In another discussion, Michael B asserts “The science involved is irrelevant – issues around drug use are simply a moral perspective.”
Now, to me that seems a fairly long bow to draw, but I’d be really interested to hear people’s thoughts. And the idea of the issue being 100% a moral one could fit many aspects of the argument:
 “Illicit drug use or drug use that harms is immoral and should not occur”
or
“Society’s morals need to adjust to recognise that drug use is a part of life now and in some cases is actually desirable”
Â
I believe that this notion of moralism comes about from non-addicts approaching the issue of addiction. For an addict, there is nothing immoral about stealing or dealing drugs to feed a habit. It is simply not a moral issue but rather a response to a need. However, for the non-addict who sees drug use as recreational, they believe the crime committed in the name of drug use to be highly immoral as they believe that the use of drugs is an indulgence, an enjoyment of which they are deprived whereas the addict needs the needle or the coke or smack or pot just to be a complete being, apriori to any form of experience….
Classing drug use as a moral issue is just a way to bring it under their own tent so the religious right have a say in it. If there are no morals involved, they are left out of the loop.
It’s similar to the government only highlighting the worst case scenario for drug users by showing rotten teeth, wrinkly old faces and them stealing from their mum. With drugs so heavily demonised, they can pretend they are tough on crime by cracking down on the scourge of drugs. Fighting crime is a vote winner.
If they told the truth and kept addiction as a medical issue and showed that recreational drug use is similar to recreational alcohol use, they would lose their power.
It’s always about power!