Errors in reasoning that contribute to stigma.
Written by James Armstrong
The more we look at stigmatisation, or put simply shaming and blaming leading to disapproval and distancing, the more we reveal logical fallacies. These fallacies contribute to misconceptions about people who use substances and reinforce harmful stereotypes.
What are logical fallacies?
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. They often appear persuasive on the surface, but when we apply them to our real-life personal experiences they start to crumble.
Some key logical fallacies that may lead to substance use stigma include
1. Just-World Fallacy
The belief that the world is inherently fair and people get what they deserve.
This fallacy leads to the assumption that people who use substances and experience problems must have done something to "deserve" those problems. It dismisses the role of systemic issues (e.g., poverty, trauma, or lack of access to healthcare) and frames addiction as a personal failing or moral flaw. This perspective ignores factors like genetic predisposition, chronic pain, mental health issues, or adverse life events that contribute to substance use.
How often have you heard people say something like "If they’re struggling with addiction, it must be because they made bad choices."?
Perhaps it is a way of thinking that gives people who have never experienced problems with substance use some comfort. It fosters a lack of empathy, making it less likely that people will support harm-reduction policies or recovery programs.
The reality of course is that bad things happen to good people all the time.
2. Fundamental Attribution Error
This is the tendency to overemphasise personal characteristics (like willpower or morality) and underestimate situational factors when judging others’ behaviours.
Many people use substances without significant harm but when people do experience problems there can be an assumption this is a result of a lack of self-control or personal weakness, ignoring environmental and structural factors like stress, trauma, social isolation, or peer pressure.
People might say "They’re addicted because they lack discipline," while ignoring a life experience of which the observer knows very little about.
3. Ad Hominem Fallacy
This one is common if you’ve ever used social media. How often do you see differences of opinions rapidly turn to person character attacks? Ad Hominen attacks focus on a person's character instead of addressing the substance of their behaviour or circumstances.
You might hear something along the lines of "Addicts are just bad people who don’t care about society", ignoring people’s complex relationship with substances use, and instead shaming others.
4. Hasty Generalisation
Perhaps more obvious as a fallacy is drawing sweeping conclusions from limited information or even a single case.
Generalisations may be necessary to make a point, but how often have you heard phrases like "Jim has a history of drug use and shoplifting, 80% of people who shoplift are like Jim". This overlooks the diverse experiences of people who use substances and the complex causes of crime.
5. False Cause (Post Hoc)
This fallacy is the assumption there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship without evidence.
For example, "They lost their job because they’re a drug user," when the reality might involve complex unrelated underlying health and social factors or even entirely unrelated factors like wider economic instability.
Knowing two things are true doesn’t automatically mean there is causality, or ‘blame’.
6. Appeal to Fear
Using fear to create generalised and exaggerated dangers has been a traditional technique used in anti-drug campaigns. Portraying people who use substance uses in the media and the arts as violent or untrustworthy creates undue fear and encourage avoidance rather than support.
7. Slippery Slope
This is very simplistic reasoning that says one action e.g. substance use, will inevitably lead to escalation and ultimately disastrous consequences. This inevitability is rarely evidence based and ignores complexity of influencing factors related to causality.
8. Moralistic Fallacy
This fallacy reasons that substance use is inherently wrong or immoral, or even that certain substances are inherently evil in themselves.
This perpetuates stigma and ignores the diverse range of substance use across society.
9. Strawman Argument
Another reasoning you may have seen on social media whereby someone's motives or behaviour are misrepresented in order to dismiss them or devalue their character.
You might hear variations of "People who use drugs are just selfish, they just want to ruin their lives,"
Exposure to lived and living experience will very quickly tell you that things are more complex.
10. Bandwagon Fallacy
This fallacy reasons that because other people think it, it must have some truth. When forced to make quick judgements we can all be swept along with the general consensus. But the crowd can be wrong. This can make stigmatising attitudes, the resulting narratives and policy positions very stubborn to address.
11. False Dichotomy
The substance use treatment sector should always be on our guard to challenge this fallacy. This fallacy relates to the act of presenting only two extreme options and ignoring the middle ground, or even creating a middle ground that doesn’t exist. For example you might be familiar with notions of ‘purity’, or ‘the right way to recover’ e.g. "You’re either clean or a failure", neglecting the possibility of harm reduction, or self-defined personal recovery.
It can be difficult to talk rationally about the risks of drug and alcohol use without stigmatising. A focus on recovery can stigmatise people who are not in recovery, or people who use drugs without significant problems. But rational, evidence-based discourse can help us find the balance.
12. Confirmation Bias
This is one we may all be familiar. We can all have a tendency to focus only on information that supports preexisting beliefs while ignoring contradicting evidence. We often talk about echo chambers that reflect our own views back to us so we feel we are correct. There is comfort in thinking we understand the world around us.
What can we do to think differently and avoid stigmatising?
Meeting people with living and lived experiences, engaging in stories and statistics and being open minded will help address stigma and discrimination. Perhaps a good starting point is to recognise and understand our own tendencies to make errors in our thinking and be consciously slow to reach a judgement.