Starla Stimmer
Professor Nicholas K. Meriwether
Ethics in Public and Private Life (PHIL 3320-51)
21 July 2009
Illegal Drugs: Non Legalization A Winner
What is a drug? The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines a drug as
(2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment or prevention of disease (3): a substance other than food
intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4): something and
often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked
change in consciousness (Merriam-Webster).
By this definition, a drug is any chemical absorbed into the body that changes the body‘s normal function. The reasoning function of the brain is included as a part of the body’s systems. Chemical substances affecting the central nervous system include legal psychoactive chemicals, which are intended to create better lives for people who suffer from physical and psychological maladies.
Illegal drugs are any drugs grown, manufactured or sold through black market channels without proper government approval. In this modern age, with our unprecedented freedoms, drug legalization verses keeping drugs illegal has become a much debated issue. I assert illegal drugs should remain illegal because illegal drugs harm the user, people surrounding the user, and society in general.
In this essay, I will put forth three arguments for keeping illegal drugs illegal. The first argument is any substance, not otherwise deemed medically necessary, for the psychological or physical health of the patient and which substantially prohibits the psychological brain from performing its basic function is morally wrong. I contend that the basic function of the brain is to reason. Illegal drug use causes the reasoning function to lack rational reasonable judgment. The second argument is illegal drug use harms society‘s greater good, thereby
overriding individual freedom and the right to use any illegal drug at any time. The third argument is society has a right to create rules governing the lives of individuals living there.
The first argument is it is immoral to impair the brain’s reasoning function without a qualified physician deeming the use of such drugs a medical necessity. Most philosophers state that a function of a human being is to reason. Aristotle, for instance, said a human beings highest function was to reason. He stated, “Just as human artifacts and occupations have their specific functions – the knife to cut, the surgeon to heal -- so do human beings have a specific function – to reason (Meriwether Ancient Greece to the of Aristotle). According to Thomas Aquinas, our highest purpose is to reason about God. Thomas Aquinas said, “So our summum bonum, or highest good, is the contemplation of God, not merely theoretical study, as Aristotle believed.” (Meriwether Thomas Aquinas and Natural law). Immanuel Kant’s common sense knowledge would not be possible without a person’s being able to reason. It is impossible to discuss philosophy without discussing reasoning, which is the primary function of a human’s brain. Humans would not have survived throughout history without being able to reason. Reasoning was why man could create fire, fashion clothing and procure shelter and food. Primitive man had to reason in order to insure the survival of the species. This fact is so evident there is no need to go into it here. Therefore, human reason is necessary to determine morals, duties, obligations, and account for every action a human being need take to promote survival.
It is first necessary to discuss reasons why a person takes illegal drugs. People take opiates, hallucinogens, amphetamines, and other mind-altering drugs to feel pleasure by creating altered states of consciousnesses. Altered states of consciousnesses modify the brain’s function of reasoning and create temporary changes in awareness of time, space, causation, mood and behavior. Whenever considerable changes occur, we have achieved an altered state of consciousness or the transcendent. WordNet describes the transcendent as: “exceeding or surpassing usual limits especially in excellence beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding; the notion of any transcendent reality beyond thought" (WordNet Search).
The altered state of consciousness is an attempt by human beings to obtain
and experience the transcendent. Kant argued, in his Critique of Pure Reason, that time, space, and causation were interconnected in our thought process. We
are built to think using time, space, and causation from the start of our thought
processes. (Spark Notes) Seeking the transcendent is also hardwired into our
genes. Dean H. Hamer is a writer and works for the National Institutes of Health.
He stated in his book, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes,
"I believe our genetic predisposition for faith is no accident. It provides us
with a sense of purpose beyond ourselves and keeps us from being
incapacitated by our dread of mortality. Our faith gives us the optimism to
press on regardless of the hardships we face." (Hamer, page 143).
This search for the transcendent has been well-documented throughout mankind’s history. Our earliest record of man’s seeking to alter conscience behavior come from shamans and their cave art at Trois Freres created around 15,000 BC. (Encyclopædia Britannica). Shamans were the mystical leaders of their communities. Shamans had many duties in their hunter gathering societies, which included ritually entering into altered states of consciences. They were seeking additional knowledge to aid in controlling reality. Seeking an altered state of conscience is a part of who we are.
The ability and desire to seek the transcendent came about through the evolutionary process. Humans who find the fundamental causes for occurrences have a better chance of finding food, clothing, and shelter. The transcendent allows us to fundamentally change the way we experience our surroundings, creating new ways of thinking. Seeking altered states of consciousness has been a part of our evolutionary progress (American Psychological Association Vol. 131, No. 1, 98-127). We seek the transcendent in an effort to control and find causation for our physical selves and our surroundings. We control the physical self by our intake of food, water, use of medicines, with sleep, and so forth. We control our surroundings by providing shelter, clothing, by eliminating disease, utilizing the land, and so forth. We seek the cause of everything. What we cannot find a cause for or control, we create perceived cause and control. As an example, ancient humans heard rumbling thunder, which was followed by rain. Finding no apparent control or cause for the rumbling thunder, Shamans, using the transcendent, eventually reasoned a greater entity. Ancient humans wanted the entity‘s help to stop or start thunder, so they created a cause and control. The result was man creating gods like the Norse thunder god Thor. The transcendent assists the brain’s ability to reason out ways of perceived causation and control. The working of a brain, in the transcendent, creates new connective wiring, and this new wiring enables us to see the world in new ways, aiding the evolutionary process.
We start our search for the transcendent from early childhood. In his article “Why We Get High,” Bruce Eisner reminds us of a childhood spinning game. A child spins in a circle until dizzy, falls down, and watches the world spin by (Eisner, Vol. 1. No. 3 and Vol. 1. No. 4). The child’s spinning increases or magnifies their state of consciousness, thereby altering it. Children seek an altered state of consciousness by spinning, as young as the age of four, too young to be influenced by peer pressure, cultural pressures or outside provocation. Older children start rolling downhill with a desire for greater intensity because speed is an added factor. We seek altered states with an increasing desire for intensity, as we become young adults. Aristotle, points out a desire for altered states when he states, “Further, pleasure grows up with all of us from infancy on. That is why it is hard to rub out this feeling that is dyed into our lives. We also estimate actions…..by pleasure and pain. For this reason, our whole discussion must be about these; for good or bad enjoyment or pain is very important for our actions.” (Aristotle, 1105a). Incontinent or intemperate pleasure seeking is nothing more than seeking an altered state of conscience that begins in childhood. We seek pleasure to create brain sensations through a disruption of our reality awareness. The altered state of consciousness comes from our natural animalistic desire for pleasure, as described by Aristotle. The desire and need for altered state of consciences stays with us through our lives.
Society promotes accepted ways to seek altered states and most adults have experienced one or more of the following altered states of consciousness: sex, dance, music, religion, drugs, meditation, and dreams (both daydreams and sleep dreams). Sex is accepted in the confines of marriage, dance is accepted in the right venues, music is accepted in the right settings, religions in well established churches, and certain drugs are accepted, such as alcohol or tobacco. Other times we step outside society’s norms, abusing sex, indulging in taboo dance forms or music, joining religious cults or abusing alcohol, drugs and/or tobacco. It is assured society has many altered states of consciousness which produce pleasure for everyone without harmful effects when done correctly. An altered state of consciousness is condoned by society when done in the right way, as both necessary and pleasurable for humans.
Why than are illegal drugs illegal, if an altered state of conscience is necessary and promotes survival for humans? A person using drugs looses their ability to reason and can not provide basis necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter. The state of conscience, when using illegal drugs, is suppressed beyond rationality and for extended periods. Illegal drug use is bad because the users’ inability to reason causes premature death, leaves the burden of care on society, and harms others. The premature death violates our first duty to preserve one’s life, which moral theorists have acknowledged throughout history (Meriwether Three Moral Duties). Illegal drugs are under strict control by society’s laws and are illegal with good cause; it is immoral to impair the brains’ reasoning function without a physician’s approval of a medical necessity. Recreational drugs are illegal because they harm society and individuals.
The next argument is the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, which can not be served if the reasoning function of the drug user is impaired or destroyed. Jeremy Bentham was an 19th century English utilitarian philosopher and he states, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness [for the greatest number], wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness [for the greatest number] “ (Meriwether, The Rise of Utilitarianism). Knowledgeable, well-thought out decisions, are not possible with out fully functioning reasoning capabilities. Opiates, hallucinogens, amphetamines, and other illegal drugs inhibit or incapacitate our ability to reason. A drug user has impaired or destroyed reasoning skills; therefore basic survival is in jeopardy. The user’s basic survival needs must be cared for by others and this creates financial hardships on society. The happiness of the one cannot outweigh the happiness of the many. The National Institute On Drug Abuse, states that the cost of drug and alcohol abuse was near $246 billion in 1992, over 132,00 people died from alcohol and drug related incidents, and crime cost were near $59.1 billion (National Institute on Drug Abuse). Drug users cause unhappiness through the financial burden placed on the whole of society.
Can society afford to take care of its members who willingly impair their reasoning function? It seems as we should according to the second part of Christian ethics, which states, “Count persons as the most valuable things, and each human being as having equal value with all others.” (Meriwether Three Moral Considerations). The statement of “Love thy neighbor as thy self“, by itself, would indicate we should care for frail individuals, but does it mean we should take care of drug users, whose damaged reasoning skills were a direct result of their own actions (Mark 12.31)? The answer is, somewhat. People have three moral duties, to preserve ones own life, to do what is generally good for society and self, and to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The three moral duties have been said by many philosophers to be written on the hearts of man, meaning we have innate knowledge of how we should act towards ourselves and others (Meriwether Three Doral Duties.). If we violate any of the three moral laws, we should be held accountable but not left to die because of it (Luke 10.29-37). It is immoral for a drug user to impair their reasoning function without their medical necessities being diagnosed by a qualified licensed physician. Society has the only duty to provide basic food, clothing, and shelter because illegal drug use is immoral. Society does this with the following programs: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), private food banks, nonprofit organizations like Salvation Army or Goodwill, homeless shelters, HUD, and others.
The third argument is that a society is allowed to make laws to limit or deny the use of any drug to anyone who wants to use a drug. John Stuart Mills was a mid 19th century utilitarian philosopher and student of Jeremy Bentham and he argues that an individual can only be restrained by the state when he will harm others, not himself. Mills states, “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That 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 a sufficient warrant.” (Meriwether Legislating Morality Component III). Illegal drug use does harm others. It is well documented that drug abusers are more likely to cause psychological and physical damage to their children and significant others. Drug users need large sums of money to support their habits. They commit robberies, murder, and other crimes to get the money. Also, using drugs spreads health related illnesses (Drug Harm Index). J. S. Mills also discusses the fact that mental pleasures may be seen as a higher quality than mere physical pleasures unless one has experienced both and prefers one over the other. One finds former alcoholics and drug users, who have experienced both a life of sobriety and a life of alcohol and drugs, when asked always choose a life of sobriety.
Another argument, in favor of keeping illegal drugs illegal, is the harm of lying to others as Immanuel Kant discussed (Kant 19). Drug users routinely lie to others about their drug use. One only needs to attend meetings of Al-Anon, Alateen, AA, or Narcotics Anonymous meetings to know and understand this. Kant’s categorical imperative states, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always a an end and never as a means only.” (Kant 46). This means people should be treated with respect, given their dignity, and never intentionally use or mistreat a person. You can use a person with their permission, but never without their permission. Lying hurts others because you are intentionally using or mistreating the person. Lying, than would fulfill J. S. Mills criteria for the government being able to make decided drugs illegal.
It is my conclusion that illegal drugs should remain illegal because the user’s reasoning function is fundamentally damaged. Also, illegal drugs harm society’s greater good and society has the right to make laws limiting freedoms when others are being harmed by that freedom.
We were asked to address the article, “Illegal Drugs: Illegal Drugs Should be Decriminalized” by Ethan A. Nadelmann from the book, You Decide! Current Debates in Ethics” by Bruce N Waller with counter arguments (Waller and Nadelmann 88-99). Nadelmann discussed the cost of prohibition, crime caused by the illegality of drugs, the cost of corruption and the benefits of legalization. In the section on the cost of prohibition, Nadelmann compares the Eighteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Volstead Act of 1919 to the illegalization of opiates, hallucinogens, amphetamines and other illegal drugs. In putting forth the argument that drug prohibition causes crime and crime would decrease if drug use was legal, Nadelmann fails to take into account that the drug user cause more crimes than dealers. It is not the drug czar in another country, organized crime, or the drug dealers committing the robberies, fraud, and other crimes to raise drug money. It is the drug abuser. The comparison between illegal alcohol in the 1920s and the drug abuse of today does not hold up. The alcohol makers and distributors of the 1920’s cause the most crime, not the consumers. The drug abuser causes most of today’s crime, not the dealers, manufactures or black market enterprises.
Nadelmann states that making drugs illegal has not deterred drug use. The federal law treats growing marijuana and the use of marijuana as criminal offenses, yet thirteen individual states have decriminalized marijuana and passed laws that remove criminal penalties at the state level for growing and/or possessing marijuana for medical reasons. Furthermore, an additional twenty-one states have decriminalized possession of non-medical marijuana (NORML). These states’ laws treats the possession of a small amount of marijuana as a civil offense rather than a criminal one. Offenders are given only a citation, fined, and the marijuana is confiscated. One only need to look to the states where decriminalization of medical marijuana has taken place to see the crime rate near marijuana shops has risen (Cannabis News .org). Other countries, with a history of drug use being legal or overlooked, are the Netherlands and Switzerland. These countries report soaring crime stemming directly from the use of legalized drugs. The Opium War in 1839 between China and Britain were fought because over ninety million Chinese became addicted to opium brought in by British merchants. A drain on China’s finances was created by the out going of monies to foreign countries. Even high government officials were addicted (Ebrey, Walthall, and Palais 378-379). The legalization of drugs through out history caused more harm than good (Schaffer Library of Drug Policy).
It is ridiculous to compare hard or fast addicting drugs such as opiates, hallucegines, amphetamines and other illegal drugs to alcohol and tobacco in the first place. Nadelmann’s arguments are not convincing for the legalization of illegal drugs.
In conclusion, one needs to examine the overall damage done to society before illegal drugs are legalized. Does a society really want to put a stamp of approval on addiction, abuse and immorality? Does a society really want highly addictive drugs such as heroin, speed or marijuana sold at local pharmacies? A society without rules and regulations is a society without freedom. Freedom from crime, addiction and misery.
　
　
　
Works Cited
Aristotle. Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1999. 1105a lines 3-4.
Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. 22 July 2009 .
Ebrey, Patricia Buckley, Anne Walthall, and James B Palais. Modern East Asia: From 1600. Ed. Nancy Blaine. Boston: Charles Hartford, 2006. 378-379.
Eisner, Bruce. “Why We Get High.” Island Foundation. 24 July 2009 .
"Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 24 Jul. 2009
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/171942/drug>.drug."
"Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant." SparkNotes. Barnes & Noble.
24 July 2009 .
Hammer, Dean H, Ph.D. The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes. New York: Random House, 2004. 143.
Kant, Immanuel. Foundations Of The Metaphysics of Morals and What Is Enlightenment? Trans. Lewis White Beck. Second Edition, Revised ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1997.
“Measuring the Harm From Illegal Drugs Using the Drug Harm Index.” Home Office Online Report. Vers. Table 3.1. 2005. Research Development and Statistics Directorate. 22 July 2009 .
Meriwether, Nicholas K, Ph.D. Ancient Greece to the of Aristotle. Ms. Readings II.
- - -. Humility (Luke 18.9-14). Ms.
- - -. Legislating Morality, Component III. Ms.
- - -. The Rise of Utilitarianism. Ms. Readings E.
- - -. Thomas Aquinas and Natural law. Ms. Readings B.
- - -. Three Basic Principles of Jewish and Christian Ethics. (Mark 12.30-31) Ms.
- - -. Three Moral Considerations. Ms.
- - -. Three Moral Duties. Ms. Readings B.
Moller, David. “Grass Valley’s Top Cop Wants Pot Shops Barred.” Cannabis News.org Your Cannabis News Source. 23 July 2009. 22 July 2009 . Path: grass; valleys; top; cop; wants; pot; shops; barred.
Nadelmann, Ethan A. “Illegal Drugs: Illegal Drugs Should Be Decriminalized.” You Decide! Current Debates in Ethics. By Bruce N Waller. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2006. 88-99.
National Institute On Drug Abuse. The Science of Drug Abuse & Addiction. 22 July 2009 .
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. NORML. 5 Aug. 2006. 22 July 2009 .
NORML. “State By State Laws .” National Institute on Drug Abuse. 5 Aug. 2006. NORML and the NORML Foundation. 24 July 2009 .
Psychobiology of Altered States of Consciousness. Copyright 2005. Vol. 131,
No. 1, 98-127 Institut für Medizinische Psychologie und
Verhaltensneurobiologie
http://www.mp.unituebingen.de/mp/fileadmin/user_upload/Kotchoubey/Vaitl-
2005-ASC.pdf
The US Dept. of Justice, and Tom Pool. Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions. 12 May 1994. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 22 July 2009 .
WordNet Search - 3.0. 9 July 2009. Princeton.edu. 22 July 2009 .