3. Ethical implications of a liberal policy on drugs

3. Ethical implications of a liberal policy on drugs

One of the criteria on which every drugs policy will be judged is how well it reflects society’s moral values and civil liberties. A commission of experts cannot provide any definitive answers to such questions but can identify various issues which are of relevance in the evaluation of the appraisal of the options discussed below. The core element of human rights and of a morality founded on the consensus of the community is the protection of individual rights, dignity and freedom of choice. This common aspiration is enshrined in the catalog of fundamental rights established by every society which is based on the rule of law and democratic principles. How each individual should live his life and the goals he or she should pursue, in a liberal society, are matters which only the individual can decide. There is no consensus within society on these questions and no such consensus is sought. In a pluralistic society, thus, there is no guarantee that answers to questions of personal lifestyle by which an individual or a group may regard itself as bound will also be viewed as binding by all the others. This situation is mirrored in the dichotomy between law and morality. In principle, the law confines itself essentially to regulating social relationships. Accordingly, only an individual’s obligations to other individuals or to society as a whole are regulated by law and not those obligations which the individual owes to himself or herself. How an individual behaves toward himself or herself is a matter for that individual alone, provided no others are harmed or endangered by such behavior. This principle applies even to the most extreme forms of selfinflicted injury, right down to (attempted) suicide, which is not an offence in the eyes of the law. In this light, it is highly questionable whether indirect consequences of such behavior which may adversely affect other individuals or society as a whole, such as absence from work or the costs of accidents, illness and welfare, can be construed as harm to others the prevention of which may legitimately entitle the State to exercise its coercive powers. These doubts apply particularly in the case where a particular lifestyle is enforced by the threat of punishment, in particular by the threat of deprivation of freedom. Against the background of the above- mentioned rights and liberties, a number of fundamental issues arise in relation to what might constitute a socially justifiable drugs policy.

Does it follow from the principle that each individual is prima facie responsible for himself or herself and for his own life that society is precluded from taking any interest in the fate of the individual? Does it also follow that society has no obligation to protect the individual from himself or herself – if the circumstances arise – a responsibility which flows from the concept of human solidarity? At any event, it is to a large degree this very tension between these two conflicting objectives which characterizes the legal and ethical issues at the heart of an enlightened drugs policy. Such a policy seeks to reconcile the liberal goal of individual autonomy and the freedom to take drugs with the need to protect the young, who are not yet capable on their own of perceiving their best interests, from being harmed by drugs. In the case of minors, a moderate degree of paternalism in the form, for instance, of youth protection measures – including, for example, a ban on the supply, sale or possibly even the consumption of drugs – would appear to be a reasonable approach, capable of commanding a consensus. This is because it is based on the sound premise that the young are not yet capable of fully understanding what is in their true and long- term best interests and of acting accordingly. It is different for adults. In their case, outright prohibition, backed up with the threat of legal sanctions, constitutes a highly paternalistic approach which disregards the autonomy of the adult citizen, who is well able to make up his own mind as to what is best for him or her. The following suggested approaches to the cannabis issue are aimed at minimizing the apparent or real conflicts between ethical and legal considerations. These tensions can never be fully resolved since every future drugs policy will have to balance the protection of individual freedom and health against that of collective rights and public health concerns, and conflicts between these two objectives are always inevitable.