A non-religious perspective on

A non-religious perspective on… DRUGS
Humanist ethics

Humanists have a rational ethical perspective, based on avoiding harm (to the individual or community) and increasing welfare and happiness. Humanists believe that we should make the best of the only life we have, and that moral values stem from human nature, experience and society. When deciding whether something is right or wrong, humanists use their judgement based on a careful consideration of the evidence and of the effects of choices on the people concerned and the wider community. Humanists value responsible choice, but also freedom in private matters, because it essential to personal happiness, as long as it does not interfere with anyone else’s freedom, happiness, or security. Often humanist perspectives on moral issues are not very different from those of liberally-minded religious people. However, a humanist view is more explicitly based on reason and observation, rather than on tradition or deference to authority, which often influence religious views. Many traditional religious texts have little to say about drugs.

Humanists base their beliefs on the best available evidence, rather than on the prejudice and hearsay which characterises much discussion about drugs. A rational discussion of "recreational drugs" needs to include all substances taken for pleasure that alter mood, some of which are legal and some of which are not, and to consider three separate but interrelated questions: Is drug use bad for the health and inadvisable? Is drug use immoral? Should some drugs be illegal? The current debate tends to mix up these questions and is often characterised by emotion and fear. Let us try to examine the subject coolly.

The health aspects of drug use

All substances that alter mood can have side effects, good as well as bad, and these include lawful medicinal drugs, alcohol, nicotine, some "natural" remedies sold in health food shops, and many everyday items such as coffee, tea and chocolate, as well as illegal recreational drugs. Legal drugs and foods are better regulated than illegal ones, which risk being impure. Some recreational drugs have unpredictable effects on individuals, or can do long term damage. Drugs that are smoked are probably at least as damaging to general fitness and lungs as ordinary cigarettes, which kill one in two users, and injecting drugs carries serious risks of infection. (Though some, like cannabis, can have therapeutic effects, currently being researched.)

All drugs which alter mood (the whole point of taking them) have effects on the brain and may lead to poor judgement and greater risk of accidents – for example, it is as dangerous to drive under the influence of some drugs as it is to drink and drive. There can also be long term psychological damage: there is evidence that ecstasy increases depression in frequent users, and other drugs such as cannabis can affect memory and concentration. Drunks and drug users can seem amazingly stupid and boring to non-users, and young people contemplating drug use should think hard about the effects on their minds, personalities, relationships, abilities and careers, especially if they are hoping to earn a living by using their brains. (Many employers treat drug use as a disciplinary offence.)

There is little persuasive evidence that using soft drugs inevitably leads to addiction or to hard drugs, though some drugs are highly addictive. Addiction can be compatible with leading an ordinary and reasonably satisfactory life, as long as the addict has access to pure and legal drugs. But the pleasure of taking drugs disappears with long-term use, and drug dependency rarely improves a life or makes it more fulfilled. For most addicts it is a terrible drain on resources and health.

The morality of drug use

Few people have moral reservations about the use of drugs for medicinal or psychiatric purposes, though even therapeutic drugs can be addictive and are sometimes misused. The moral debate centres on "recreational" drugs and particularly on those which are illegal: "soft drugs" such as cannabis and ecstasy and "hard drugs" such as heroin and cocaine.

The humanist moral perspective, aimed at living a happy fulfilled life and helping others to do so, can lead to a range of opinions about recreational or illegal drugs. There is no doubt that taking drugs is pleasurable, at least in the short term, or people wouldn’t do it. But there are real concerns about the consequences, short term and long term, for the individual and those close to him or her, and for the welfare of the community.

There is a case for saying that drug use and abuse are health issues rather than moral ones, and as such are a matter of personal choice. The great libertarian philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote, "The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." But one’s own good often overlaps with the common good – if I neglect my health or harm myself, this will affect my family and friends and the wider community (I may become a burden on the NHS or be unable to hold down a job), and this harm to others makes drug abuse a moral issue. It is also a moral matter if we take into account the energy and enterprise that is often wasted in the pursuit of drugs: the self-absorbed and selfish lives of many drug-addicts and the time and effort and money that could be better spent on improving the world. Even the land used for the cultivation of drugs could be producing food for the hungry.

And some philosophers have thought that even activities which only cause harm to oneself are wrong because they destroy things that are very precious – a person’s freedom or autonomy (drug addicts certainly have a reduced ability to choose freely or independently) and the capacity to reason, the highest human attribute. Drug addicts often lose control over their own lives – they may drift into unemployment, homelessness, crime or prostitution, which reinforce their need for drugs and make recovery more difficult. Risking that loss of autonomy could be seen as an immoral choice. And of course the use of some drugs is illegal, and for some people breaking the law in a democratic society is an immoral act.

The law, society and drug use

It certainly seems rational to ask, as many young people do, why their favourite recreational drugs are illegal when the preferred drug of older generations, alcohol, is not. Alcohol does at least as much harm as the "soft drugs" – it can be addictive, and can cause recklessness, violence and driving accidents, and damage health. One response is that if it were practicable to make this obviously harmful substance illegal, we probably would. But the attempt of the USA to ban alcohol during Prohibition in the 1920s was not successful – a black market in alcohol flourished and criminals made fortunes. States which attempt to control alcohol consumption through heavy taxation or licensing laws have more success but still tend suffer from binge drinking and its anti-social effects. And many people say that a genuinely harmless pleasure for most people should not be criminalised just because some people over-indulge. (You will have noticed that some of these arguments can also be applied to illegal drugs.) Yet another response is that "two wrongs don’t make a right" - the fact that we permit some harmful recreational drugs, such as nicotine and alcohol, is not in itself a good reason to permit even more. But this response does not answer the charge of inconsistency.

A high proportion of convicted criminals in our prisons are drug addicts, sentenced not only for drug-related crimes but also for burglary, mugging and other forms of theft - crimes committed to fund drug habits, and so caused by drugs. These crimes interfere with other people’s freedom, happiness or security, and illegal drugs cost all of us an enormous amount – as victims of crimes, in insurance against crimes often committed by drug addicts, and as tax payers funding the police and justice system. There is a huge social cost associated with drug abuse, and it is clear from the experience of many states over the past century that as long as people want drugs they will be not eliminated, however many resources we devote to the purpose.

Some people consider that addiction is an illness requiring treatment rather than punishment, and that we need to radically rethink the way we treat drug offenders. Some people argue that if drugs were legal and cheaper, they could be taxed, and much of the associated crime would disappear. Some crimes, such as dealing and possession would not exist if drugs were legal. People also argue that if soft drugs were legalised, users would be less likely to come into contact with hard drugs and less police time would be wasted on petty matters. This rational approach is favoured by many humanists. Even some police officers believe that cannabis should be decriminalised, but it is hard for politicians to raise the issue without being accused of being soft on drugs and crime. We do not live in an entirely rational society - the law is not always the same as justice or morality, or even common sense - and some people therefore argue that it is reasonable and right to break the law. But in a democracy where it is possible to campaign for changes when we think laws are unjust, the more responsible course of action is to respect and obey the law, while working for change.

One thing we need to think about is why people seek to escape from reality through drug use. It should be possible to be happy, to have friends and support systems and a stake in society, so that there is little need for damaging forms of escapism. Rational solutions would involve better information about the real risks of drug abuse, education that prepared people for fulfilling lives in society, and a society that provided worthwhile opportunities for everyone and looked after its more vulnerable members properly.

To think about or discuss

If there were a harmless drug that could be put into the water supply which made everyone feel happier would this be a good thing? Should we distinguish between "real" happiness and drug-induced happiness?

Should everything that is bad for us or dangerous be illegal? Why some things and not others? (e g cannabis is illegal but saturated fat is not.)
Should we interfere in people’s lives for their own good? How can we decide what is good for other people?
Do humanist principles inevitably lead to liberal ideas on moral and social issues?
How can we improve life so that people feel less desire to take mood-enhancing drugs?