What sways public opinion? An experimental study on moral vs. evidence-based arguments for drug harm reduction

Background Unlike evidence-based approaches, public drug policies are shaped more by political factors, with public opinion playing a key role. We hypothesized that using moral arguments in favor of harm reduction would carry greater levels of support in public opinion over empirical evidence arguments in favor of harm reduction.Methods Based on the experimental methodology embedded within an omnibus survey, we employed a convenience sample consisting of 635 observations, with the survey conducted in Mexico. Participants were presented with either a moral or empirical evidence argument in favor of harm reduction. They then answered questions regarding their support for harm reduction (Support), willingness to donate to a harm reduction NGO (Donation), and willingness to vote for a candidate who supports harm reduction (Vote).Results Willingness to donate to harm reduction was associated with moral arguments’, and we found that conservatives showed greater support for harm reduction when presented with a moral argument.Conclusion The use of moral arguments in favor of harm reduction is related to greater public support. These results have significant implications for attracting donations to harm reduction organizations and to improve the acceptance of conservatives of measures related to the model.