The Value of Drug Use

Why do drug users engage in illicit drug use? One popular answer to this question is mood control. We take drugs to steer our moods and consciousness in desired ways. This is true not only for illicit but also licit drug use. We consume caffeine mostly in the morning when we are lethargic and tired and want to feel more awake. We consume alcohol in the evenings when we want to unwind and relax. So the rationale for drug use is one we already feel comfortable and at home with: people consume substances to steer their consciousness and moods in a direction they desire. Many individuals use marijuana to relax, others take LSD to have fun; others use MDMA as a social lubricant, to “open up” to individuals and also empathize with them to a degree they otherwise would not be able to; amphetamines are taken as an energy boost, to improve concentration, and relieve the tedium of boredom. Drugs, both licit and illicit, are valuable insofar as they allow us to control our moods and steer them in directions we otherwise would not be able to in their absence.

A crucial observation here is to note that neither we nor the state tend to demand justifications for other recreational pastimes. Neither we nor the state demand of fanatical football fans that they provide a justification for their enjoyment of the sport. Such a justification would be extremely difficult to provide given that most people’s preferences for any given team are arbitrary. Yet this arbitrariness has no bearing on our tolerance of such sports fanaticism. We allow people the liberty to act according to their own preferences because doing so is the mark of a free society. We allow individuals to pursue their pastimes because doing so brings them pleasure, and we recognize that this pleasure is the only reason we need to accept the many hobbies and pastimes people become involved with. Of course, there are limits. We do not allow individuals to harm one another simply for pleasure. In such cases it is the duty of the state to intervene in order to protect the rights of the victimized. But when no rights are being violated, the state tends to adopt a policy of tolerance. It should be noted that drug legalization and/or decriminalization is perfectly consistent with the view that while recreational use is to be tolerated, engaging in drug use that directly puts the lives of others at risk or creates the possibility of harm should be punished. The law already accounts for this, most commonly harsh penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol. It is perfectly consistent to hold the view that recreational use in one's own home (or designated smoking places) ought not be punishable, whereas operating heavy machinery, driving, public intoxication, and/or being under the influence at work should be subject to punishment, depending on the severity of the risk and the substances being used. Decriminalization is not the view that one's personal responsibility to others is no longer subject to state regulation. The view being defended here is the minimal thesis that recreation for its own sake, in the right kinds of environments, ought not to be subject to criminal punishment.

Similarly, we should not demand for a justification of the value of recreational drug use. Many individuals engage in recreational drug use because it brings them pleasure, it allows them to control their moods in desirable ways, to relieve anxiety, to reduce stress, to experience euphoria, to gain psychological insights into their own lives, or to experience states of consciousness otherwise not attainable in sober states. Whatever the reasons for engaging in recreational drug use, the demand for a justification in order to tolerate the practice is as misplaced as demanding that those who watch soap operas or enjoy amusement parks defend their preferences before they're accepted We tolerate them because we recognize the value of recreation. Insofar as many types of drug use are forms of recreation, and as long as engaging in this type of activity does not interfere with the rights of others or cause direct harm to those not engaged in it, then the state, and society at large, ought to accept and tolerate drug use as a legitimate form of self-expression and distraction from the worries of every day life.

Of course, our initial response to this might be to ask “but what about when recreation is dangerous?” The answer to that is that our recognition of the value of recreation must come with a certain level of willingness to allow individuals to take risks when engaged in the activities they choose to pursue. We tend to tolerate risks when individuals engage in the use of licit drugs when using them is for the purpose of treating some kind of medical condition. And yet, why do we tend to not tolerate such risks when instead of engaging in drug use for medical reasons we engage in drug use for the sake of recreation? Our zero tolerance policy for the dangers associated with recreational drug use is difficult to defend in light of our acceptance of the dangers involved in other recreational activities we do tolerate. Presumably none of us would think that the risk of sky-diving is so high that individuals who engage in that pastime ought to be punished for doing so. Consider the dangers associated with scuba diving, bull running, free climbing, white water rafting, heli-skiing, and base jumping. The mortality rate for many of these activities is much higher than the mortality rate for many of the drugs we use recreationally. Why don’t we require that the individuals engaged in these activities provide a good justification for engaging in them? Because we are willing to allow people to decide for themselves whether they value these activities (88). Because

Even when we do not fathom why anyone would jump out of an airplane with a parachute simply for the thrill, we defer to the judgments of those who disagree with us about whether such activities are worth the danger (88).

So Husak’s case can be summarized in this way: