DRUGS
From Moral Issues that Divide us, by James Fieser
© 2008, updated 1/1/2026, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
CONTENTS
Introduction
Background
Harm
Addiction
What People Think
Ethical Issues
Four Moral Arguments for Drugs: Pleasure, Mental Therapy, Artistic Inspiration, Religious Enlightenment
Paley's Utilitarian Criticism: Harms Outweigh the Benefits
Stoic Criticism: Pleasure should be Avoided
Kant's Criticism: Intoxication Undermines Autonomous Free Choice
Nietzsche's Criticism: Intoxication Inhibits Creativity
James's Criticism: Drug-Induced Mysticism Is Unreliable
Doucet's Criticism: Drugs are Produced Unethically
Public Policy Issues
Balancing Freedom and Harm
Harm to Others vs. Harm to Oneself
U.S. Drug Laws
Efforts to Relax Drug Laws
State Legalization of Marijuana
U.S. Alcohol Laws
Conclusion
Study Questions
INTRODUCTION
Ethan, a 35-year-old struggling with drug addiction, lives in his mother's basement. He works sporadically in construction, but his addiction to methamphetamine prevents him from holding down a full-time job. Whatever he earns is quickly spent on feeding his habit. His days revolve around watching TV, hanging out with other meth addicts, and getting high. Ethan has been in and out of jail for drug possession, theft, and disorderly conduct. He's also been through seven drug rehabilitation programs, most as part of plea bargains. Starting in eighth grade, Ethan became a regular drug user, sampling nearly everything available. His intelligence allowed him to coast through high school and two years of college, but as his dependence on drugs grew, his interest in academics declined, leading him to drop out. Once married with two children, Ethan's addiction drained his family's income and led him to pawn nearly everything in their apartment. His wife eventually left with the kids, and he hasn't seen them since. His appearance has deteriorated, he's lost several teeth and, now looking almost as old as his mother, hasn't been on a date in years. Alongside his meth addiction, Ethan is also an alcoholic and a heavy smoker, with bleak prospects of living past his 40s.
There is nothing particularly remarkable about Ethan's story, and in fact it is representative of countless people in our society who abuse drugs and alcohol. It is also a very old story. The ancient Greek philosopher Anacharsis (6th cn BCE) was once asked what it would take for someone to lose interest in drinking. His response was all we need to do is observe the evil behavior of intoxicated people. He further stated, poetically, that "the vine produces three types of grapes: the first pleasure, the second drunkenness, the third remorse." His point is that what begins with pleasure inevitably ends with deplorable conduct that the drinker regrets once sober. "In this chapter, we will examine the moral issues surrounding drug use, focusing on a subset known as "recreational drugs." These are 'psychoactive drugs,' meaning they have mind-altering effects and are taken primarily for pleasure rather than medical purposes. The most common recreational drugs are typically categorized into the following four groups:
• Opiates: Drugs derived from the opium poppy, including morphine, codeine, and heroin.
• Hallucinogens: Drugs that produce experiences qualitatively different from ordinary consciousness, including psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, and in some contexts, marijuana, though its effects can vary.
• Depressants: Drugs that diminish activity in the central nervous system, including alcohol, benzodiazepines, and barbiturates.
• Stimulants: Drugs that increase activity in the central nervous system, including cocaine, caffeine, nicotine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine.
While caffeine and nicotine are among the most widely used legal psychoactive drugs, our focus here will be on the use of alcohol and illegal substances such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. For simplicity, in this chapter, we will use the term 'recreational drug use' to refer to these substances.
BACKGROUND
Psychoactive drugs have been part of human society for as long as historical records exist. Many of these substances are naturally found in plants and have been easily accessible to the populations where they grow. Just as alcohol plays a key role in social events today, psychoactive drugs derived from plants have long been incorporated into community celebrations, rites of passage, and religious ceremonies. However, it is impossible to discuss the issue of psychoactive drugs without speaking of the harms associated with their use, which are well-documented in news stories and popular media.
Harm
The most direct harm is to the users themselves. While we may consume some drugs in limited quantities without immediate ill effects, cumulative use often leads to severe consequences. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 106,000 people in the U.S. died from illegal drugs in 2021. This figure is more than double what it was ten years earlier and over five times what it was twenty years ago. By comparison, that same year, we saw 42,000 deaths from motor vehicle accidents and 26,000 from homicides. Drug-induced deaths include those caused by overdose, heart attack, organ damage, and even malnutrition, with brain damage being common as well. Beyond these immediate health risks, drug use can lead to secondary harms, such as sexually transmitted diseases resulting from reduced inhibition and poor judgment. HIV and hepatitis C are particularly common among those who use injection drugs. Like Ethan, many people with heavy drug dependencies lose interest in careers, families, and other activities that we typically see as productive.
Beyond the harm to users, drugs also cause significant harm to others. Drugged driving is a growing issue, with one in eight weekend nighttime drivers testing positive for at least one illicit drug. The link between drug dependency and crime is perhaps the most tangible harm to society. A study in five large cities found that 63-83% of arrestees tested positive for illegal drugs (ONDCP Fact Sheet, 2014). Many crimes are committed by users whose drug habits outstrip their legitimate incomes. We often see muggings and theft connected with addiction, and women who might otherwise never consider prostitution may compromise their convictions to support their drug habits. Tragic consequences arise when people under the influence of drugs get behind the wheel or work in jobs where impaired judgment could put lives at risk, such as with physicians or building contractors. Drugs also harm the families of users: users deplete family resources, neglect their children, and some even force their children into prostitution or drug running to help support the family. Many children of drug-addicted parents end up homeless.
Yet another significant harm arising from drugs is the violence and danger associated with the illegal drug trade itself. This business is inherently dangerous, contributing to the high murder rates in large cities. Feuding between dealers frequently leads to violence, sometimes over distribution territory, payback for dishonest deals, or retaliation for the death of a gang member. The danger spills over into the communities where dealers operate, with residents effectively held hostage by the drug trade on their streets. Stray gunfire often claims the lives of innocent pedestrians, and young children are routinely recruited for distribution tasks, with weapons even making their way into schools. Federal and local governments spend billions of tax dollars combating the illegal drug trade, often with limited success. The prison population is at an all-time high, with a large percentage of inmates incarcerated for drug-related offenses, further burdening taxpayers. The families of these inmates also suffer as they face new financial and domestic problems.
Alcohol presents a unique set of harms. Unlike many other drugs, alcoholic beverages have been around for over 10,000 years in some cultures, largely because alcohol can be naturally fermented in any geographic location. This near-universal availability and social acceptance contrasts with mind-altering drugs like marijuana or opium, which grow naturally in only specific regions. Although human history has "grandfathered' alcohol into social acceptance, the harms from alcohol abuse are as severe as those from illicit drugs. If we only discovered alcohol today, it would likely be classified as a dangerous substance and banned. One study even shows that alcohol use is more likely than marijuana use to lead to violence between partners (tntoday.utk.edu). The harms from alcohol abuse are widespread, affecting all age and socio-economic groups, and it is responsible for approximately 140,000 deaths per year (www.niaaa.nih.gov). We can see a stark example of alcohol's impact in college drinking. In the U.S., nearly 1,500 students die each year from alcohol-related accidents, with another 600,000 injured. Additionally, 700,000 students are victims of alcohol-related assault, and 1 in 5 college women are sexually assaulted mostly in situations that involve alcohol or other substances (www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov). Alcohol abuse in college settings also leads to unsafe sex, academic problems, drunk driving, suicide attempts, and property damage.
The above harms with both drugs and alcohol are indicators of what we often called "substance abuse", and the standard criteria for substance abuse in the mental health counselling profession is this:
A pattern of substance use leading to significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one or more of the following during in the past 12 month period:
1. Failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, home such as repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions, or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household;
2. Frequent use of substances in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use);
3. Frequent legal problems (e.g. arrests, disorderly conduct) for substance abuse;
4. Continued use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights); (DSM-IV)
According to the above, the main indicator of substance abuse is the inability to function normally within society and fulfill one's basic responsibilities in various social settings. Ethan's story at the outset vividly illustrates this.
Addiction
A hallmark of drug use is that it is addictive. It is difficult to authoritatively define the notion of "addiction", and it often varies depending on who you ask. The World Health Organization defines drug addiction as follows:
Drug addiction is the state of periodic or chronic intoxication detrimental to the individual and to society, produced by the repeated consumption of a drug (natural or synthetic). Its characteristics include (1) an overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means (2) a tendency to increase the dosage, and (3) a psychic (psychological) and sometimes physical dependence on the effects of the drug.
A standard legal definition of "drug addict" used in U.S. law is this:
The term "addict" means any person who habitually uses any habit-forming narcotic drugs so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is or has been so far addicted to the use of such habit-forming narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction. (U.S. Code, 41.201)
A common distinction in understanding drug addiction is between physical and psychological addiction. Physically addictive drugs cause severe physiological withdrawal symptoms when the user stops, whereas psychologically addictive drugs do not cause such symptoms, though the user's craving for them can still be strong.
Society has traditionally viewed drug addiction in two primary ways: the moral model and the disease model. The moral model holds that addiction is ultimately a matter of personal choice. According to this view, users have enough control over their actions to either continue or stop their addictive behavior. While stopping may be difficult, the right amount of willpower can overcome it. Failure to do so is seen as a moral weakness, where users are aware that their actions are wrong but choose to continue anyway. This is the rationale behind traditional religious views that condemn addictive behaviors as sinful, particularly in the cases of drunkenness and gluttony.
In contrast, the disease model of addiction holds that addiction is not a matter of choice, but rather is like a mental illness such as schizophrenia. According to this model, biochemical changes in the brain have a lasting impact on an individual's drives and behaviors. Simple willpower is insufficient to break the addiction, and it must be managed similarly to how diseases are treated. Some people may be genetically predisposed to addiction, and we sometimes describe them as having "addictive personalities." However, even people without such predispositions can become addicts when the brain's reward center permanently associates certain behaviors with pleasure. Once this connection is established, the brain's addictive mechanism is fixed, and even if users can be reprogrammed to resist a particular behavior, they remain addicts for life. The disease model of addiction first emerged in the 1940s and gained acceptance within a few decades, being embraced by both the American Medical Association and the World Health Organization. Due to the stigma associated with the term "addiction," defenders of this model often prefer the term "drug use dependency."
Some extreme advocates of the disease model argue that drug addicts who commit crimes as a result of their addiction, such as theft to support their habit, should not be punished but rather given therapy. They view addicts as broken machines that need fixing, not punishment. However, many mental health organizations that address drug dependency incorporate elements of both the disease and moral models. While acknowledging the physiological causes of addiction, they also emphasize the moral responsibility that users have to control their addiction and be accountable for the harm their addiction causes to others.
What People Think
While people in the U.S. are reluctant to legalize hard drugs such as heroin, meth and cocaine, attitudes are more lenient when it comes to marijuana, as reflected in the following surveys (news.gallup.com).
• "Drinking Alcohol" [is it morally acceptable]
Morally Acceptable: 86% in 2020
Morally Wrong: 12% in 2020
• "Smoking marijuana" [is it morally acceptable]
Morally Acceptable: 70% in 2020
Morally Wrong: 28% in 2020
• "Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?"
Yes: 70% in 2023 (vs. 34% in 2013)
No: 29% in 2023 (vs. 64% in 2013)
• "Have you, yourself ever happened to try marijuana?"
Yes: 50% in 2023 (vs. 38% in 2013)
No: 49% in 2023 (vs. 61% in 2013)
• "Do you, yourself [currently] smoke marijuana?"
Yes: 17% in 2023 (vs. 7% in 2013)
No: 83% in 2023 (vs. 93% in 2013)
The statistics here show a major shift in public attitudes toward marijuana use and legalization over the past decade. This change is particularly notable when contrasted with attitudes toward alcohol, which society has long accepted. The rise in moral and legal acceptance of marijuana matches the noticeable increase in personal usage. This suggests that as marijuana becomes more accepted, people are more willing to use the drug. Several factors might be contributing to this shift. First, research on the medical and therapeutic benefits of marijuana has been changing public perceptions. As more states legalize marijuana for medical use, the stigma around it has diminished, leading to society's wider acceptance of it for recreational use. Second, the portrayal of marijuana in popular culture has also changed. Marijuana was once seen as a dangerous or rebellious substance, but is now often portrayed in a more positively as harmless and even beneficial. This particularly reflects the attitudes of younger people, who are now more likely to view marijuana use as a normal part of life. Third, the statistics suggest that public opinion influences legislative trends. As more people view marijuana use as morally acceptable and support its legalization, lawmakers are likely to feel pressure to enact policies that reflect these changing attitudes. The shift in public opinion over the past decade shows the influence that cultural and scientific developments can have on these norms.
Finally, this shift in attitudes toward marijuana could have implications for drug policy in general. As society more widely accepts marijuana, its defenders may increase calls to reconsider the legal status of other substances, particularly those with perceived medical benefits or lower risks compared to traditionally "hard" drugs. However, the reluctance to legalize substances like heroin, meth, and cocaine suggests that there is a clear boundary in public perception between marijuana and other more dangerous drugs.
ETHICAL ISSUES
The issue of drug use has both a moral and legal component. 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 me to do something does not mean that I should do it, such as smoking cigarettes 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 as lying to others or cheating on one's spouse. While these are things that we should not do morally speaking, at the same time we do not want our laws telling us how to conduct our private lives. For the moment, let us set aside the issue of whether drugs should be illegal and look specifically at whether drug use is immoral. We will consider here arguments both for and against their moral permissibility.
Five Moral Arguments for Drugs: Pleasure, Mental Therapy, Artistic Inspiration, Religious Enlightenment, Personal Exploration
There are many personal reasons we might give for using recreational drugs. Some people use them for social reasons, such as fitting in with a peer group, enhancing social experiences, or easing social anxiety. Others turn to drugs as a form of escapism, seeking relief from stress, emotional pain, or the pressures of daily life. For some, drugs may serve as a way to experiment with altered states of consciousness or simply to satisfy curiosity. In certain cases, drug use can be motivated by a desire for a temporary boost in energy, focus, or mood, particularly in high-pressure environments. Our concern here, however, is with uniquely moral justifications for recreational drug use, and we will consider five moral arguments that have been discussed by philosophers. These are based on pleasure, mental therapy, artistic inspiration, religious enlightenment, and personal exploration.
First is the argument from pleasure: the main purpose of taking recreational drugs is for the pleasure that they produce, and the pursuit of pleasure comes naturally to us. We are pleasure-seeking creatures, and much of what motivates us in life is the drive for pleasures of a wide variety. There are pleasures from food, romance, movies, music, art, fashion, literature, travel, sports, games, you name it. Through these activities our brains are altered in ways that give us unique experiences of pleasure, and through this we step out of our normal routines and escape to a new realm. If we remove pleasures from our lives, then human existence becomes a barren landscape of routine actions that we perform throughout each day as we plod along from birth until death. The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE) argued that pleasure is the centerpiece of human life: "it is from pleasure that we begin every choice and avoidance, and it is also to pleasure that we return, using it as the standard by which we judge every good" (Letter to Menoeceus). Epicurus personally recommended that we only pursue pleasures in moderation, and he was against intoxication. Nevertheless, the larger message of his pleasure-seeking philosophy is that, not only is pursuing pleasures morally permissible, but it is something that we should do. Recreational drug use is yet one more of the many pleasures available to us, and if we permit these more normal types of escapism, we should also permit drug use. In this spirit, French philosopher Michel Montaigne (1533–1592) stated that the pleasures that we get from excessive drinking are so rewarding that we should "refuse no occasion nor omit any opportunity of drinking, and always have it in our minds" (Essays, "Of Drunkenness").
A second argument is that recreational drugs can function as a form of mental therapy by alleviating psychological pain. Studies show that certain drugs, such as marijuana, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and ketamine, can reduce anxiety and depression more quickly and effectively than many conventional mental health therapies. These substances, which are hallucinogenic, derive their mental health benefits directly from their ability to alter perception and consciousness. In other words, the "buzz" is the cure, and it's impossible to separate the therapeutic effects from the recreational experience. As individuals, we all face our own internal struggles, and we might argue that we are morally justified in seeking the most effective relief available. Despite the undeniable therapeutic potential of these drugs, they remain classified as Schedule 1 substances by the government, placing them in the same category as heroin and methamphetamine, which are substances deemed to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Defenders of recreational drug use argue that the real moral failing lies not with the user, but with the government's restrictive policies, which deny individuals access to these beneficial treatments.
A third argument is that recreational drugs can enhance artistic expression. Some of the most creative musicians, painters, and writers have drawn inspiration from recreational drug use, with notable examples including Miles Davis, the Beatles, Salvador Dalí, Charles Dickens, and Aldous Huxley. The idea that altered states of consciousness can spark creativity is not new; even Plato suggested that the best artists are those who are, in some sense, mentally unhinged. He wrote:
If someone approaches the gates of poetry without the madness of the Muses, thinking that he can become an adequate poet solely by means of expert knowledge, he will fail in his purpose. His poetry, being that of a sane man, will be overshadowed by the poetry of those who are mad. [Phaedrus, 245a]
While Plato had in mind a more mystical source of artistic madness, today we recognize that many great artists suffered from clinically identifiable mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Figures like Ludwig van Beethoven, Vincent van Gogh, and Ernest Hemingway channeled their mental struggles into extraordinary creative achievements. Similarly, some recreational drugs mimic the neurological effects of these mental disorders, providing artists with special capacities for creativity. In a society that places a high value on aesthetic beauty, where philosophers often rank it among life's greatest intrinsic goods, we see the role of drugs in artistic inspiration as legitimate, and maybe even celebrate it. Unlike doping in sports, which we consider a form of cheating that disqualifies the athlete, we invariable accept the use of drugs in artistic creation and often admire it. We value the work itself, regardless of the means by which it was inspired.
A fourth and related argument is that recreational drugs can enhance religious enlightenment. A compelling case for this comes from the American philosopher and psychologist William James (1842-1910). James argued that certain drugs have the power to "stimulate the mystical consciousness in an extraordinary degree," leading to what he described as "a genuine metaphysical revelation." Through his own experiments with nitrous oxide, James became convinced that our normal waking rational consciousness is only one type among many, and that only a thin veil separates it from entirely different forms of consciousness. His experience of a mystical oneness, where everything "melted into unity," led him to conclude that "No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded" (Varieties of Religious Experience, 1902, 16). What James encountered echoes the practices of many indigenous religions, such as those of Native American tribes, where the use of mind-altering substances is integral to religious ceremonies and spiritual experiences. We often recognize and respect these practices within their cultural contexts as valid and morally justified ways to achieve religious enlightenment. However, society tends to be less accommodating of individual spiritual seekers who use drugs outside of traditional religious frameworks. This bias against the individual mystic is unwarranted. According to proponents of this argument, if society acknowledges the moral right of established religions to pursue mystical experiences through drugs, it should extend the same understanding to those who seek enlightenment independently.
A fifth argument is that recreational drugs can help us explore our individual possibilities and discover new ways of living. British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) argued that each person is entitled to conduct "experiments in living" where we try out different lifestyles and approaches that suit us individually (Mill, 1958, Ch. 3). As long as our actions do not harm others, we should have the freedom to choose and pursue different lifestyles, values, and behaviors in order to discover what works best for us. We individually are in a better position to make such personal decisions than is society at large. Mill argues that alcohol and opium "if used as intended to be used, are very precious gifts, and are conducive to happiness, as well as to convenience and pleasure" (Mill, 1861, Ch. 3). While Mill advocated for moderation, his rationale opens the door for recreational use as an experiment in living. This notion is expressed by clinical psychologist Timothy Leary (1920-1970), who, during the counterculture movement of the 1960s, promoted the motto "Turn on, Tune in, Drop out." Leary viewed psychedelic drugs as tools for expanding consciousness and exploring the mind. He believed that these substances could offer users a new view of the world, increase self-understanding, and deepen interpersonal connections. Leary's view is a modern day example of Mill's idea of experiments in living, suggesting that recreational drug use can be a legitimate means of personal exploration and growth.
We turn next to moral criticisms of recreational drug use, which take issue with the above five arguments.
Paley's Utilitarian Criticism: Harms Outweigh the Benefits
The first and obvious objection to recreational drug use is that all of the above five justifications are counterbalanced by the overwhelming amount of harm it produces. We have already looked at the range of harms produced by recreational drugs. Philosophers for thousands of years have discussed the moral issue of intoxication, and foremost among their observations is the harm that they cause both to the user himself and to others. British philosopher William Paley (1743-1805) offers this brief list of bad effects of habitual intoxication:
1. It betrays most constitutions either to extravagances of anger, or sins of lewdness.
2. It disqualifies men for the duties of their station, both by the temporary disorder of their faculties, and at length by a constant incapacity and stupefaction.
3. It is attended with expenses, which can often be ill spared.
4. It is sure to occasion uneasiness to the family of the drunkard.
5. It shortens life. [Principles, 4.2]
As a utilitarian philosopher, Paley held that morality is based entirely on whether the consequences of a course of action produce more total good than bad. For him, the pain from habitual intoxication vastly outweighs the pleasure. If we add to this the harms from drugs and alcohol that we have already discussed, a modern-day utilitarian could easily draw the same conclusion as Paley.
Suppose, however, I object to this utilitarian reasoning on the grounds that I personally can regularly take drugs and alcohol without any of these harmful consequences to myself or others. Why, then, would it be immoral for me to get intoxicated when I feel like it? Paley has a response: the harm I do is multiplied because of the example that I create for others. Drunkenness, he says, "is a social festive vice" where the drinker collects people into his social circle and "the circle naturally spreads." The habitual desire for intoxicants, he argues, is almost always acquired through connection with "some company, or some companion, already addicted to this practice." When I consider the full range of consequences of my conduct, I need to include the harmful behavior of those who I have influenced. He writes, "Although you have neither wife, nor child, nor parent, to lament your absence from home, or expect your return to it with terror", the family situation may be entirely different for your friend who you have influenced.
Is Paley correct that I bear this kind of moral responsibility for the behavior of my friends that I influence? Perhaps not as much as he thinks. It is true that I can be a bad influence on you and others in my social circle. But there is a point at which you bear full responsibility for allowing yourself to go along with the crowd, especially in cases where you know better. From an early age, we are all warned to avoid being influenced by bad examples and not give in to peer pressure. We are especially warned from an early age about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. If you disregard that advice and join my social circle where you follow my example, the fault is your own, not mine. An exception to this is if I intentionally coerce or manipulate you into doing something against your will. That does sometimes happen within social circles of drug and alcohol abuse, such as at a party where peer pressure is used to encourage someone to take drugs or drink excessively, despite their personal reservations or desires. But in usual circumstances it is more likely that at some point you became a willing member of my social circle and knowingly set aside the warnings of your youth.
Nevertheless, it may only be a minority of people who are themselves personally unaffected by the negative effects of drugs, and thus Paley's larger utilitarian critique remains valid for most people. That is, when the harms of drug and alcohol use counterbalance the goods they produce, then such conduct is immoral.
Stoic Criticism: Pleasure should be Avoided
A second criticism of recreational drug use targets the above argument from pleasure discussed earlier. In contrast to the Epicureans, a rival school of ancient philosophy called Stoicism took an opposing position on the pursuit of pleasure. According to Stoics, we should not actively pursue pleasures of any sort, whether they are normal ones like food and music, or more artificial ones like drug use. Rather, we should always exercise restraint so that we can better cope with life's unknown and unpredictable tragedies. Indulging in pleasure pampers us, and gives us unrealistically optimistic expectations about what the future holds. For Stoics, this would be as true for recreational drugs as it is for any other source of pleasure.
But a Stoic position like this in its most extreme form has a problem: it is odd to suggest that we should forego all pleasures to help safeguard us from potential psychological trauma. It is comparable to a survivalist devoting all his resources to building and stockpiling a bunker in his back yard, just in case there's a nuclear war, viral pandemic, or some similar apocalyptic event. He is sacrificing an otherwise normal life to protect himself from a prospect that may not be nearly as likely or tragic as he envisions. The extreme Stoic recommendation appears overly paranoid and would appeal to only a narrow group of loners who are inclined to lead humorless and somber lives.
While we might for good reason dismiss the extreme Stoic stance against pleasure, a more moderate Stoic view is defensible. Many people do overindulge in pleasures of all sorts. A good example of this is society's ever-growing credit card debt: desires outstrip financial resources, and disaster results. Also, the rise in obesity shows how challenging it can be to keep our culinary desires in check. Restraint is an important counterbalance to our desires, and restraint often involves learning to completely walk away from pleasures of every type. To combat credit card debt, we may need to throw out the card and use cash only. To combat obesity, we may need to throw out all unhealthy food in the kitchen, and never buy it again. We thus cure overindulgence by eliminating its source, and this rationale applies even more to overindulging in recreational drugs because of their addictive nature. To safeguard against potential addiction, then, we may need to swear off any drug use that could lead down that path.
But even when drug use is not addictive, there is something inherently different about drug-related pleasures that may justify Stoic-like restraint. Normal pleasures are very short term, and, if the need arises, we can instantly snap out of our pleasure fantasies to face a more urgent situation. If I am watching a heart-pounding action movie and then remember that I have a research paper due later that day, I can immediately turn away from the movie and devote my full attention to the paper. By contrast, the mind-altering effect of recreational drugs cannot be turned off at will. We are held hostage to the effects as long as the drug is in our system, and this compromises our ability to act rationally and responsibly. The Stoic is right that life is unpredictable and on almost a daily basis we face random situations that require us to be clear headed. The need to be in control of our minds outweighs the pleasure that we get from mind-altering drugs, and thus we should abstain from them. Let us then enjoy in moderation all the normal pleasures that life offers us, but recognize that this one is different because of the grip it has on our cognitive abilities. This does not necessarily mean that all recreational drug use would be morally wrong, but it does suggest that it requires a level of responsibility that many people may find difficult to manage.
Kant's Criticism: Intoxication Undermines Autonomous Free Choice
A third criticism offered by German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is that intoxication through alcohol or mind-numbing drugs such as opium "blunt the operations of the intellect" and reduce the user to the level of an animal (Metaphysics of Morals, 2.1). The real damage, Kant argues, is the effect that intoxication has on our ability to act freely, which is central to human rationality, and when that is compromised we are no better than animals. College campuses abound with cases of drunk or stoned students being expelled for choices they would never make when sober. For Kant, these are not free decisions made by rational minds, but the result of animalistic impulses. Kant considers one possible benefit from intoxication, which is that it can make us more sociable, enliven conversation and bring people together with the openness it produces. But this, he argues, is only the first phase of the intoxication process, and before long the tranquilizing properties of these substances make the user "mute, reserved, and unsocial". Similarly, Kant argues, the possible mental therapy benefit of alcohol and drugs also turns out to be deceiving. They may temporarily create "a dreamy happiness, a freedom from anxiety, or perhaps an imagined strength", but this soon changes into hopelessness and sadness. It moves from one to the other so imperceptibly that it creates a desire in the user to "repeat and increase the mind-numbing dose." In short, for Kant, intoxication is an animalistic vice that lures us in with a false promise of happiness, and then strips us of our ability to make rational choices. In this way, intoxication violates a fundamental moral obligation that we have to ourselves to preserve our reason and, thus, our humanity.
Kant is largely correct with everything that he says. Yes, making rational choices is central to what it means to be human. Yes, intoxicated people often lose the capacity to make rational choices. Yes, self-medication through recreational drugs is a bad way to deal with depression, and it can make things much worse. However, the problem with Kant's analysis is his extremism that allows for no exceptions to his rules. Contrary to what Kant suggests, even for sober people, it is not within our power to make fully rational choices every moment of the waking day. We do not lose our humanity when we occasionally set aside our reason and take a mental vacation by watching a silly movie, going fishing, attending a wild party, or taking a mind-altering drug. Even if we make mistakes by following our animalistic impulses in those situations, we are still human and not entirely reduced to the level of an animal. "To err is human" as the poet Alexander Pope said. It is, then, an exaggeration to say that we lose our humanity by taking recreational drugs. As to using recreational drugs for mental therapy, it is all about using the right drug for the right problem. You do not take an antibiotic to cure a headache, or take an aspirin to cure an infection. To link the right ailment with the right cure, we need science. Self-medication is a bad idea since we do it in ignorance of science, and often with substances that are genuinely dangerous. However, the claims today about the mental health benefits of some recreational drugs are backed by science, such as with ketamine. Once the extremism is taken out of Kant's theory, what we are left with is no longer a moral mandate, but a word of caution: be careful what you do while intoxicated, and base your drug therapy on science.
Nietzsche's Criticism: Intoxication Inhibits Creativity
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) addresses the claim that intoxication inspires artistic creativity. His personal use of drugs and alcohol was not always consistent. At certain points in his life Nietzsche took opium, hashish, and chloral to deal with an array of health problems. But he did not drink alcohol since, he said, even moderate amounts turned his life into "a valley of tears". He also recommended that people with more creative and artistic inclinations abstain completely from alcohol. His reason is that the narcotic effects of alcohol weaken the will, deaden pains that are necessary for growth, and create an attitude of resignation. He notes similar tranquilizing effects of opium. By contrast, he argues, art is a great stimulant of life, and requires ecstasy, frenzy, and an enhanced feeling of power. The true artist needs to break away from the status quo and create a new way of looking at the world. Nietzsche makes this point by criticizing his own German culture for being so dependent upon beer. Young students devote their whole lives to the pursuit of intellectual ends, yet they sabotage their creative efforts by continually drinking beer. He writes,
The alcoholism of learned youths does not incapacitate them for becoming scholars (a man quite devoid of intellect may be a great scholar) but it is a problem in every other respect. Is there anything that is free from that soft degeneracy which is produced in the spirit by beer! [Twilight of the Idols]
For Nietzsche, then, alcohol and drugs lure the user into being content with their life situations, and inhibit their efforts for both personal improvement and artistic creativity.
But what about the drug-inspired creations of artists like Dali and the Beatles: don't they go against what Nietzsche says? These cases may be misleading in two ways. First, these are world-class artists who typically exhibited extraordinary talent before their drug use, and so the true source of their ability was hard work or natural genius, not drugs. For ordinary artists, it is naive to think that inspiration from drugs or alcohol will magically enhance their creativity and propel them to world attention. Second, just as we are aware of many great artists who were drug-inspired, so too do we know about ones whose drug addictions destroyed their lives and had destructive consequences on their art. Among the devastating effects of drug and alcohol abuse, health professionals today would agree with Nietzsche that a common one is a type of lethargy, sometimes called amotivational syndrome, where a person can lose interest in both normal and creative activities. For ordinary and even world-class artists, this lethargy may counterbalance any momentary flash of creative insight that a drug might induce, and thus prevent the artist from bringing their visions to life in a compelling way. Yes, it is possible to do it, as was the case of Dali and the Beatles, but it is a bad gamble. Nietzsche's advice for struggling artists would be to look for inspiration through one's internal pain and discontentment, not through mind-altering substances.
James's Criticism: Drug-Induced Mysticism Is Unreliable
Let us assume that traditional indigenous religions, such as Native American ones, are morally justified in using mind-altering drugs within their religious ceremonies. The question is whether private individuals who are not part of these religious traditions are also justified, and we have seen William James's defense for this. However, James follows up his discussion with an equally compelling criticism: attempts at drug-induced mystical experiences are an unreliable source of mystical knowledge. He says that, while he indeed experienced the unity of all things when under the influence of nitrous oxide, his attempt to write down his insights during that state resulted in "tattered fragments" that, to the sober reader, would appear to be "meaningless drivel". In that moment, James explains, all opposites seemed to connect together, such as "God and devil, good and evil, life and death, I and thou, sober and drunk". He says that the most coherent sentence that he wrote down was this: "There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference." Further, he says, the longer he explored the drug-induced experience of unity, his initial feeling of rapture shifted to horror. For, if opposites are intertwined, there is no reason to choose any one side or the other, such as God vs. devil, good vs. evil, life vs. death. His insight that started out as "rosy bright" collapsed into a "pessimistic fatalism" ("On some Hegelisms").
This, of course, was just one man's experience with drug-induced mysticism. But the larger point is that, if you go it alone without the guidance of an established religious tradition, there is no telling whether your experience will even be mystical, rather than just an incoherent bad trip. If James attempted a drug-induced experience within the setting of a traditional indigenous religion, his mind would not likely have drifted off to see an identity between God and the devil, or good and evil. The religious context would define his experience through the shared beliefs of its members, and they could correct his wayward interpretations. For that matter, without being in the setting of a religious tradition, there is no reason to expect that the user's drug experience would even be either mystical or religious. Like the millions of hallucinogenic experiences that take place each year among drug users, it would probably be a mind-boggling and pleasurable experience. But without the context of a religious tradition, there is no reason to expect that it would rise to the level of being either religious or mystical. From this perspective, there is no clear moral justification for individuals outside of religious tradition to use drugs for mystical purposes.
Doucet's: Drugs are Produced Unethically
Mathieu Doucet argues that drug use is immoral because it supports the unethical production of drugs. Just as affluent consumers should reject clothing produced through child labor or in dangerous sweatshops, drug users should avoid drugs due to the violent and exploitative nature of the drug trade. Drug users, he argues, are directly responsible for the harm caused by the drug trade because their demand perpetuates these harms. Although governments that enforce prohibition share some responsibility, the reality of prohibition means that the moral blame largely falls on the consumers who create the demand. Doucet suggests that the moral reasons to avoid illegal drugs are even stronger than those for avoiding other unethically produced goods. The drug trade causes significantly greater harm than industries like garment manufacturing, yet it serves a much smaller number of consumers. The immense violence and death linked to drug production, therefore, makes drug users particularly complicit in these harms, far more so than consumers of other unethically produced products.
While Doucet's argument does not apply to all recreational drug users, such as those who create their own drugs or purchase them from a legally sanctioned supplier, what he says likely pertains to most users. Further, the parallel between sweatshops and the drug supply chain that Doucet points out is not an isolated case. For example, consumers may feel morally obligated to avoid products made from unsustainable palm oil, which drives deforestation, or to reject factory-farmed meat, which involves significant animal suffering. Similarly, there's a growing awareness about avoiding electronics produced under exploitative labor conditions in conflict zones or by workers in unsafe factories. In each case, the consumer's demand perpetuates harm, making them complicit in the unethical practices, much like the obligation to avoid sweatshop products or drugs produced through violence.
In spite of the abundance of such supply chain concerns, one possible criticism of Doucet's argument is that moral responsibility weakens as the connection between the buyer and the harm becomes more remote. In complex global supply chains, such as those for drugs or sweatshop products, the link between an individual consumer and the exploitation or violence involved in production is very indirect. This distance dilutes the consumer's moral responsibility, as the causes spread across numerous actors, including producers, traffickers, and governments. The further removed a consumer is from the harm, the less direct their responsibility, making it questionable whether they should be held morally accountable for such distant consequences.
Doucet might respond that even in cases of very remote connection to harm, we still see the moral significance of individual contributions due to their cumulative effect. Climate change is a case in point. Individual carbon footprints may seem negligible, but global warming is a collective issue where the cumulative effect of individual behaviors is significant. Thus, individuals recognize their moral obligation to reduce their carbon emissions despite the indirect nature of their contribution to harm. But the drug buyer still might say the situation is different with illegal drug supply chain. Drug transactions are illegal and often conducted in secret, making it difficult to trace and publicize the harmful effects of specific purchases. Also, unlike climate change, the lack of a unified, visible movement against drug chain violence makes it unclear what specific obligation the individual buyer has. The arguments back and forth could continue, but, in the final analysis, what Doucet argues is reasonable: each user shares at least some moral responsibility for the evils of the drug supply chain. The qualifier that we can add, though, is that it's less clear how the user should respond to that responsibility.
We've looked at five moral arguments in support of recreational drug use, and six others against it. Which side of the contest is more compelling? For all the reasons given above, it seems clear that use of highly addictive and dangerous recreational drugs is not morally justifiable. But the more interesting question is whether less harmful drugs and more sporadic use of them by ordinary users is morally justifiable. The answer to this must begin with recognizing that different people may have varying capacities for responsible use and self-control. For those who can maintain moderation and clear-headedness, occasional drug use might be morally justifiable if it genuinely contributes to enjoyment, personal growth, creativity, or well-being, without compromising one's ability to meet social and personal responsibilities. However, this demands a high level of self-awareness. We must continually reflect on our motivations and behaviors, and be willing to reassess and adjust our habits if negative consequences begin to emerge. Ultimately, my moral choice regarding recreational drug use may hinge on my ability to honestly evaluate my own vulnerabilities, and the potential impact of my choices on both myself and others.
PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES
Let us set aside the moral issue of drug use and focus now on the public policy issue. Regardless of whether recreational drug use is moral or immoral, we next want to ask, which drugs should be legalized and which banned? What kinds of legal penalties should be imposed on offenders? How aggressive should law enforcement be in catching drug users and dealers?
Balancing Freedom and Harm
The key issue regarding the legality of recreational drugs concerns finding the right balance between people's civil liberty to make personal choices without governmental interference, and the government's responsibility to protect society from harms. If I want to eat a sandwich or hop around on one foot, and there is no serious harm in either of these activities, then the government has no business preventing me from doing them. Clearly, the situation with drugs is different because of the harms that result.
To better understand how laws need to balance between freedom and harm regarding drugs, consider this thought experiment. Imagine that there was a town called "Buzzville" in which scientists and the local government worked together to eliminate the harmful effects of drug use. Drug companies developed a new generation of recreational drugs that were not harmful to take, and were not addictive, at least no more so than craving some comfort food such as chocolate ice cream. The drugs were also designed so that they would have no physiological effect when taken by people under 21 years old, thus completely eliminating the risk that drug use could pose to minors. If drug users found themselves in situations where they needed to sober up quickly, the mind-altering effects of these drugs could be immediately reversed by swallowing an antidote pill. Cars, heavy machinery and other potentially dangerous things were equipped with safety switches that would disable the unit if it detected the presence of drugs in the user's breath or sweat. In short, all of the harms of drug use, both to society and the individual, were completely eliminated. Contrast this, now, with a rival town called "Overdoseville" that has only one recreational drug, but it is as addictive and deadly as heroin. Virtually everyone in the town is addicted to the drug, and society can barely function. Citizens cannot hold down regular jobs, muggings and theft are commonplace, and life-expectancy is age 35 because of the high rate of overdose and health-related problems.
On the one hand, if an environment like Buzzville ever did become a reality, there would be no obvious grounds for legally prohibiting drugs. The freedom to use drugs would outweigh the harms, since all the harms have been eliminated. On the other hand, if an environment like Overdoesville existed, the harms from drug use would overwhelmingly outweigh individual freedom, and there would be compelling grounds to legally prohibit drugs. In fact, if governments did nothing, they would be in violation of its social contract to keep society from collapsing into the state of nature. Our actual society is somewhere in between Buzzville and Overdoseville in terms of the freedom-harm balance of drug use. The critical question is how close must we get to Buzzville before we should legally permit drugs? There is at least some harm that we can tolerate if the benefits are great enough. A good example of this is our use of automobiles: we enjoy the mobility that our cars give us, but driving is one of the riskiest activities there is, and it results in around 40,000 deaths per year in the U.S. However, our society has judged that the personal benefits of automobile use outweigh their harms. Similar reasoning might apply with drug use: if the personal benefit that we derive from recreational drug use is great enough, we may be willing to accept some harms. So, we must inquire into how much harm is reasonable to accept in the interest of preserving our freedom to choose recreational drug use.
Some European countries have substantially relaxed their drug laws, and the Netherlands is a case in point. While recreational drugs technically remain illegal there, the Dutch government has implemented a "tolerance policy," which effectively decriminalizes the possession and use of small amounts of "soft drugs." This category primarily includes cannabis products like marijuana and hashish. Under this policy, adults are permitted to purchase up to 5 grams of cannabis from licensed "coffee shops" without fear of prosecution. Dutch policymakers argue that by separating the markets for "soft" and "hard" drugs, they can prevent cannabis users from being exposed to more dangerous substances. The government still maintains a hardline stance on drug trafficking and large-scale production. Importation and exportation of drugs, including cannabis, remain serious criminal offenses. Moreover, the Netherlands rigorously enforces laws against driving under the influence of drugs. Police are authorized to conduct roadside saliva tests for various substances, including THC. Other European countries have implemented their own versions of drug policy reform, each with unique characteristics. For example, in 2001 Portugal took the bold step of decriminalizing the possession and use of all drugs including hard drugs like meth and heroin. Under the Portuguese model, individuals caught with small amounts of drugs may receive recommendations for treatment or administrative sanctions, but not criminal penalties.
When it comes to balancing freedom over harm, the U.S. is not as lenient as these European countries, and its current assessment is that the harms of drugs outweigh the importance of our freedom to choose.
Harm to Others vs. Harm to Oneself
We have seen that some harms from drug use affect mainly the individual user, while others affect society at large. When balancing freedom and harm with drug use, should we take into account both individual and social harm, or only social harm? British philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that governments are only justified in restricting the social harm of anyone's conduct, regardless of the harm that comes to the individual. His general principle is this:
The only purpose for which [governmental] power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. [On Liberty, 1]
This is also his position with intoxication even when the user is an addict: if he does not harm others, then he should have the freedom to become intoxicated regardless of the harm he does to himself. Mill writes that drunkenness "in ordinary cases, is not a fit subject for legislative interference" but that "the making himself drunk, in a person whom drunkenness excites to do harm to others, is a crime against others" (On Liberty, 5). The addict's behavior may be immoral, and his friends are entitled to encourage him to change, but the government should not punish him. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) makes the same argument:
In trying to enforce the drug laws, the government violates the fundamental rights of privacy and personal autonomy that are guaranteed by our Constitution. The ACLU believes that unless they do harm to others, people should not be punished -- even if they do harm to themselves. ["Against Drug Prohibition"]
In short, for the staunchest defenders of personal freedom such as Mill and the ACLU, the issue of drug illegality hinges on harm to others, not harm to oneself. The U.S. Government, however, does not go this far, and it takes into consideration both harm to others and harm to oneself. This is most evident in statements made by U.S. Government agencies, which, when defending the illegality of drugs, regularly list harms to the user as well as harms to society. At least for now, the question of drug legalization hinges on balancing personal freedom against the harm from drugs, both to society and the user.
U.S. Drug Laws
All countries have laws that classify and prohibit specific recreational drugs. In the U.S. this is accomplished with the Controlled Substances Act, first created in 1970, which defines five categories or "schedules" of drugs. The first schedule is the most restrictive and pertains to drugs that meet the following three criteria:
• The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
• The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
• There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
The remaining four schedules differ based on the drug's potential for abuse, their legitimate use in medical practice, and their addictive nature. The fifth schedule is the least restrictive and includes drugs that have minimal potential for abuse, accepted medical use, and a low risk of addiction. A good example is cough medicines with small amounts of codeine. In total, over 200 drugs are listed among the five schedules.
Many morally-charged legal issues in the U.S. are left to individual states to resolve for themselves, such as assisted suicide and capital punishment. With recreational drugs, though, the Federal government has a strict anti-drug policy that umbrellas over the whole country and, with the recent exception of marijuana, this allows for little flexibility for individual states. The Federal government's position on drugs is characterized by what it calls the "war on drugs," a phrase coined in 1971 by President Richard Nixon who described drug abuse as "public enemy number one in the United States."
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is responsible for establishing "policies, priorities, and objectives for the Nation's drug control program" (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov). They identify possible points of disruption along the drug supply line, seek out drug dealers, establish treatment programs for drug users, and have ad campaigns that discourage drug use. Among their most memorable ad campaigns is one depicting an egg in a frying pan. A hot frying pan is displayed, and the narrator says, "This is drugs." An egg is then placed into it and starts sizzling, and the narrator continues "this is your brain on drugs. Any questions?" A particularly controversial ad campaign during the late 1990s involved secretly funding television networks to include anti-drug messages within the plot lines of some of the most popular primetime sit-coms and dramas. The ONDCP examined the scripts beforehand and suggested changes that would qualify the network for funding. The ONDCP argued that these embedded messages were more effective than normal anti-drug public service commercials, but denied that they dictated to the show's producers any script changes in the programs. They have since abandoned this type of ad campaign.
The ONDCP determines how much of the nation's drug control efforts should go towards prevention, or treatment, or enforcement. Liberal administrations typically emphasize prevention and treatment more than conservative administrations do, as exemplified in the following statement from the ONDCP during the Obama administration:
Preventing drug use before it begins is a cost-effective, common-sense way to build safe and healthy communities. Research on adolescent brain development shows the value of focusing prevention on young people: those who reach the age of 21 without developing an addiction are very unlikely to do so afterward. [National Drug Control Strategy, 2010]
The ONDCP also states that, for many addicts, "brief interventions are not sufficient to promote recovery," and addiction treatment is effective "only if it is readily available and of high quality" (ibid). Prevention has also been a priority for the ONDCP under the Democratic Biden administration. This includes expanding access to evidence-based prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and recovery support services, as well as reducing the supply of illicit drugs (Whitehouse, 2024).
Efforts to Relax Drug Laws
Amidst governmental efforts to reduce and punish drug use, various organizations advocate the legalization of at least some drugs. A notable example is Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), which consists of police officers and government officials. Their position is that "adult drug abuse is a public health problem and not a law enforcement matter", and one of their advertising slogans was "Drug abuse is bad. The war on drugs is worse." Over time the organization has softened their position against drug laws and now holds that "reasonable regulation should protect public health and include age restrictions on drug sales and use." Nevertheless, their approach rejects the government's tough drug law approach and suggests instead that jurisdictions "must be given the regulatory latitude to try new models that balance personal freedom and responsibility with the public health risks of death, disease, and addiction" (lawenforcementactionpartnership.org).
The ACLU argues that, on balance, more public harm is done through drug criminalization than would occur through a responsible system of decriminalization. It is costly and ineffective; it creates public health problems, gangsterism, an explosion in the number of nonviolent prisoners. It also as a devastating effect on African-American and Latino communities. "In the United States, a black person is 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person is, despite approximately equal rates of use" (www.aclu.org). The criminal justice system itself contributes to the racial disparity. The DEA has helped train police to profile highway travelers for potential drug couriers, which includes associating such activities with people of color. Minority women, they argue, are especially vulnerable to the drug war, who "are coerced into the drug trade by a boyfriend or husband, often play only a small role, but then receive the same harsh prison terms." The Supreme Court ruled that "public housing authorities could evict an entire family if someone in the household or a guest used drugs, even if the others knew nothing about it or tried to stop it." In short, according the ACLU, "These are the grim realities of the War on Drugs. They are staged on a battlefield where the heaviest casualties are people of color. Instead of continuing these destructive policies that ultimately tear the fabric of our society, it is time to rethink and reassess the effectiveness and purpose of our current drug policies" (ACLU 2003).
Other organizations support the strategy of harm reduction: recognizing the inevitability of drug use within society, as a public health policy we should attempt to lessen its harmful effects, rather than wage a war against it. Some harm reduction recommendations include reducing criminal penalties for marijuana use, using methadone to treat withdrawal symptoms from opiate addiction, needle exchange programs, and programs that test the safety of users' drugs. Switzerland, one of several European countries with harm reduction initiatives, has a legalized heroin program whereby registered heroin addicts can go to government clinics twice a day for injections of the drug, along with required counseling. The program aims to reduce drug crimes, remove addicts from the street and make them more functioning members of society. U.S. government has been slow to adopt these types of harm reduction strategies, although it indicates that it has significantly expanded access to them (Whitehouse, 2024).
The most effective effort at drug-leniency has been the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Some medical benefits associated with marijuana are alleviation of chronic pain, alleviation of nausea for chemotherapy patients and others with AIDS, tremor relief for people with multiple sclerosis, and reduction in epileptic seizures. The U.S. government's position on this, though, is twofold. On the one hand, it acknowledges that there is some proven medical benefit to the chemical THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and this drug is currently available by prescription in pill or patch form under the brand name "marinol". On the other hand, though, they maintain that smoking marijuana is not an effective delivery system for THC since dosage cannot be controlled and marijuana smoke has dangerous secondary chemicals. Medical marijuana advocacy, they argue, is just a ploy to help legalize marijuana for recreational use.
State Legalization of Marijuana
State and Federal governments have had a long history of cooperation with drug laws and enforcement. But while the Federal government has held a hard line position, several states have recently enacted marijuana laws that conflict with Federal ones. In 1996 California voters passed a state-wide ballot initiative called the "Compassionate Use Act" which allows patients, with their physician's approval, to possess or grow small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes. In the years following, 38 other states have legalized medical marijuana. But the U.S. government did not back down in their stand against such medical use, and twice the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the federal government against California. In one of these, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court stated that the federal government has a reasonable basis for believing that locally grown medical marijuana could be channeled into the illegal drug trade. However, one Supreme Court Justice, in a dissenting opinion, argued that California's Compassionate Use Act is a justifiable social experiment to test the viability of medical marijuana within the confines of that particular state, without causing risk to the rest of the country.
In 2012 Colorado and Washington became the first states to enact laws that legalize marijuana for recreational use, and since then around half of other states have done the same. Many of these states also allow marijuana felons to have their previous convictions reduced or completely expunged. Like medical marijuana, this also places these states in direct conflict with the U.S. government's ban on any sale or possession of marijuana. However, in response to state legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use, the Federal government indicated that it would change its priorities and not target individual users and even marijuana suppliers in these states where there is a "strong and effective regulatory system" (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013). I short, marijuana use and distribution is still illegal in Federal law, but the Federal government will not prosecute in those states where it is controlled responsibly. Even in states where marijuana use is still illegal, marijuana advocates have found a loophole by altering hemp, which is legal, in such a way to extract or boost its natural THC content to psychoactive levels.
One consequence of marijuana legalization in these states is that potency has increased. Prior to legalization, the average THC content in confiscated marijuana samples was less than 4% in 1995, but had risen to over 15% by 2021 (National Institute on Drug Abuse). Some strains of marijuana flower can have even higher THC concentrations of over 30%, and THC concentrates can be over 90% potent. Potential health risks associated with high-potency marijuana include addiction, psychiatric disorders, heart and lung issues, and an increased risk of using other drugs. Further, states that have legalized marijuana report not only an increase in marijuana use since legalization, which is unsurprising, but also an increase in all illegal drug use including methamphetamine, cocaine and opioids. In 2022, Colorado implemented a tracking system that put limits on the daily THC concentration per customer. The result was that marijuana sales decreased by almost one-half since its peak use.
In 2020, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize the possession and personal use of small amounts of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Instead of being punishable by jail time, possession of these drugs now only results in a fine or a health assessment. Since then, Oregon has experienced one of the sharpest rises in overdose deaths in the nation and had one of the highest percentages of adults with a substance-use disorder (The Atlantic).
U.S. Alcohol Laws
The manufacture, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages are restricted in some measure in every country throughout the world. Some conservative Muslim countries have outright bans. Those that permit alcoholic beverages typically regulate their sale and distribution, and restrict consumers based on age, public usage, and motor vehicle operation. The story of alcohol prohibition in the U.S. is well-known. Under pressure from the temperance movement to reduce crime, poverty and disease from drinking, in 1919 Congress ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibited the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcoholic beverages nationwide. While consumption of alcohol was not banned, per se, the aim of the legislation was to severely curtail it by making such beverages difficult to obtain. The effect of the law, though, was catastrophic, with increases in drinking, bootlegging, violent crime, and law enforcement corruption. In a 1926 Senate committee hearing on the effects of prohibition, one witness stated the following:
Nothing is and nothing could be more certain, from all the evidence, than that prohibition is an unqualified failure and a colossal calamity to the Nation. Whatever promotes drunkenness and drug addiction and all forms of intemperance also promotes crime of every kind. We have the unimpeachable evidence of our senses that certainly more than half the crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated throughout the land and sensationally featured and headlined in the newspapers are crimes which are the result of prohibition. [Maxim, 1926]
Prohibition ended in 1933 with the ratification of the Constitution's twenty-first amendment, which repealed the eighteenth amendment. In spite of the end to prohibition, the twenty-first amendment grants broad powers to states regarding the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages, and until 1966 Mississippi remained a completely dry state. Today 33 states delegate authority to local counties or municipalities to ban or restrict alcohol sale.
Since the end of prohibition, all states follow what is called the three-tiered system of alcohol distribution: alcohol producers can sell only to licensed alcohol distributors, and, in turn, only the distributors can sell to licensed retailers. Producers such as breweries cannot sell directly to grocery retailers or to individual consumers. The system's purpose is to provide limited access to alcoholic beverages and thus promote moderation in drinking. It also helps ensure that alcoholic beverages are not sold to minors, and it provides a simple method for alcohol tax collection. As a whole, the system helps set the price of alcoholic beverages at the right level: if the price is too cheap, then people will drink too much, and if too expensive they will bootleg. As one alcohol distributor puts it, "The best method of regulating alcohol does not necessarily come at the greatest convenience or lowest cost for individual consumers. However, it does ensure that consumers have appropriate access to alcohol at the lowest cost to society and with the least harm to its members" (Wine, Beer & Spirits Distributors of Minnesota).
The three-tiered system has recently come under attack from thousands of small wineries and microbreweries throughout the country who feel that their businesses could be improved by selling directly to retailers and consumers, skipping entirely the restrictive distribution process. Ending the system, they argue, would result in increased jobs for the small businesses, and lower costs and greater variety for consumers. The system benefits no one but the alcohol distributors who want to retain a monopoly over the country's supply of alcoholic beverages. Critics of the three-tiered system have sued many states for discriminatory regulations: such states allow in-state wineries to distribute directly to retailers, but do not allow this for out-of-state wineries. These States in essence set aside the three-tiered system for their own wineries, but impose the three-tiered system on out of state ones. What would happen if we completely eliminated the three-tiered system that we have today, just as these small wineries would prefer? According to Pamela S. Erickson, a defender of the three-tiered system, we have only to look at the United Kingdom to see how alcoholic beverage deregulation has affected them. Over a four-decade period, the U.K. has incrementally deregulated alcohol to where it is available any time of day during the week in all varieties of bars and stores. It is now 70% more affordable and "the marketplace is flooded with cheap alcohol that has encouraged people to drink." The social consequences of this deregulation, she argues, have been particularly bad:
Hospital admissions for alcohol liver disease and acute intoxication have doubled over just 10 years. Underage drinking rates are twice what ours are. Problems around bars and clubs are so severe in London that London has two buses equipped as field hospitals to take care of people who have been victims of alcohol-fueled violence or alcohol intoxication every weekend. [Anderson, 2010]
In the U.S., changing the three-tiered system is a multifaceted issue. It puts the interests of small wine producers against distributors, private industry against governmental regulation, and, most importantly, profit against public health.
CONCLUSION
The conservative position on recreational drugs is that their use is immoral and should remain illegal. This view typically emphasizes the negative consequences and potential harms associated with drug use. Proponents often view drug use as morally wrong and believe that strict laws and enforcement are necessary to maintain public order and discourage drug abuse. Conservatives may favor a punitive approach, including criminalization and harsh penalties, to deter drug use and protect society. Common arguments for the conservative position are these: 1. Harm to society: There are serious harms to society from drug use, as we have already seen, including increases in murder, theft and prostitution; 2. Harm to user's health: Drugs adversely affect the user's health, and we have an obligation to avoid unnecessary harm to our bodies, such as that which is caused by regular drug use. 3. Decrease in user's motivation: Drugs adversely affect the user's motivation to be a productive citizen.
By contrast, the liberal position on recreational drugs is that the less harmful and addictive ones are morally permissible and should be legalized. Proponents tend to prioritize personal autonomy and harm reduction. They often argue that individuals should have the right to make choices about their own bodies and that criminalization leads to more harm than good. Liberals may support policies such as decriminalization or legalization, coupled with regulation and public health measures. Here are some of the common arguments: 1. Autonomy: drug use should be a matter for individuals to decide for themselves, so long as their use of drugs does not negatively impact others. 2. Pleasure: recreational drugs provide a great source of pleasure to people, and this counterbalances the harm to themselves. 3. Cultural tradition: the use of mind-altering substances has been an important part of human culture.
There's a famous expression that "I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it." To some extent this intuition applies to how we behave as well as what we say. We may not always like the choices that people make in their lives, but to some extent we should acknowledge a person's freedom to make those choices. We already grant this when it comes to alcohol use. So why not with other drugs too? There are good reasons for society to restrict the use of highly addictive drugs because of the harm they cause to society, independent of the harm that results from the illegal drug trade itself. If there is any room for compromise, it would be with softer drugs like marijuana. Even for these, though, full legalization would be too dramatic, and, instead, a first step might be to replace criminal penalties with civil ones, such as a fine similar to a traffic offense. Several U.S. cities have already considered taking this approach.
REFERENCES
American Civil Liberties Union. 1995. "Against Drug Prohibition". www.aclu.org/other/against-drug-prohibition.
American Civil Liberties Union. 2003. "Race and the War on Drugs." www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=14087
Doucet, Mathieu. 2017. "Just Say No (For Now): The Ethics of Illegal Drug Use." Law, Ethics and Philosophy. 5, pp. 9-29.
Epicurus. Letter to Menoeceus.
Erickson, Pamela S. 2010. "Legal Issues Concerning State Alcohol Regulation," U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
Hich, Jim. 2023. "What Happened When Oregon Decriminalized Hard Drugs?" The Atlantic.
James, William. 1902. Varieties of Religious Experience.
Kant, Immanuel. 1797. Doctrine of Virtue.
Maxim, Hiram. 1926. "The National Prohibition Law" Senate Judiciary subcommittee.
Mill, John Stuart. 1859. On Liberty.
Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Utilitarianism.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2022. "Cannabis Potency Data". nida.nih.gov/research/research-data-measures-resources/cannabis-potency-data
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1889. Twilight of the Idols.
Paley, William. 1785. Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy.
Plato. Phaedrus.
U.S. Department of Justice. 2013. DOJ memo, August 19.
U.S. Supreme Court. 2005. Gonzales v. Raich.
U.S. Whitehouse. 2021. "Actions the Biden-Harris Administration has Taken to Address Addiction and the Overdose Epidemic." www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/briefing-room/2021/11/17/
U.S. Whitehouse. 2022. "Actions Taken by the Biden-Harris Administration to Address Addiction and the Overdose Epidemic". www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/briefing-room/2022/08/31
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2024. National Drug Control Strategy.
Wine, Beer & Spirits Distributors of Minnesota. 2010. www.mndistributors.com/facts.cfm
STUDY QUESTIONS
Please answer all of the following questions.
1. What is the difference between physical and psychological addiction.
2. Explain the disease and moral models of drug addiction.
3. Explain the Epicurean pleasure argument for drug use.
4. Explain the mental therapy argument for drug use.
5. Explain the self-expression argument for drug use.
6. Explain James's religious expression argument for drug use.
7. Explain Mill's experiments in living argument for drug use.
8. What are the five arguments for drug use?
9. According to Paley, what are the five types of harm that result from drug and alcohol use?
10. Explain the Stoic criticism that pleasures should be avoided.
11. What is the modified Stoic criticism of drug use?
12. Explain Kant's criticism that intoxication undermines autonomous free choice.
13. Explain Nietzsche's criticism that intoxication inhibits creativity.
14. Explain James's criticism that drug-induced mysticism is unreliable.
15: Explain Doucet's criticism that recreational drugs are produced unethically.
16. What are the key features of the Netherland's drug laws?
17. On the issue of harm to others and harm to oneself, what positions do Mill, the ACLU and the US government take?
18. What is the Federal government's position on state legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes?
19. Explain the harm reduction position on drugs.
20. What is the three-tiered system of alcohol distribution?
[Short Essay]
21. Short essay: pick any one of the following views in this chapter and criticize it in a minimum of 100 words. The disease or moral model of drug addiction; one of the five arguments for drug use; Paley's view of harm from drugs; the Stoic view of pleasures; Kant's view of intoxication; James's view of drug-induced mysticism; Mill's view of harm from drugs; the three-tiered system of alcohol distribution.