Conversation

When constructing an argument against someone who uses or abuses drugs, it can very tempting to hold this fact against them, even if that doesn't contribute to the argument.

This fallacy is prevalent, even among people who claim to have a positive opinion of drugs. Amie used it against me like a week ago. I think it is common for two reasons.

First, the perception that drug users—or drug abusers—are evil. This idea might stem from war on drugs propaganda. It might also stem from the correlation between drug use and mental health issues.

When you stigmatise drug users, you stigmatise the kind of people who are more likely to use them, these are underprivileged people and those who are ill—mentally or physically.

Second, drug abuse can hurt others. When it does, it's a legitimate injury for which one should be held accountable. But this argument gets unduly generalised. People don't always get hurt, and the harm stems from negligence, not intent.

Therefore, if the people you're arguing for haven't been harmed, then there's no reason to think a drug abuser has an intent to hurt others. It's not a good argument.

And while debaters are prone to falling into this fallacy, I think their audience recognise it easily. These claims look random and unwarranted, they come off as personal attacks.

At least, I hope so. Because as I explained, these arguments are hurtful to responsible drug use in society, to underprivileged people, to the person being attacked, and as every fallacy, to good discourse. Please, avoid using them unwarrantedly.

– Anita