Boaz and Wilson on the Moral Status of Non-Medical Psychotropic Drug Use

Drugs  Any chemical substance that affects the functioning of living things.  Medical and Non-medical use.  The moral issue that we are considering is the non-medical use of Psychotropic Drugs. PD: drugs that produce changes in mood, feeling, and perception.

Addiction  A type of compulsive behavior involving dependence on some substance or activity which is undesirable. Physical and Psychological  There are a number of competing theories about the nature of addiction. Standard View: addiction is caused by the pharmacological effects of the drug.

Drug Abuse  The excessive nonmedical use of a drug that may cause harm to oneself or others.  From a number of moral perspectives, drug abuse raises concerns. From the social perspective, these concerns may justify laws limiting the freedom of individuals to use nonmedical psychotropic drugs.

Liberty-Limiting Principles  Conditions under which a government may be morally justified in passing laws that limit the liberty of its citizens. 1. Harm Principle: LL laws permissible in order to prohibit individuals from causing harms to others. 2. Offense Principle: LL laws permissible in order to prohibit individuals from offending others. 3. Legal Paternalism: LL laws permissible in order to prohibit individuals from harming themselves. 4. Legal Moralism: LL laws permissible in order to protect common moral standards.

Moral Theories?  Consequentialism: drug use is wrong if its effects fail to maximize utility.  Kantian Moral Theory: drug use is wrong if the maxim of its use fails the CI test. Compare the UL formulation and the Humanity Formulation.  Virtue Ethics: Enjoying oneself is part of a flourishing life. As long as drug use is consistent with flourishing, then it is not problematic. Temperance.

Boaz on Legalization  Throughout history, humans have used psychotropic drugs.  Governmental response has been consistent and univocal: criminalization.  Leaving aside any moral questions, the history of this response does not suggest that it is effective. One important consequence that our recent experiment with criminalization (The War on Drugs) has produced is a series of liberty-limiting laws.

Boaz on Prohibition  Since 1981, the US has been involved in a self-described “War on Drugs.” Levels of drug availability and persistence of drug use during since suggests that it has not been particularly successful. Our social commitment to this approach has come at considerable cost (141c2).  One explanation for the failure is the role of financial incentives.

Boaz on Rights  Boaz boils down our national creed to one fundamental right. “Individuals have the right to live their lives in any way they choose so long as they do not violate the equal rights of others” (143c1).  Implications for drug use? Violence: associated with use or with prohibition? Harm?

Non-responsibility  Boaz turns his attention to the culture and what he describes as a prevailing attitude of non-responsibility.  One form of this attitude is the standard view of addiction that he calls “The Addiction Theory.” He calls it “Addiction Theory;” it has also been called the “Disease Theory.” The idea is that the addict is a sick person that is not responsible for their behavior.  What’s the problem with this attitude?

Restoring Self-Responsibility  Boaz goes on to argue that another limitation of the strategy of criminalization is that, despite appearances, it unintentionally contributes to the non- responsibility attitude.  Liberty-limiting laws, on Boaz’s view, are justified only on the basis of the harm principle. Other justifications intrude unjustifiably on personal choice, not only undercutting our liberty, but also weakening our sense of self-responsibility.

Adding it Up  Criminalization is a failed strategy for consequentialist and rights-oriented reasons.  Decriminalization and legalization is not only more consistent with our civil liberties but also has important attitudinal consequences vis-à-vis personal responsibility.

Wilson on Legalization  Wilson opposes legalization on consequentialist grounds.  His argument makes important use of counterfactual claims. From the OED: Pertaining to, or expressing, what has not in fact happened, but might, could, or would, in different conditions.  On their basis he considers some possible implications of the widespread use of heroin and cocaine.

Nodding Consumer or Crackhead  In the heroin counterfactual, he highlights some of the economic consequences of legalization and draws out some possible implications for rates of heroin use. Use the same as abuse?  In the cocaine counterfactual, he focuses on harms. Strong addiction, stimulant, bingeing common. Crack Babies. Victimless Crime? We have to draw a line!

Benefits of Illegality  In addition to reducing (?) the number of addicts, Wilson identifies a number of other possible positive consequences for criminalization. 1. Treatment of unwilling addicts. We can coerce it with the help of the compulsion of the law (147c2). 2. Education. It is easier to convince children to “Just say no” if the activity is illegal (148c1). 3. Moral Issue? Drug abuse is just plain immoral (Ibid).

The Genie is out of the Bottle  Many would reply by comparing the negative consequences of alcohol abuse with that of heroin and cocaine abuse. Even be willing to stipulate negative consequences on a level comparable to current consequences of alcohol abuse.  Too much, insists Wilson. We are barely holding the line with alcohol. He makes the connection counterfactually to the positive consequences of criminalization of alcohol (148-9).

“ I could be wrong. ”  In the end, Wilson admits that much of what he has said is speculation.  He rests his argument on a dilemma: “I may be wrong. If I am, then we will needlessly have incurred heavy costs in law enforcement and some forms of criminality. But if I am right, and the legalizers prevail…then we will have consigned millions of people, hundred of thousands of infants, and hundreds of neighborhoods to a life of oblivion and disease” (149c1).