Abstract

In this chapter, Rob Lovering defends the legalization of recreational drug use by way of two types of argument: direct and indirect. His direct arguments for the legalization of recreational drug use—what he calls the “Prudential Goods Argument” and the “Right to Bodily Autonomy Argument”—involve providing reasons for accepting the view that recreational drug use ought to be legal. And his indirect argument for the legalization of recreational drug use—what he calls the “No Good Reason Argument”—involves providing reasons for rejecting the view (and arguments thereof) that recreational drug use ought to be illegal. Since each of the two direct arguments contains a premise 11 Introduction whose successful defense requires delving into reasons for thinking that recreational drug use ought to be illegal and, with them, the No Good Reason Argument, he spends a little more time developing and discussing the latter argument than he does either of the former arguments.