Vol.3 Issue: 2 - Moral Arguments about Drug Use

Some professionals argue that drug use is a health and social issue, while others treat it more like a moral problem. Despite the tendency to dichotomise the debate, each position is based on particular moral principles. Those who perceive it to be a health issue tend to ground their argument in principles centering on the .freedom to choose., while individuals who perceive it as a moral issue tend to base their argument on certain principles around the sanctity of human life. Arguments based on opposing principles rarely find common ground. However, when attempting to secure funding or convince policy makers, health professionals would be best placed by first stating the moral principles that underpin their position, and second by supporting their position with evidence from the field.

Current drug literature suggests that arguments about drug use can be situated along four points on a moral continuum, representing four schools of thought. The first position, the "libertarian perspective", supports the notion that people should be permitted to indulge in activities that do not harm others, even activities which may harm themselves. However, libertarians recognise that limits should be placed around drug use if it impedes or disrupts the quality of life of others. A good example of a libertarian approach is drink driving. Libertarians support the notion of an individual's right to choose the amount of alcohol he or she consumes, however they also recognise that driving a vehicle after consuming alcohol can put the lives of others in danger. Thus, libertarians support limits around alcohol consumption and driving. Libertarians tend to be strong supporters of harm reduction strategies.

For some individuals the libertarian position is morally wrong, principally because it is perceived to be a licence for indulgence. At a theoretical, particularly at a theological or philosophical level, this has been argued rigorously and at length. However, despite the cogency and consistency of these arguments libertarians do not usually find these arguments convincing. It is not because they disagree with the logic of the argument or because they find the argument flawed; rather, libertarians disagree with the fundamental values that underpin the arguments. Thus, discussions usually end in a stalemate.

A more convincing and fruitful approach to the debate about the libertarian position, or indeed all the moral positions, would be to use evidence that supports each respective moral position. For example, libertarians could support their argument with evidence that suggests liberal drug laws show that significant harm to the community or the individual does not increase. The trial of supervised injecting rooms could be one source of evidence. Similarly, evidence from countries with more liberal laws around drug use, such as the Netherlands, could be drawn upon. A moral position supported with evidence from the field is more likely to be convincing to policy makers and other health professionals.

A position theoretically opposed to the libertarian perspective is one that argues "drugs are inherently bad". This position could be considered a prohibitionist position; often adherents are described as having "zero tolerance". Advocates of this position usually argue that the sanctity of the human person should always be preserved, thus drug use is bad because it "devalues" the worth of the person. These proponents sometimes couch their argument in religious or theological terms, using hallowed texts, or references to tradition, as their source of authority. Despite their blanket opposition to the use of illicit drugs, these proponents do not usually oppose the consumption of licit drugs such as alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, and prescribed medications.

Individuals who reject the "inherently bad" argument often describe the argument as inconsistent because it resorts to sources of authority to resolve what has originally been proposed as a moral issue. That is, it resorts to hallowed texts or long-standing religious tradition as its source of authority, and thus digresses from a rigorous and consistent intellectual debate. Proponents of the .inherently bad. argument would be better placed using evidence that supports their moral position, rather than referring solely to sources that are not seen to be credible by some parties. For example, evidence that demonstrates that drug use is associated with increased crime; or evidence that demonstrates that drug use at community events is often associated with drug-driving and therefore puts the lives of other people in danger, could be used to support their argument. Stating a moral position and then producing evidence to support this position is likely to be more fruitful, than simply arguing a moral point of view.

Closely associated with the prohibitionist position is the argument that "addictions are wrong". Similar to the prohibitionist, the departure point for this argument is the sanctity of human life. However, rather than arguing that drug taking devalues the human person, advocates of this position maintain that drug taking is not in itself bad, but rather drug taking leads to bad behaviour. addiction. and all addictions are bad. This argument is initially sympathetic to the libertarian position, that is, it accepts the individuals right to choose to use drugs. However, its commitment to this position is short-lived, as it explicitly rejects any choices that could lead to addictive behaviour. Protagonists of this argument are often opposed to illicit drugs only, usually using the legal status of a drug as the justification for their point of view.

Opponents to the "addictions are wrong" position often describe the argument as inconsistent because it discriminates between addictive behaviours. That is, it argues for criminal sanctions and coercive measures, such as compulsory treatment for illicit substance use, but argues differently for, or ignores other addictive behaviours, like addiction to alcohol. Like the previous two moral positions described, this argument often becomes stuck at a moral and philosophical level. Again, one way of strengthening the argument is to produce evidence that supports this moral position. For example, producing studies that demonstrate drug use leads to behaviours that devalue the human person, such as long-term unemployment or self-neglect would make the "addictions are wrong" argument stronger and ground it in tangible evidence.

A fourth and final argument is the "middle ground" position. This position can be situated between the libertarian position and previous two more condemnatory positions on drug use. Individuals who support this position are not concerned about whether drug use is "right or wrong.; their principal concern is that drug use should not harm the individual or the community. The middle ground position is more complex than the three positions previously described because it tries to balance concurrently individual and community welfare.

The "middle ground" position is usually met with the least opposition because its focus is on the welfare of the individual and the community. However, as proponents of this position tend to disagree with any explicit moral position, discussions often end in a stalemate. The argument between the parties would be better served by comparing evidence that supports each moral position. For example, middle ground proponents could support their argument with evidence that demonstrates drug use may not always lead to addiction, such as evidence that shows occasional ecstasy use amongst young people is increasing; however, it has not lead to an increased number of addicts.

Arguments between parties based on opposing principles rarely find common ground and usually end in a deadlock. Health professionals are more likely to win the minds of policy makers and funders if they first clearly articulate and locate their moral position, and second support their position with evidence from the field. Moral positions are not compelling to everyone, however, practical evidence can be persuasive. Practical evidence not only grounds an argument in tangible evidence, it also demonstrates a palpable concern for the welfare and wellbeing for other human beings . something all health professionals and policy makers are concerned about.

Bosco Rowland
Research Officer
Centre for Youth Drug Studies
Australian Drug Foundation