Liberal moralities and drug policy reform.
Saved in:
| Title: | Liberal moralities and drug policy reform. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Nicholls, James (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy. Aug2025, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p299-307. 9p. |
| Subjects: | Drug laws, Debate, Autonomy (Psychology), Health policy, Contracting out, Philosophy of medicine, Health care reform, Ethics, Harm reduction, Practical politics, Self advocacy |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom |
| Abstract: | Background: While debates on drug policy express a range of ethical viewpoints, many are underpinned by core ideas drawn from liberal philosophy. Much recent analysis on the moral principles underpinning drug policy debates focuses on differences between reformers and supporters of the status quo. Less attention has been given to divergences among advocates for drug policy reform, which often hinge on the interpretation and application of liberal principles. Methods: This paper examines three concepts from liberal philosophy in relation to drug policy debates: 'positive' and 'negative' freedom, rational autonomy, and social contract. The articulation of these ideas, and the extent to which they underpin different positions on policy reform, is explored with reference to three areas of advocacy: legal regulation; decriminalization; and harm reduction. Results: Agreement on drug policy reforms does not necessarily imply shared views regarding concepts of freedom, rational autonomy, or social contract. Specific policy solutions may be supported by a range of ethical and political positions and can serve as points where divergent, and sometimes conflicting, philosophical perspectives converge. Conclusion: Drug policy advocacy expresses a range of underpinning moral, political, and philosophical perspectives. Recognizing commonalities and differences among these perspectives is important for coalition-building and strategic planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: While debates on drug policy express a range of ethical viewpoints, many are underpinned by core ideas drawn from liberal philosophy. Much recent analysis on the moral principles underpinning drug policy debates focuses on differences between reformers and supporters of the status quo. Less attention has been given to divergences among advocates for drug policy reform, which often hinge on the interpretation and application of liberal principles. Methods: This paper examines three concepts from liberal philosophy in relation to drug policy debates: 'positive' and 'negative' freedom, rational autonomy, and social contract. The articulation of these ideas, and the extent to which they underpin different positions on policy reform, is explored with reference to three areas of advocacy: legal regulation; decriminalization; and harm reduction. Results: Agreement on drug policy reforms does not necessarily imply shared views regarding concepts of freedom, rational autonomy, or social contract. Specific policy solutions may be supported by a range of ethical and political positions and can serve as points where divergent, and sometimes conflicting, philosophical perspectives converge. Conclusion: Drug policy advocacy expresses a range of underpinning moral, political, and philosophical perspectives. Recognizing commonalities and differences among these perspectives is important for coalition-building and strategic planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09687637 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/09687637.2024.2429588 |
