ONE OF THE most enduring arguments among Duterte Drug War supporters is that drug addicts kill, rape, rob, and inflict all kinds of harm on innocent, peaceful people.
Addiction, they claim, makes users inhuman—vermin to be eradicated immediately. Killing all 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.
NATIONAL PRESERVATION?
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.
This argument is echoed even by educated individuals—professionals, government employees, and even actors within the criminal justice system.
DO NO HARM
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. 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.
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…
REALITY BITES
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.
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 percent had a history of chronic drug use, while 18.6 percent had a history of chronic alcohol use. Yet, there is no widespread call for the killing of alcohol users. Why?
Imagine this. While some drug users do become violent criminals, the majority are non-violent offenders. 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.
DUTERTE AND HITLER
By labeling all 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. Even reformed drug users or those falsely accused by neighbors become targets of state-sanctioned 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.
INSTANT RETRIBUTION
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.
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 short-term solution, built on poor evidence and flawed reasoning.