Drug addiction is a choice, and it greatly depends on your decision. Human beings live on a ruled country; however, we have created a society that makes decisions that are correct to your own will. Giving drugs to addicts can possibly lead to an increase in crime or it can create protection for our citizens. In “Give Drugs to Addicts So We Can Be Safe,” Jonah J. Goldstein presents convincing and acceptable arguments to an extent; however, he provides hasty generalizations, false analogies, and hidden assumptions that do not justify his conclusions.

Jonah Goldstein starts by generalizing that drug addicts under the influence of drugs are never dangerous because narcotics are sedatives. Goldstein doesn’t provide any authoritative opinion to prove that his argument is a fact. What about the effects these drugs have on the addicts? Do people experience the same effects and reactions when they consume or inject the drug itself? No evidence is provided, hence it is not acceptable. Another situation is when Jonah Goldstein generalizes that giving addicts their drugs would be a good case, even if it did help him harm himself.

Isn’t this statement contradicting him? Also in what ways will the addicts benefit by giving them the drugs. Goldstein presents his arguments, but he fails to convince the people due to the lack of evidence. Goldstein then uses false analogies to prove his point in whether giving addicts their drugs. Goldstein then compares drugs to insulin as an essential substance in the body. We biologically know that insulin is an essential hormone to lower glucose in the body.

But what about drugs, is there any biological book or any authoritative opinion that proves that narcotics are essential in the human body? Or is it just a need to make our body comfortable? Jonah Goldstein again fails to prove his argument because he doesn’t provide facts or any kind of evidence to convince the readers. Hidden assumptions are also fallacies Goldstein provides to persuade the readers to give addicts their drugs. He states that narcotics laws are driving sick people to crime; however we know that assumptions might be true or false according to evidence provided.

Jonah’s assumption is literally wrong because not everybody that in the society breaks the law, which shows that narcotics laws don’t have anything to do with leading to crime. The protection of our society depends on our decisions. Jonah J. Goldstein concludes that “our laws on narcotics should benefit the people who don’t take drugs, not the people who do”.