Thomas Szasz The Ethics of Addiction Millions of people

1
Thomas SzaszThe Ethics of Addiction

• Millions of people legally use drugs every day.
• How should we distinguish permissible drug use
  from impermissible drug abuse?
• Szasz argues that because of the definition of
  drug abuse incorporates the notion of being
  detrimental to the individual and society the
  issue is not a medical concept, but an ethical
  one.
• Szasz compares our current disease conception of
  drug addiction to Victorian views on sex.
• Masturbation and homosexuality were both once
  classified thought to be both pathogenic and
  pathological, and the cause of all kinds of
  physical and social ills.

2
Propaganda and Prohibition

• Those who wish to prohibit something tend to
  distort and falsify facts about that thing.
• Consider the claim that cigarettes have arsenic
  in them.
• This is true, but misleading there is more
  arsenic in a glass of tap water than in a
  cigarette.
• The facts about how the dangerousness of a drug
  isnt enough they need to employ scare tactics.
• Think about Refer Madness.
• More recently, consider the 2002 ads that claimed
  that drug money funds terrorism.
• Nancy Regan if youre a casual drug user youre
  an accomplice to murder.

3
Drugs and Death

• Drugs are obviously dangerous. But so are guns,
  highways and swimming pools.
• We need to distinguish intentional and accidental
  overdoses.
• Szasz is a notorious advocate of the right to
  suicide.
• If people want to kill themselves (a) thats
  their right and (b) even without drugs theyll
  find a way.
• This is no argument for prohibition.
• As for accidental overdose, these would be far
  fewer if drugs were legal and regulated.
• Most such overdoses are the result of inconstant
  purity and veracity of the product.
• This is actually an argument FOR legalization.

4
Free Minds and Free Markets

• Szasz admits that he would favor free trade in
  drugs regardless of danger
• For the same reason the Founding Fathers favored
  free trade in ideas.
• In an open society, it is none of the
  governments business what idea a man puts in his
  mind likewise, it should be none of the
  governments business what drug he puts in his
  body.

5
Kicking Addiction and Blame

• Szasz is skeptical about the idea of addiction.
  He thinks that anyone can kick any habitif they
  really want to.
• Objection even if this is true, Szasz seems to
  gloss over the important fact that doing so is
  (for some drugs) REALLY hard.
• The behavior-altering nature of hard-drugs makes
  it hard to claim that theyre not undermining the
  individuals autonomy.
• We blame drugs for turning people into addicts
  (lazy, unproductive, sick, etc.)
• But many people are attracted to drugs because it
  offers them an excuse.
• Moreover, drugs can have good effects on
  productivity look at the Beatles.

6
Wide-Spread Drug Use?

• Szasz dismisses the argument that large numbers
  of people would abuse drugs if they were legal.
• We trust people to be responsible with cars and
  guns, why not drugs? Why infantalize them?
• Objection Some drugs (i.e.heroin) are highly
  addictive from the very first use.
• Thus, even a mild increase in casual
  experimentation would likely lead to more
  addicts.
• Even if large numbers of people did abuse drugs,
  shouldnt Szasz maintain that if this is what
  people really want to do they should be allowed
  to?

7
The Futility of Prohibition

• Prohibition creates a serious profit motive for
  people to trade drugs on the black market.
• The harder we crack down, the higher the profit.
  
• Financial incentives are proportional to the
  prohibition.
• Consider alcohol prohibition in the 20s.
• Clearly a failure drinking actually went up, and
  so did violent crime.
• Never mind the fundamental violation of our right
  to control what goes into our bodies.

8
D.A.R.EDrugs Are Really Expensive

• The federal government spends 17 billion per
  year fighting drugs.
• 61 goes for criminal justice and interdiction,
  while 39 goes for treatment and prevention
  programs.
• State/local governments spent 15.9 billion in
  1991 (the last year for which the federal
  government tallied that figure.) 
• At that time federal spending on drug eradication
  was half what it is today.
• 1.7 million people are in prisons and jails, 22
  to 33 percent of those for drug offenses. 
• At an average annual cost of 20,000 per inmate,
  this adds 11.3 billion to the price tag.
• All told were spending about 50 billion a year
  on the war on drugs 1,585 every second.

9
Rejoinder Legalization Is Really Expensive

• We need to contrast those figures with increased
  costs due to
• Loss of productivity due to drug use
• Loss of productivity due to health problems
  associated with drug use
• Premature death due to drug use
• Drug abuse by pregnant mothers and children and
  associated health problems
• Concomitant crime
• Szasz has issues with all of these, but they have
  to be considered.

10
Do Drugs Cause Crime?

• A 1000 dollar a week cocaine habit requires the
  addict to steal 5000 worth of goods to support
• 20 being a fair exchange rate for fenced goods.
• But that very same 1000 dollar dose would cost a
  mere 20 in a free market.
• So is it the drugs or the war on them thats
  causing all this crime?
• Legalization would also free up 1/3rd of prison
  space, 1/3rd of of trial time as well as the
  estimated 400,000 policemen.
• (Source www.drugwarfacts.org)

11
Rejoinder Yes, Drugs DO Cause Crime

• There are good reasons to doubt that crime will
  drop in a free market.
• Even in a free market, habits can be expensive.
• Look at smoking and alcohol since theres a lot
  of money to be made, people find a way to profit.
• Crack-cocaine is relatively cheap, yet its users
  have a high rate of concomitant criminal
  activity.
• Studies show that drug addicts steal not just to
  support their drug habits, but also to cover
  daily expenses.
• Even if crime to fund drugs were to go down crime
  as a result of drugs might go up.
• PCP and steroids causes rage and aggression in
  their users, which frequently lead to outbursts
  of violence.

12
Some Historical Insights.

• George Washington was one of many colonialists
  who grew marijuana (in the form of hemp) as a
  cash crop.
• Thomas Jefferson used legal opium on a regular
  basis as an elder man, successfully extending his
  life.
• Today this would land our 1st president and the
  drafter of the Declaration of Independence in
  prison.
• Elliot Ness, the untouchable prohibition-era
  enforcer would, after a long day busting
  bootleggers, buy cocaine (which was legal at the
  time) over the counter at a drug store.

13
The Right To Self-Medication

• Just as freedom of speech, and religion are
  fundamental rights, Szasz thinks the right to
  self-medication is a fundamental right.
• This right follows from Mills claim that Over
  his own body and mind, the individual is
  sovereign.
• But there should be limits, controls and
  regulations.
• Sale to children should be prohibited (but in the
  absence of financial incentive, who would want
  to?)
• People should not be allowed to be intoxicated in
  public (as with alcohol), nor drive under the
  influence.

14
J.S. Mill On Liberty

• Szasz ends with a famous quote from Mills essay
  On Liberty
• The only purpose for which 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 sufficient warrant. He
  cannot rightfully be compelled to forebear
  because it will make him happier, because in the
  opinions of others to do so would be wise, or
  even right In the part of his conduct which
  merely concerns himself, his independence is, of
  right, absolute.