Let us assume a scenario in which heroin had been legalized in 1972, following the advice of an economist, Milton Friedman. Whom believed the government has no right to impede citizens from their freedom of choice, whether it’s heroin or alcohol usage, or suicide (Wilson). If heroin was legal, the price would reduced by 95 percent, therefore, there would be no need for purchasing drugs with “a disreputable dealer in a threatening neighborhood in order to acquire a possibly dangerous dose (Wilson).” If legal, heroin would now be sold through pharmacies, thus, the quality would have been assured, as would the needles necessary for its use. In fact, under Friedman’s legalized regime, he believed that while the number of addicts may increase, but that is an uncertain result as he believes the “forbidden fruit is attractive,” thus, becoming a case of curiosity for young adults (Wilson). However, Wilson dissents from Friedman’s notion. Wilson uses examples such as the result in Porsche sales or whiskey sales, if the price is to be cut by 95 percent (Wilson). Would we see no increase in those sales, simply because people only desire for them when they are …show more content…
However, as Wilson stated, would it be effective to dissuade children from doing something legal just like alcohol and tobacco? In fact, Wilson’s stance points towards an argument along the lines of the immorality of debasing humanity. While tobacco and alcohol may shorten one’s life, “cocaine debases it (Wilson).” In Wilson’s words, “cocaine alters one’s soul (Wilson).” In addition to societal harm, drugs such as heroin and cocaine are considered “mind-altering” drugs that destroys the abusers humanity, thus, is immoral