Autonomy, Liberty Rights, and the Principle of Noninterference in Drugs and Alcohol

Should there be autonomy in drugs and alcohol? A drug is a substance that interferes with a person psychologically when ingested. On the other hand, alcohol is a drug that when ingested, results in intoxication. A majority of people worldwide are addicted to alcohol. Particularly, college students indulge in drugs and alcohol. Some of them are addicted to it to an extent that they lose concentration in their studies. Also, sportsmen and women are addicted to drugs, particularly steroids. Morality and addiction have always been a topic of debate. The entire concept of autonomy and liberty rights is the reason for the debate. Autonomy is an ethical right that allows people to live their life as they want. In the disease model of addiction, addiction is seen as a medical problem and not a moral one. The paper discusses the concept of autonomy, liberty rights, and the principle of non-interference.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Autonomy is a moral principle that offers people the right to take charge of their life. According to chapter 6, a person's ability to resist or overcome addiction is a matter of willpower. As the chapter indicates, in the model of addiction, willpower separates addicts from non-addicts (p.315). According to the authors, autonomy incorporates the ability to make free choices when dealing with drugs and alcohol (p.318). As they explain, an individual's autonomy is violated if they are restricted from doing what they believe is their moral right. Furthermore, Fenton and Wiers (p.1) affirm that the desire for drugs and alcohol takes a toll on autonomy. In presumption, autonomy is usually difficult to control. It is controversial and difficult to agree on. It is vague and broad and includes a capacity of flexibility, often approaching administration and law, that is, "administrative autonomy," some applications may combine the legal and political-administrative nature together. In the case of alcohol and drug addiction, autonomy is a self-law (Autonomy in Addiction and Recovery p.1). In the case of addicts, when they practice autonomy, they can manage to overcome their addiction.

Drug and alcohol addiction interferes with an individual's liberty rights. According to Chapter 6, addiction is a form of slavery because it limits people's ability to quit the use of drugs and alcohol (p.318). Liberty rights incorporate responsibilities, duties, and obligations. In regards to alcohol and drug abuse, in as much as users should have the free choice, they have to know that they ought to be responsible and dutiful. People should not allow alcohol to consume their lives and enslave them to an extent they cannot function properly. The authors indicate that according to John Locke, liberty rights do not allow people to enslave themselves. Even so, when talking about liberty rights, the question has to be whether they have a right to use drugs and alcohol. As Fenton and Wiers (p.1) affirm, evidence depicts that addiction makes an individual myopic, and might result in behavioral problems in the future. In light of that discussion, public and personal health are important. Addicts and moderate users of drugs and alcohol have to understand that their rights should not interfere with their active lifestyle.

The principle of non-interference states that interference with adults' free choice has to be justified. Chapter 6 (p.318) indicates that drug and alcohol addicts begin the vice at a very young age. As the chapter puts forward, in the United States, the average age of an alcohol user is twelve years while that of an illicit drug user is thirteen. When talking about the restrictions of drugs and alcohol use in regards to free choice, the issue of personal and societal rights arises. Drug and alcohol use, as well as non-use, is a choice. Federal prohibition is necessary because when a twelve or thirteen year olds indulge in that use, the principle of non-interference has to come in. The personal harm caused by the addiction to harmful drugs and alcohol should be a moral issue that prompts federal prohibition. Besides, the federal government has to be actively involved in the construction of a solution-oriented process that can help addicts of drugs and alcohol. Most importantly, the solution-oriented process has to be categorized in either in indirect interference where family members of addicts are involved or forcible interference where addicts are committed against their free will.

Conclusion

There is a moral issue when it comes to the use of drugs and alcohol. Morality requires the users of drugs and alcohol to determine the difference between excess and deficit. Public health is significant because a majority of people are addicted to drugs and alcohol, which in most cases results in fatalities. In a world where addiction is viewed as a disease, the bigger question should not be whether individuals should use drugs and alcohol but how they should use them. From a personal perspective, Addicts have a moral responsibility of avoiding the use of drugs and alcohol. Besides that, users of drugs and alcohol have to take it in moderation to avoid being addicts. Drugs and alcohol should not be available on request or unrestrictedly. Furthermore, the federal government has to be involved actively in the restriction of the overuse of drugs and alcohol while keeping in mind their autonomy and liberty rights. The basis of their decisions has to lean more on personal health rather than public health.

Works Cited

Autonomy in Addiction and Recovery. N.d. Accessible at https://alcoholrehab.com/addictionrecovery/autonomy-in-addiction-recovery/

Chapter 6. Drug and Alcohol Use. N.dFenton, Ted., and Wiers, Reinout. Free Will, Black Swans and Addiction. Neuroethics, vol. 10, Issue 1. 2017.