it would disproportionately disadvantage adolescents in poor communities.
• Impact on Opportunities: Legalization would further restrict already narrow opportunities for achievement and success for these youth.
• Key Premises:
  • Adolescents across all economic groups would likely use heroin regularly if legalized.
  • Heroin provides pleasure and relief but is highly addictive.
  • Heroin addiction serves as a barrier to individual success.

The Burdens Principle

• Definition: The government is prohibited from adopting a coercive policy that burdens an individual unless:
  • Someone else would bear a burden at least nearly as great in the absence of that policy.
  • There is "sufficient epistemic reason" for officials to believe this burden would exist without the policy.
• View on Paternalism: Paternalistic restrictions on liberty are only considered wrong if they violate the burdens principle regarding the person being restricted.

Critical Challenges to de Marneffe

• Empirical Challenges: Questioning assumptions about heroin addiction rates or the specific behaviors of adolescents in poor communities.
• Application of Burdens: Argue that current drug laws cause a greater burden than addiction through the disproportionate incarceration of poor and racialized youth.
• Daniel Shapiro’s Critique:
  • Main Claim: The burdens principle is incompatible with individualism.
  • Individualism Premise: Value is placed on the ability of people to pursue "peaceful projects" without coercive government interference.
  • The Problem of "Hostage" Rights: Shapiro argues the burdens principle holds the right to pursue peaceful projects hostage to the actions of individuals who "make a mess of their lives."