Chapter 5. The Drug Addict
At the present time, with the intense discussion on the evils of heroin addiction, it is well to heed the old adage.
Listen to both sides of the story.
Among the many reasons for this, and perhaps most important, is the fact that if everyone is against something,
particularly heroin addiction, one can assume that there is something which can be said in its favor.
Throughout mankind's long and disputatious history, the majority opinion has, the majority of times, been wrong.
On the other hand, even those who agree with the majority opinion should also welcome an attack upon it.
The best way to teach the verities of life, according to the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, is by hearing the opposition.
Let the position be challenged, and let the challenge fail.
This method was considered by Mill to be so important that he recommended inventing a challenging position if a real one was not forthcoming and presenting it as convincingly as possible.
Thus, those who believe in the unmitigated evils of heroin addiction should be eager to hear an argument in favor of it.
The phenomenon of addiction should be considered from an intrinsic point of view.
That is, the assumption will be that the social or interpersonal problem, the necessity for
an addict to become involved in criminal activities in order to support his habit, has been solved.
For this is caused by the legislation which prohibits the sale of narcotic drugs, and
thus is a problem extrinsic to the drug itself.
The intrinsic problems of addiction are all the other problems addicts are alleged to
to Face. Primary on any list of the non-social problems of drug addiction is the allegation
that addiction shortens life. Depending on the age and health of the addict and the pessimism
or optimism of the alleger, the figure by which life is said to be shortened varies
between 10 and 40 years. This is indeed unfortunate, but it hardly constitutes a valid criticism
of Addiction, and it most certainly does not justify the prohibition of heroin use.
It does not constitute a valid criticism or justify prohibition because it is up to the
individual to determine the kind of life he will lead—a short one, including what he
considers to be pleasurable activities, or a longer one without such enjoyment.
Since there is no objective criterion for such choices, there is nothing irrational or even
suspect about any choice on the spectrum.
One may choose to maximize the possibility of longevity even if this means the renunciation
of liquor, tobacco, gambling, sex, travel, crossing the street, heated debate and strenuous
exercise.
Or one may choose to engage in any or all of these activities, even if that means a shortened
life span.
Another argument leveled against addiction is that it prevents people from fulfilling
their responsibilities.
The example usually given is that of a father, who under the continuous influence of heroin
becomes incapable of fulfilling his financial and other obligations to his family.
Let us assume that heroin addiction incapacitates the father.
It still does not follow that the use and sale of heroin should be prohibited.
It would be unreasonable to prohibit any activity on the grounds that it prevents some people
from functioning in certain ways.
Why should the people who are not impaired, or who do not have like responsibilities,
be restricted?
Were it proper to prohibit heroin for this reason, surely it would also be proper to
prohibit gambling, drinking, smoking, automobile driving, air travel and other dangerous or
potentially dangerous activities.
But this would be patently absurd.
Should heroin be legal for some people but not for the others who do not accept or fulfill
their responsibilities because of their addiction?
No.
When a man, to continue the example, marries, he does not agree to renounce all activities
which might be dangerous.
The marriage contract is not, after all, a slave contract.
Marriage does not prevent either party from engaging in activities which might discomfort
the other.
People with responsibilities do get heart attacks from playing tennis, but no one would
suggests that people with responsibilities be barred from sports activities.
Another argument against drug addiction is the claim that users become totally non-productive
and thus as a group lower the GNP, Gross National Product, an index of the economic well-being
of the country as a whole. Thus, the argument runs, drug addiction hurts the country.
The argument is specious, because it considers the country's well-being a meaningful concept, rather than the addicts.
But even in its own terms, it is not convincing.
It is based upon an equation of the GNP with economic well-being, and this equation is fallacious.
The GNP, for example, counts all government spending as contributing to the well-being of the country, whether it actually does so or not.
It fails to take into account the work of housewives done in the home.
Furthermore, it completely misconstrues the economic status of leisure.
Any assessment of economic well-being must assign some value to leisure, but the GNP does not.
For example, the GNP should double with the introduction and full-time implementation
of an invention which allowed people to double their output of real goods and services.
But if the people choose to use the invention to just maintain their standard of living,
and instead have their workday, the GNP would not change by one iota.
It is true that if addiction to heroin leads to increased leisure, it will cause a fall
in the GNP.
But an increase in leisure for any reason will have the same effect.
Therefore, if we oppose addiction on this ground, we must also oppose enjoyable vacations,
poetic contemplation and walks in the woods.
The list of prescribed activities could be endless.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to utilize an increase in wealth by increasing one's
leisure, and if the GNP decreases thereby, so much the worse for the GNP.
Finally, it is by no means clear that addiction necessarily leads to lessened economic activity.
Most of our knowledge about the behavior of addicts comes from the study of those who,
Those of legislation which prohibits heroin and therefore skyrockets its price must spend
most of their time in an agonizing search for vast sums of money.
They cannot hold traditional jobs because most of their time is spent stealing, murdering
and prostituting.
Since we are concentrating on the personal problem of addiction and not on the social
Problem, the evidence afforded by these people is irrelevant to the discussion.
To study the behavior of addicts who are not prohibited by law from being productive, we
must turn to those few addicts who are lucky enough to be insured a steady supply of low-cost
heroin.
This group is composed mainly of doctors who can use their prescription writing powers
to insure themselves a steady supply.
The limited evidence furnished by this small sample seems to indicate that addicts, freed
from the compulsions induced by heroin prohibition, are able to lead rather normal and productive
lives.
The doctors in question provide service as adequately as other doctors.
From all indications, they are able to keep up with the latest developments in their field,
maintain a proper relationship with their patients, and function no differently in all
All relevant aspects from other physicians.
To be sure, were heroin legal, addicts would continue to have drug-related personal problems.
There would be the fear of possible renewal of prohibition and the relative incapacitation
following the periods of drug use.
There would be the danger of overdosing, although it would lessen under legalization, since
the drug could be administered under the supervision of a doctor.
The vestiges of the old prohibitory attitude might remain and manifest themselves in the form of prejudice against addicts.
The point to be stressed, however, is not that addicts will have drug-related problems even under legalization.
Special problems almost always accompany special interests.
Violin players are always in fear of injuring their fingers, and ballerinas cannot afford stubbed toes.
Addiction to heroin is not in and of itself an evil. If it is legalized, it cannot possibly
hurt anyone but the user of the drug. There are those who may want to speak out, educate
and advertise against it, but to prohibit it is clearly a violation of the rights of
for those who wish to use it