Utilitarianism and Drugs: The Problem and the Solution

One way to approach the moral issue of drug use and legalization (as much as drugs themselves could be seen as a moral issue), is the application of utilitarianism in trying to resolve this problem. If in fact drug use is a moral problem, then first we need to explain how it is a moral problem and the possible morally apt solution.

In assessing whether or not something is ever a moral problem, it's important to distinguish the overlying assumptions that presuppose such a claim. For our case, we'll be examining utilitarianism and how it would view the moral problem of drugs. In our analysis I would like to propose then a utilitarian identification of the problem of drug use, as well as a reciprocating utilitarian solution to the problem as well. The presuppositions that follow from this utilitarian approach is rather simple: the good is that which maximizes utility for the most amount of people on average (average utility); and its opposite, that which hinders or leads to less average utility is morally bad - even if unintentional. That being said, what is utility? Utility is a rather difficult concept to define, but for this purpose we shall avoid the classical definition understood by Bentham as merely pleasure and the absent of pain, and propose a more complex and applicable definition. For our purposes here, let's define utility as happiness as a necessary component for well-being, and in this it follows that the rules dictating those behaviors or policies that increase the maximum utility will be on par with the increase of happiness as it relates to well-being on a morally relevant (rather than prudential) basis.

Now that the presuppositions have been taken care of, we should look further into the problem of drug-use as a moral issue. Note, by drugs I'm referring to illicit narcotic chemicals used for the purpose of artificial performance enhancement, artificial chemical stimulus of the central nervous system, and those recreational substances used for the purpose of attaining extreme mental states of pleasure and/or euphoria. At this point in time, our clarification distinguishing utility from hedonism becomes important. For, the hedonist might say that the overall pleasure experienced from taking an intoxicating chemical that stimulates one's mind into a state of euphoria might be aggregately more intense and pleasurable than any negative side-effects this behavior might incur. Naturally, it follows then that drug use wouldn't be a moral problem at all, and if one is willing to try the experience and finds it more pleasurable, then this is perhaps morally good. However, this definition rests on two assumptions of the problem that we no longer need to worry about: first, we have distinguished overall average utility as the main component of our moral assessment (rather than overall), and we have defined it not merely on increasing pleasure and avoiding pain, which deals with simply mental states at the subjective level. It should also be noted now that pleasures may in fact be ranked accordingly to a hierarchy, such as John Stuart Mill devised.

Now, the problem of drug use as a moral issue from the perspective of the utilitarian must rest on consequentialist grounds. Also, we will compose our dissection of this problem both from the perspective of the individual and society at large while still relating to average utility; secondly, our solution will follow suit. The problem for the individual can be difficult to identify beyond mere physical effects of narcotics on his body, which is not solely grounds enough for us terming it a moral problem (at least in the tradition of utilitarianism). We have to identify that the consequences (as they relate to maximizing utility) are both for the individual (and society) bad, and that the solution is good. In identifying such a problem, we need to look at the problems faced by the drug user himself and the use of drugs on society at large.

For the drug user himself, narcotics as they exist as illegal substances, creates a myriad of problems - ultimately dependent on the type and degree of his addiction. If one finds himself addicted to a very potent opiate, such as heroine, we need not examine further the moral decay of his character and the consequences this may have for his individual utility or for that of society. But what about less obviously dangerous substances, like alcohol, nicotine, and THC (marijuana)? The effects of these drugs certainly don't necessarily result in one finding himself desperately searching for his next fix in some dark alley... so how might the utilitarian address this as a moral problem?

The utilitarian might say that the person who uses these substances is forcing himself to accept negative consequences of his behavior that are undoubtedly infringing upon the maximization of his own utility by diverting his attention from other more important paths in his life. It is not too hard to imagine someone who chooses to drink instead of paint masterpieces, write deeply profound political tracts, or pursue some other end that indeed makes his life go better and better for society as well. The utilitarian might say that, while the drug user is pursuing his own pleasure (and even if it is not at odds with societal utility) he is nonetheless neglecting his other interests and pursuits that are fundamentally (and hierarchically) more important to the development and growth of his individual person for which his attainment is dependent upon the consequences of his own actions.

Likewise, it need not be said that he may ignore his own responsibilities by diverting financial resources towards his habit, which could have gone elsewhere. Imagine a man using the rest of his paycheck (assuming he works) to purchase a minimal quantity of marijuana, a carton of cigarettes, or a 1 liter bottle of Vodka instead of spending time with his kids. Now more than just the individual have been effected by the consequences of his choice, but those whose growth and development are dependent upon his choices are harmed as well. And so it goes. The toll on the community and the immediate family members of the user must be taken into an overall account of utility as well, for which much stress may be attributed.

Now we can imagine such behavior extending well beyond the realm of the individual and we have a societal problem. The use of drugs is inextricable accompanied by the traffic and dealing of drugs in communities, cities, towns, etc. which has a direct relationship to assorted crimes, from money laundering, robbery, theft, violence, etc. (not to mention the fact that trafficking and dealing are both in themselves crimes to begin with). A society of drug users (even if not the majority) will either have to place them in jail, rehab centers, or both - depending on how society decides to deal with these problems. What we have here now is a collective problem that drains resources, promotes crime (often times violent), and must now utilize resources from other areas of possilble development to deal retroactively with a multitude of problems.

These problems have dealt only with the treatment of drug use as it remains illegal to consume, possess, or traffic. The situation would change drastically if currently illegal substances were decriminalized or even more so, if they were legalized and treated as a legitimate industry. The problem for the utilitarian is one dependent upon empirical data and historical evidence. Speculation into how drug use would reflect upon the maximization of utility once legal would present another problem, one of research and data collecting to see if this would be an appropriate solution that whose consequences wouldn't burden utility, and in fact, would promote it. How this is to be resolved is another matter altogether; however, the problem with legalization is that it assumes that the use of drugs in and of itself is not a morally bad thing, or that at best it is neutral without serious consequences for the rest of the society. This is an individualistic view (although a utilitarian position could quite easily be drafted for this line of reasoning as well), and is not attempting to resolve the problems I have set forth here in this article.

So, if we may move forward with the idea that drug use itself - whether illegal or legal, is bad for the maximization of utility then we have to come to a resolution that addresses the problem with means that follow accordingly towards our proposed ends. What the utilitarian must consider before making any propositions is the historical precedents surrounding the drug problem and how it is being dealt with today. Clearly, there exists some problems that have yet to be address, otherwise such a problem wouldn't exist at all. Secondly, we can accept that our current treatment of both users, possessors, and dealers is inadequate as the problem continues to progressively get worse.

A utilitarian solution which might resolve this problem then should look something like a combination solution involving both physical rehabilitation as well as retributive justice that aims at assisting the recovery over addiction for the addict, removes him wholly from society while undergoing this process, removing him from sources that may inhibit his recovery, and make productive, useful members of society out of these people to the maximum levels of their capacity and potential. Such a system would incorporate the medical and psychological aspect of their physical additions, and provide a set number of hours for counseling and treatment. The rest of the time should be devoted to hard labor for constructive purposes, as well as accompanied by educational seminars for helping them to learn trades, skills, and valuable knowledge in transforming them into productive citizens. The labor oriented aspect serves both as punishment and maximization of utility. These laborers could perform the more mundane tasks for important projects without having to risk sabotage to the overall project. This will provide society with a new source of labor to improve infrastructure and pursue other projects, with a possibility of returning citizens back into the general population free of their addiction and with the hope of using their newfound skills for the greater good of society.

The program should be extremely intensive and laborious; but rather than having drug users, traffickers, and possessors sit in prison cells where their behaviors are made worse by their surroundings, the atmosphere should be one that is entirely sterile and under complete surveillance using the latest in such technology, so that their every movement is recorded and observed in real time. Likewise, all facilities should remain 100% sterile from the presence of narcotics or other abused substances so that their is no underground dealing or using within. All occupants should be subject to hair tests on a weekly basis to ensure that they are not obtaining substances to ensure the success of the program. The duration of their stay should be mandated at a minimum sentence whereas afterwards their success through the program should be determined by a competent board of law enforcement, medical, and psychological officials to determine if the individual is thoroughly capable of being reintroduced to society. The costs of such a project are likely to be relatively high, but the outcomes should provide far superior results than that of which we have now, and statistics will be able to verify upon the application of such a program how successful they are through the monitoring and upkeep of databases on individuals as they re-enter the general population.

This is perhaps only one solution to the drug problem, which depends on a number of presuppositions I discussed previously. This is just to show how philosophy can be utilized to generate rationales behind different resolutions to real-world problems. Of course, much more research and thought would have to go into a potential alternative to dealing with the problem of drugs than I have outlined here, but it is merely a demonstration of one philosophical model in its pragmatic use.