Examples Of Soft Paternalism

Soft paternalism supports the criminalisation of drug usage because the action and effects of drug usage fulfils the two necessary elements which justify state interference according to soft paternalism. The criminalisation of drug usage represents a mechanism through which the state justifiably limits the liberty of individuals on the basis that a person’s “decision making capacity is compromised by cognitive and emotional deficiencies” (Wertheimer 2002, 50) as a result of a drug usage. This essay will discuss how drug usage extensively compromises the mental faculties and inherent rationality of human beings to the extent that the action of taking drugs may no longer be considered voluntary or validly consented to. Furthermore the idea that

If one saw a person crossing a bridge which you knew was impaired yet the eminent danger of the bridge collapsing could not be effectively communicated to that person due to some or other communicative barrier, the forceful prevention of that person from crossing the bridge would be deemed justifiable according to soft paternalism. However if that person was aware of the impairment of the bridge and intended to cross it in order to risk or terminate their livelihood, in the event of a suicide for example, a soft paternalist would argue that there should be no imposition to restrict the liberty of that person from being able to execute such an action as long as their decision making faculties have not been somewhat compromised and no harm is caused to others as a result of the

However drug usage constitutes an action which results in not only in the mental and physical harm upon the drug user but also the direct and indirect harm upon the surroundings of the drug user which further proves why soft paternalism would support the criminalisation of drug usage. Drug usage often directly and indirectly harms the following aspects of the drug user’s life; their marriage or personal relationships with other people, the stability of their family life, their financial issues which others may depend on as well as the law and order of a country (Medic8.com 2014). For example in the United States, approximately $50 billion is spent annually by the government in an attempt to curtail the use and collateral damage caused by illegal drugs (Ahmad 2004). This serves as evidence of indirect financial harm incurred upon non-drug user citizens who pay taxes to finance governmental expenditure so that the needs of all citizens are adequately provided for. However instead of the government spending additional money on education or infrastructure it is covering rehabilitation health and crime related costs which are caused by 9.4% of the American population whom are illegally abusing illicit drugs (Ahmad 2004). The impairment of