Present Day Drugs Use and Human Rights
As we stated above, very little has been written about drugs use and human rights. It could be argued that the current public opinion against drug use is a product of the falsely and unjustifiable beliefs in relation to the effects and consequences of drugs in line with their risks, harms and benefits. As a result, it could be more orthodox, for a critical assessment, to concentrate on the benefits and harms of drugs, on the economic impact of illicit drug use, and finally on the drug use as feature of privacy and autonomy.
Benefits, Risks and Harms Resulting From Drugs Use
Some of the benefits of drug use can include “reward, relief, recreation, reinforcement and replenishment”. However, the benefits of drugs are undervalued by society. Thus, a dichotomy is spread among those who appreciate drug use experience or experimentation as a youthful rite of initiation in line with the potential benefits of drugs use and those who find drug use as hazardous, reckless and a tragic pathway to more harmful drug use. From the outset, drug use can be regarded as an alternative source of revenues for governments through taxation, licensing and distribution as with the situation of alcohol and tobacco.
An issue of interest is that throughout history certain artists claimed that drug use helped them to express themselves better and provide new experiences for their imaginations to work on. For instance the use of psychedelic drugs led to the creation of a new psychedelic style and rhythm not only in music but also in film making and visual art. For example Charlie Hore argued that “during 1920s and 1930s drug consumption by black jazz musicians and their audience was closely related to their space and location cultural settings”. Bob Dylan, in an interview in 1969, admitted that “the drug experience heightened his awareness of the minute and of the mind”. Additionally, there are some religious benefits from the use of drugs such as the use of altar wine and peyote. Finally, with the use of certain drugs, such as coca-leaf, it is possible to increase the work productivity. It is important to note the therapeutic applications of cannabis, since mid-nineteenth century, on diseases such as arthritis, asthma, cancer, cramps, insomnia and anxiety. Judge Francis Young, member of the American Drug Enforcement Administration, argued that cannabis may be “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man”.
To avoid a misleading judgement on whether a right to use drugs must be introduced, the benefits of those must be carefully balanced with the harms and risks from drug use. Drugs, because of their nature and effects, receive heavy criticism indicating that they only offer a temporary solution in the form of an illusion which may lead to mental illness, such as schizophrenia. Whether mental illness, as a result of drug use, is a myth or not, is an issue which spreads dichotomy among theorists and philosophers. However it is interesting to consider the argument of Thomas Szasz indicating that “if you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; if you talk to the dead, you are a schizophrenic”.It is obvious that although people may behave and think in a morally unacceptable manner, it cannot be concluded that they suffer from a disease.
Direct risks and harms, caused by drugs use can be briefly, summarised as distortions of mental function and illness or death from over dosage or toxicity. An issue which must be noted is that there is no clear separation between social users and addicted users, but rather an increasing level of use and an increasing level of risk. For instance there are coffee drinkers who drink two or three cup per day, chain smokers who consume two packets of cigarettes per day, marijuana users who share a joint occasionally and those who can restrict the use of cocaine or ecstasy only to a party. It is clear that in every occasion there is a profound danger because for most drugs there is no way to predict who is at greatest risk.
It is commonly accepted that the illegal drug industry is currently a worldwide enterprise in which drug users spend hundreds of billions to buy certain drugs. It is oxymoron that despite the prohibition leading to the decrease of the availability of illicit drugs, it increases their price as drugs become an underground substance. For example, it is vital for this lucrative drugs business, in order to achieve its aim, to pay suppliers and transporters. Thus, traffickers with the participation of specialists in money laundering have developed certain tactics to insure the efficient and safe delivery. The cost impact of the whole process falls entirely upon drug users who want to acquire drugs with a day to day increasing price.
Usually drug use can exceed the pool assets of users leading them to criminal activity, loss of employment, unstable family life, loss of education and imprisonment. Users of illicit substances”face a harsh stigmatization and discrimination which can result in eliciting shame and guilt in them. In addition, the prohibition lead with a mathematic accuracy to the development of black market in drugs, making “pure” or “clean” drugs unapproachable; forcing users to associate with drug dealers and thereby to promote criminal activity. The consequence is a marginalization of those users, who under the fear of being exposed, they remain lonely riders to an unknown destination.
Drug Use as Feature of Privacy and Autonomy
This part of the essay is going to examine whether or not drug use can be considered as a private behaviour similar to other daily activities. Privacy can be defined as “a right to be left alone”, as set out under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A broader conception extends beyond the exclusively personal sort of information and includes anonymity and restricted physical access. Taking on some features of autonomy within the definition of privacy, individual is able to afford the required legal and social space in order to develop the spiritual, cognitive and moral aspects of an autonomous human being. It is crucial for the political dimensions of a society to respect the fundamental right of privacy, to protect the individual freedom and the rights of association, and do not impose unjustified limitations, via governmental control, upon thoughts and actions. Therefore, it could be argued that by showing that drug use is an autonomous activity which does not differ from daily activities, it is possible to be recognised as a private behaviour.
At first we must highlight the fact that activities in which autonomous individuals are free to use their body as they wish and for their own purposes include those who do not cause grave harm to others or to themselves. This may include a variety of sports and leisure activities as “everyone has the right to rest and leisure”; sky diving, rugby, gambling, alcohol, smoking. Society does not prohibit such activities due to the benefits that derive from them irrespective of any form of harm and danger that may be occurred from such conducts. Nevertheless, a significant number of persons who use drugs illicit are stigmatized and marginalized from society even though they do not cause serious harm to themselves.
There is an interesting data illustrating that the majority of the drug users act innocuous and noncompulsive. At instance in a survey in USA, 3.1% admitted that they had used cocaine, 5.6% had consumed LSD during 1992 and the 77% of the serious cocaine users are regularly employed. Furthermore in a statistic which was conducted by NHS in 2007 points up that the 5.9% of students between the ages of seventeen to twenty four used cocaine and the 21.4% used cannabis. As a result, it could be argued that it is not irrational to conclude that the majority of drug use is conducted voluntarily. However, it must be noted that such drug use may not always conducted in a manner that is less harmful to users or to others. Therefore it is arguable whether it is justifiable or not for a government to interfere into this behaviour.
As it is very complicated, and in some circumstances impossible, to identify the essential differences in harms and benefits between voluntary drug use and other relative private activities, like smoking, bungee jumping and skiing, it would not be irrational to held that voluntary and innocuous drug use is a private behaviour. Consequently, it would be unreasonable for a government to treat such behaviour dissimilar with comparable private behaviours. Solomon RM in Canada’s Federal Drug Legislation emphasise the need for a proportionality test based upon “comparison with other risk-producing conduct and the subsequent comparison of drug-related behaviours relative to one another”. One the other hand, as we noted above, equality requires that similar cases must be treated exactly the same.
Therefore, taking into account that drug use is commonly a private behaviour, the prohibition of the voluntary and innocuous drug use may be held to be unjustifiable. Contrary to this position, it could be argued that adults do not have a moral right to use recreational drugs because autonomy neither apply nor protect any form of recreational activity; but only when consequentiality considerations permit it.
On the other hand, if it is held that only some choices are protected under autonomy, it is not conclusive that recreational drug use is not among them. Otherwise, there will be a threat for the vast majority of our daily activities to be left alone without adequate protection contrary to Freedom of Expression and right of choice. Several philosophers defended the thesis that autonomy principle can apply and protect recreational drug use. Joel Feinberg claimed that “the kernel of the idea of autonomy is the right to make choices and decisions – what to put in my body, what contacts with my body to permit...and more.” The words “and more” can be interpreted as to apply to all individual’s choices. As a result it could be argued that recreational drug use can be included within the range of the above conception of autonomy. Considering this substantive conception of autonomy it is clear that it provides equally protection to the decision to use drugs as to the decision to eat ice-cream. This means that an intervention to prohibit or reduce drug use must be the last resort; the least restrictive measure reasonably available considering the benefits, harms and risks which enclose them.
Such considerations are absent when the major issue of the recognition of a right to use psychotropic substances in ones’ own choice is in the legislative agenda. This can be demonstrated by the policies towards tobacco and alcohol, whose harms from the daily use on the user and on others, go beyond the harms of the vast majority of prohibited drugs. According to a statistic in UK, conducted by the National Statistics, the alcohol-related death rate was 13, 3 per 100,000 population in 2007, compared with 6.9 per 100,000 population in 1991; more than double increase. Tragically in most countries the consumption of alcohol and tobacco is legal with some restrictions upon minors.
Therefore the assessment of the risks and harms by the conduct with drugs will be more precise and truthful by the recognition of the recreational drug use as private and autonomous behaviour. In addition society will not view drug users as criminals with an antisocial behaviour but instead as individuals whom rights and liberties must not be infringed or jeopardised. Upon this notion, the Westminster introduced the Health Act 2006 with the establishment of smoke free premises, for the protection of public health, but granted exemptions under s.3 of the Act in order to respect the rights and privacy of smokers.
One can argue that the most significant difference between recreational drug use and other similar activities is that drugs can be addictive. Robert Goodin expressly stated that what we are being protected from is something that would deprive us of the capacity of autonomous choice. The main difficulty in examining the above issue is the radical disagreement of what constitute addiction. An accepted interpretation may be the desire to stop drug use in the face of continued use. Therefore, addiction is a subject of degree. Theorists, who wish to argue that addiction undermines autonomy and paternalistic interference, must provide a clear explanation of the sense of autonomy on which they want to rely upon otherwise prohibition cannot be justified on the ground that provide protection to individuals whom their choices may deprive their autonomy. Considering Thomas Szasz in the Ceremonial Chemistry 1974 it could be concluded that addiction from drug use is medical fiction. Addiction can be seen as a habit rather as a medical condition. This can be justified taking into account that the difference between marijuana, alcohol, heroin and smoking lies on social, private and ritualistic differences of their consumption rather on their chemical construction.
Illegal Drug use and Human Rights Infringements
Human rights infringements are a reasonable consequence of the stigmatization and prejudice against drug users. Tragically, in1990, Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates stated in front of the U.S Congress that all casual drug users ought to be taken out and shot. Occasionally, governments claim that their policy is justified on an attempt to protect individuals from any form of health harm. Nevertheless, as Norbert Gilmore stated, it is arguable whether public health laws deal with drug use since criminal law is the main field of law, in many countries, to deal with it.
The dominant infringement which occurs as a result of the current policies is a breach of privacy, taking into account that drug use can be regarded as an autonomous activity. Thus, drug users are vulnerable to compulsory drug testing which leads directly to arbitrary searches, arrest and finally to criminal justice procedures with intrusion upon the presumption of innocence and protection against self – incrimination. In addition, health care system does not provide adequate treatment and rehabilitation for drug users. It is not unreasonable to argue that an alcoholic addict can receive treatment, education and counselling without the threat of facing criminal proceedings as it is the situation with illicit drug users. Finally religions, related with use of psychotropic substances for worship purposes, face a disproportionate policy which leads to infringements of Art.9 of ECHR.
Legal and policy approaches to drug use encourage a discrimination which is directly related to the profound marginalization of drug users. At instance, contrary to the fundamental provision of Art14 of ECHR, current or prior drug users suffer discrimination in situations of employment and face unjustifiable dismissals or the reduced opportunities for promotion. It is crucial to note that specific laws and policies enclose, in themselves, provisions that discriminate against drug users. This can be illustrated by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 which under s.510(a) excludes current drug users from its protection. In addition considering the Turn in Pusher programme in 1960s in USA, under which children were encouraged to report parental drug use, it could be argued that the war on drugs threats the sanctity of the family.
Conclusion
It is fundamental that personal privacy goes hand in hand with personal liberty. Drug use, as we examined above, is clearly an issue of personal privacy. Tragically, we tend to surrender our fundamental rights in order to avoid the victimization and marginalization resulting by the continuity of the war on drugs. Governments adopt an unjustified paternalistic behavior in relation to mental illness by defining morally unacceptable behaviors as diseases.
The right to use psychotropic substances for one’s own choice must be linked with the principle of autonomy and with the fundamental rights of property, self- medication, the right to control my own body and the right to die. Even if one wants to see addiction as virtually certainty and not fiction, he remains responsible to inform himself about the substances he consumes. For example, if he becomes addicted, he is responsible for the addiction because he either knew or ought to know that addiction was a possibility. Nevertheless, autonomous individuals are free to use their body as they wish and for their own purposes. This thesis is already accepted by society in nondrug domains; for example many countries have not enacted a speeding or helmet law for motorcyclists. If we accept that humanitarian health concern justifies the prohibition of drugs, one can raise the issue of the absence of any equivalent war on cigarette addiction which are responsible for more premature deaths than heroin, AIDS and alcohol.
As Szasz observes we live in a society in which people have legal access to loaded guns but not to sterile syringes and where there is zero tolerance to drugs but not to nuclear waste. Considering the maxim of a liberal society, it is the time to recognise that individuals themselves are responsible for their welfare and that moral and ethical considerations cannot be erected by governmental laws and policies.
Word Count: 3988
Bibliography
BOOKS:
-
Joel Feinbergh, “Harm to Self” (3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 1986)
-
E,Goode and N. Ben-Yehuda, “Moral Panics, The Social Construction of Deviance” (7th ed., Blackwell Publishers Inc, Oxford 2002)
-
Robert E. Goodin, “No Smoking: The ethical Issues” (2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1990)
-
Douglas N. Husak, “Drugs and RightsI” (2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1996)
-
J. S. Mill., “On Liberty” (8th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000)
-
Tim Murphy, “Rethinking the War on Drugs”, (1st ed., Cork University Press, 1996
-
E. Nadelmann, “Toward a Sane National Drug Policy” (1st ed., Jerry Stratton, 1994)
-
Philip Robson, “2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999)
-
M. Simpson, T. Shildrick and R. MacDonald, “Drugs in Britain, Supply, Consumption and Control” (1st ed., Palgrave Macmillan Publications, 2007)
-
Solomon RM, “Canada’s Federal Drug Legislation” (Blackwell JC Publications, 1988)
-
Thomas Szasz, “The myth of Mental Illness, Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct”, (Revised Edition, Harper & Row Publishers, 1974
-
Thomas Szasz, “Our Right to Drugs: The case for a Free Market” (Syracuse University Press, 1996)
-
John Wyatt, “Talking about Drugs” (1st ed., Wayland Publishers London, London 1973)
JOURNALS:
-
Norbert Gilmore, “Journal of contemporary health law and policy Drug Use and Human Rights: privacy, vulnerability, disability and human rights infringements” vol.12, The Catholic University of America, 2006
- Robert E.Haskell, “Journal of Humanistic Psychology: Thomas Szasz Our Right to Drugs: Cracking the Constitution” vol.35, no.1, Sage Publications, 1995
- Paul Smith, “Journal of Applied Philosophy: Drugs, Morality and the Law”, vol.19, no.3, 2002
WEB:
- NHS, Statistics on Drug Misuse, England, 2007
<> accessed 28 March 2009
- National Statistics UK, Survey of Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use
<> accessed 26 March 2009
LEGISLATION:
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
- European Convention on Human Rights 1950
- United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988
Paul Smith, “Drugs, Morality and the Law”, p.233
J. S. Mill, “On Liberty”, ch1. Paragraph 13
E. Goode and N. Ben-Yehuda, “Moral Panics, The Social Construction of Deviance”, p.1
J. S. Mill, n3 above, ch.3 paragraph 1
Norbert Gilmore, “Drug Use and Human Rights”, p.5
M. Simpson, T. Shildrick and R. MacDonald, “Drugs in Britain, Supply, Consumption and Control”, p.43
John Wyatt, “Talking about Drugs”, p.30
E. Nadelmann, “Toward a Sane National Drug Policy”
Thomas Szasz, “The myth of Mental Illness, Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct ”, p.47
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Art.24
Norbert Gilmore, “Drug Use and Human Rights”, p.10
www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/
Solomon RM, “Canada’s Federal Drug Legislation”, p.216
European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Art.10
Joel Feinbergh, “Harm to Self”, p.54
http://www.statistics.gov.uk
Robert E. Goodin, “No Smoking: The Ethical Issues”, p.7
Douglas N. Husak, “Drugs and RightsI”, p.127
Norbert Gilmore, “Drug Use and Human Rights”, p.21
European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Art.9
European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Art.14
Thomas Szasz, “Our Right to Drugs: The case for a Free Market”, p.43