Thomas Szasz The Ethics of Addiction

1. Thomas Szasz��The 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 isn�t 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 you�re a casual drug user you�re 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) that�s their right and (b) even without drugs they�ll 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 government�s business what idea a man puts in his mind; likewise, it should be none of the government�s 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 habit�if 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 they�re not undermining the individual�s 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, shouldn�t 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 20�s. 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.E�Drugs 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 we�re 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 that�s 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 there�s 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 Mill�s 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 Mill�s 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.�