Ethics and Drugs

On October 28, 1919, the 66th Congress of the United States of America passed the National Prohibition Act, better known as the Volstead Act, into law. From a historical perspective, the law serves as a tragic example of the consequences of a misguided policy and continues to be largely referenced today with regards to the illegality of recreational drug usage. From an ethics framework, the issue tests notions of rationality and laws of morality that govern our society. Weighing the various ethical criterions most commonly applied by philosophers and law makers, the illegality of illicit drugs is an unethical practice. It violates the tenets set forth by Kantianism and Utilitarianism, which on balance, outweighs its tenuous backing from the Golden Mean ethics.

The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, carefully detailed his ethical theories and sentiments when it came to the justification, implementation, and overall purpose for the laws pertaining to morality. Unlike laws that prohibit willful acts of violence or destruction of property, illegal drug laws are strictly an issue of morality because they predominantly only harm the individuals who use them. As with the Volstead Act, outlawing illicit substances is primarily an exercise undertaken by one particular group against another. The veil of ethics and morality become the primary justification used by the law's proponents. However, Kantianism uses a system of rules to codify ethics and morals, rather than subjective viewpoints. Kant's Categorical Imperative along with the Four Formulations stated that a law was morally legal so long as it was applied universally and not directed solely toward one group or individual by another. Furthermore, these laws must be independent of circumstance and exist on their own standards, as if they were laws of physics. Once presented with this viewpoint, the notion of making drugs illegal violates this code of morality, specifically Kantianism's rule of universal application. A clear example can be seen in hospitals and trauma centers, where pain medication, often derived from the same substances that make up illicit drugs, provides pain relief and palliative care for patients suffering from all manners of ailments. In essence, the current law eschews this universal principle, in favor of a discretion based policy. Kant's tenet for universally applied laws of morality was stated primarily to prevent these kinds of subjectively based policies that aim to support one particular group while infringing on the rights of another. This represents a clear contradiction and in Kant's view, represents a law of morality that is not supported by a rational individual or rational society.

Like prohibition of the 1920s, the current law against illicit drugs has created a climate of violence and destruction across the nation. Among the many so called justifications, proponents point to recreational drug usage as if it were a terrible affliction of the mind and body. While this may or may not be accurate, the fundamental ethical principle should revolve around the ultimate consequences that result from personal drug usage. After all, drug users consume drugs, just as they do alcohol, because they provide happiness. It might be fleeting, even illusory, but it is happiness nonetheless. In this sense, it is very much akin to individuals who purchase fast cars, gargantuan mansions, or stunning jewelry. Despite the enormous cost, it is not clear that these goods provide any practical benefits over cheaper substitutes, and yet, it is perfectly legal and even enviable to own these products. From an ethical perspective, this rationale is perfectly in line with the Utilitarian philosophy. This philosophy stresses the ethical purity that exists from an individual's pursuit of happiness. Indeed, society is on the whole better off so long as the total sum of utility is higher than in any previous state. This ethical principle should