[OPINION] Killing drug addicts: Based on poor evidence and flawed reasoning

1 week ago 5

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

The flawed logic behind the drug war — and why killing addicts is not the solution to crime and violence

One of the most enduring arguments among supporters of the brutal drug war of former president Rodrigo Duterte is that drug addicts kill, rape, rob, and inflict all kinds of harm on innocent, peaceful people. Addiction, they claim, makes users inhuman to be eradicated immediately.

Killing drug addicts is considered a natural act of self-defense to protect law-abiding citizens. For them, it is better to kill thousands of addicts than to let an equal number of peaceful citizens suffer from their deranged actions. Duterte’s actions are seen as acts of national preservation. He alone, they argue, had the courage to stand up against the eventual criminality of drug users. Even if addicts have not committed a violent crime yet, it is acceptable to kill them to prevent future violent offenses. They had been warned and offered to surrender anyway. So, it is their own fault when killed.

This argument is echoed even by educated individuals — professionals, government employees, and even actors within the criminal justice system. Medical professionals, despite adhering to the ‘do no harm’ principle, support this view. Lawyers, who are trained to uphold the rule of law and due process, tolerate shortcuts in police operations that lead to the deaths of drug users. Even religious people, who believe in tenets like “thou shall not kill” and “offer the left cheek when someone hits you in the right cheek” endorse this mindset. The sentiment cuts across social divisions — rich and poor alike demand safe streets. If killing addicts is the solution, then so be it.

Yet, this argument has rarely been analyzed or dissected. Its assumptions are seldom challenged, and a serious fallacy that underpins it is never exposed. The popularity of this view is rooted in its emotional appeal for the punishment of the flesh.

A more nuanced view

Let us first examine reality. The causes of violent crimes, such as murder, rape, and robbery, are multifaceted. Drug addiction is just one among many risk factors. Research shows that individuals from broken families, those who lack education and employment, those exposed to delinquent peers, individuals with antisocial personalities or mental health issues, and those with criminal thinking patterns are equally likely to commit violent crimes. (READ: Rethinking the Philippines’ drug policy)

In fact, chronic alcohol users are more likely to be overrepresented in the population of prisoners than chronic drug users. A 2024 survey of 500 newly committed prisoners in the Bureau of Corrections showed that only 13.6% had a history of chronic drug use, while 18.6% had a history of chronic alcohol use. There is also a dual comorbidity of 6% where prisoners are both drug and alcohol abusers. Yet, there is no widespread call for the killing of alcohol abusers. Why?

Second, while some drug users do become violent criminals (Group A in the Venn diagram below), the majority are non-violent offenders (Group B in the diagram below). Many violent criminals are not drug users but suffer from other criminogenic needs such as alcoholism, lack of employment, exposure to delinquent peers, poor family background and other social ills (Group C in the diagram below).

Group B includes people who use drugs to stay awake for work (pampagising), for recreation, or to cope with life problems. Their only crime is drug use. Many of these individuals are functional members of society who do not harm others — only themselves. Many of them surrendered during the drug war and availed of the drug treatment programs like Zumba dancing.

By labeling drug addicts as violent threats to society, all addicts become candidates for elimination. This was clearly illustrated when Duterte called for the killing of 3 million addicts, likening his policy to Hitler’s killings of the Jews.

This is illogical reasoning based on hasty generalizations. Addicts are then demonized and stripped of their right to due process. Thus, even reformed drug users who already surrendered to the government were either arrested or killed. Worse, there were many who were falsely accused by neighbors who become targets of state-sanctioned or vigilante killings. Coupled with the use of corrupt police force and instructions by the president himself to urge the suspect to fight back, many became victims of nanlaban or encounter killings.

This is not to suggest that those who commit heinous crimes should go unpunished. They must be held accountable — but for the right reasons.

When a drug user commits murder or rape, they should be imprisoned for life—not because they are drug users, but because they committed heinous crimes. Likewise, if an alcoholic, an unemployed person, or someone from a broken home commits the same crimes, they should also be punished — not for their background, but for their actions.

Additionally, victims of violent crimes must be supported. The government must provide medical and psychological assistance. Victims deserve justice through the timely resolution of cases and the conviction of offenders.

Most offenders are homeless, unemployed, come from poor family and community background, lack education, alcoholics — and yes, some are also drug addicts. We must protect society from these potential criminals. But instead of resorting to violence, the government must address the root causes of homelessness, unemployment, alcoholism, and addiction by providing long-term solutions.

Killing addicts is a popular idea among those who seek instant retribution. When drug users are portrayed as perpetrators, there is a natural desire for vengeance. A bloody execution is seen as justice — fueled by raw emotion.

Killing addicts is a short-term solution, built on poor evidence and flawed reasoning.