Anda di halaman 1dari 6

De La Salle University - Dasmarias

College of Liberal Arts and Communication

WAR ON DRUGS
The positive and negative implications

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Course
PHLO102 ETHICS

Submitted by
Marnee F. Bautista
Loren Dorothea N. Prado
PSC42

Submitted to
Prof. Evelyn Perez
Social Sciences Department

December 14, 2016

WAR ON DRUGS
The positive and negative implications

Drug trafficking is a global problem, an illicit trade that involves the manufacture,
cultivation, distribution and sale of prohibited substances. War on drugs in the Philippines is a
campaign to warn illegal drug traffickers and users to stop their activities. This campaign is
called "Oplan Tokhang," the project of the Philippine National Police that became a national law
enforcement project implemented all over the country.
President Rodrigo Duterte has waged an all-out campaign against illegal drugs since he
assumed office. He has mounted a reprise of that war across the nation, saying that he is ready to
put his honor, life, and presidency on the line for it, he vowed to end illegal drugs within his first
year as president. Duterte Administration believes that illegal drug is the root of all crime, thus
illegal drug trades in the Philippines has to stop. There are three basic types of drug-related
crimes: offenses defined by drug possession or sales; offenses directly related to drug abuse; and
offenses related to a lifestyle that predisposes the drug abuser to engage in illegal activity, one in
which the offender is under the influence of drugs or alcohol just before or during the
commission of the crime.

AFFIRMATIVE
Duterte's fearless stance against illegal drug led to improved crime rate and safeties of the
country and provides good impression to both domestic and international travelers, war on drugs
is winning the approval of investors and consumers. Peace and order held by the war on drugs
will be more evident under this administration in the next few months and will surely be a big
boost to tourism. Tourism are keeping their hopes up that this particular campaign would have a
favorable impact in the long run. The fact that crime rate is down by at least 40 percent, the
average monthly crime rate hit 49.15, down by 11.51 percent from 55.54 last year, it is then
reassuring enough that the Philippines today is becoming safer and safer to visit. This war on
drugs had lessen drug-related crimes. When drug addicts will not have easy access to illegal

substances, they will not experience the highs or hallucinations that will drive them to commit
crimes. They wouldnt need to steal either so they can buy drugs.
The first major argument for prohibition holds that drugs should be prohibited because
drug use is extremely harmful to the users themselves, and prohibition decreases the rate of drug
abuse. This argument assumes that the proper function of government includes preventing people
from harming themselves. Drug use is very harmful to users; thus the government should
prohibit people from doing things that harm themselves. Therefore, the government should
prohibit drug use. Unitarianism holds that an act is morally right if and only if it brings about the
best balance of utility (i.e., the best balance of benefits and harms). In other words, an act is right
(very roughly) when it has desirable consequences and wrong when it has undesirable
consequences. Utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the
benefit of a majority. In addition to utilitarianism, we can more particularly pigeonhole
Dutertes war as state consequentialism since we are dealing here with a state-sanctioned
program. Under this conviction, all actions, practices, and policies that promote the overall
welfare of society are morally right, and those that interfere are morally wrong.
From Dutertes view, the consequence of the drug trade and drug addiction is the
unacceptable tearing of the fabric of society. There is great truth in this. The pernicious effects of
drugs, not only in the Philippines but in every country, can be seen in the compulsive search for
ersatz bliss, in the waste of unproductive lives, and in the ensuing waves of criminality. All of
these, plus the loss of hope, weigh heavily on the mind and on society.

NEGATIVE
The Financial Times provides a flavor of how the war on drugs has been operating on
the ground: There are at least three ways to die in the Philippines' war on drugs. The first is the
botched police operation: resisting arrest, the suspect is gunned down by officers. Second, the
vigilante killings: a masked duo, typically riding tandem on a motorcycle, pull up alongside the
target for a pointblank assassination. And then there are the mysteries - the bodies dumped down
dark alleys, hog-tied, wrapped in plastic packaging and bearing a cardboard calling card: "I am a
drug pusher."

In this war, death comes fast and it comes frequently. Since new president Rodrigo
Duterte launched the crackdown two months ago, about 2,000 suspected drug users and pushers
have been killed. Mr Duterte christened his presidency by promising a six-month campaign that
would kill 100,000 drug users. The most recent unofficial figure for the number of people killed
in the context of the war on drugs across the country since the end of June is 3,500. The most
recent official figure, published in mid-September 2016, is just over 3,100 people, about onethird of whom were killed by the police. Concern about the level of extrajudicial killings has led
to widespread protests at home and abroad.
A moral argument against war on drugs was discussed at Oxford University, citing John
Stuart Mills rule that the only legitimate reason to prohibit something was if it harms others. The
right to pursue pleasure gives us reason to not harm those who use drugs, while addiction and
self-harm fail to give us good reason to prohibit them. Since most of the harm comes from the
illegal drug trade, not from self-harm and addiction, killing drug users in this war is not the
moral answer.
The issue of war on drugs has both a moral and legal dimension. On the one hand, even if
drug use is legal, we can ask whether the use of such drugs is immoral. Just because the law
permits a person to do something doesnt mean that he or she should do itsuch as smoking or
riding a motorcycle without a helmet. On the other hand, even if it is immoral to take drugs, we
can still ask whether the use of such drugs should be illegal. The law permits us to do a range of
immoral activities, such lying to others or cheating on ones spouse. While these are things that
we shouldnt do morally speaking, at the same time people dont want our laws telling us how to
conduct our private lives.
Given that the use and selling of illegal drugs is prohibited by law in the Philippines, it is
constitutional to punish and imprison those who disobey it but only with the limitations specified
in the law. It is not just to give people the punishment that is either too light or too heavy. The
punishment that should be given to the offenders are expected to be only in the gravity that they
deserve. Groups of Human Rights advocates argue that justice should not be in the hands of
anyone except of the Justice entities and that the use and selling of illegal drugs may be against
the law, but it is not grave enough that offenders should be killed.

SYNTHESIS
First of all, there is the moral problem. A government that acts illegally is selfcontradictory. It makes laws, supposedly enforces laws, but at the same time breaks them.
Breaking one set of laws will usually lead to a contempt for all laws. Eventually the government
will become not a proper government but a criminal conspiracy, for it will have descended to the
level of the people it is fighting.
The researchers firmly believe that because there is law that prevails in this land, we must
abide by it and those who would fail to do so should be punished. President Duterte is correct
that the consequence of the drug trade and drug addiction is the unacceptable tearing of the fabric
of society, but his ways of doing the war on drugs is immoral. We must hope that the President
abandons his reckless policies before more harm is done. Because every time the President says
something, its already some sort of a policy statement. There is a law which tells us what is just
and unjust, and therefore if something is proven to be unjust the justice system is tasked to
handle it. The law of reason should be followed and not the law of man. In this war on drugs,
extra-judicial killings are not given attention because the government seemed to favor it, most
especially the president, who have vocalized even back in his campaign period that officials who
would kill the drug users and pushers would be immune from any criminal charge. Kill drugs,
not people.
There are better ways of dealing with the scourge of drugs, the government should not
use the same methods of the criminals in taking on the criminals to end the illegal drug trade in
the Philippines. It is ironic that in this war on drugs, people would kill those who they believe are
offenders of law, while murder is an offense too, and a worse crime.
Dont judge others because they sin differently than you.

References:
https://joeam.com/2016/09/18/the-immoral-justifications-of-dutertes-anti-drug-war/
http://us.blastingnews.com/world/2016/08/philippines-war-on-drugs-and-criminality-seen-asadvantage-in-the-country-s-economy-001078813.html
https://philosophy.tamucc.edu/extended_examples_marijuana?destination=node%2F1197
https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/3-drugs.htm