John Stuart Mill - Should drugs be legalized? An essay concerning the libertarian thoughts of John Stuart Mill in 'On liberty'

Mirko Gropp, An essay concerning Mill’s „On Liberty“

The usage of substances which have an effect on biological processes inside the body were always a part of the human culture. On one hand, they can be used to cure diseases such in the case of aspirin and on the other hand they are used for recreational purposes such as alcohol. This essay will concentrate on the latter practice which is facing a lot of debates and criticism. Whilst it is pretty common amongst native tribes to make use of this kind of drugs, in civilized countries you will find nearly everywhere paternalistic regulations in the case of non-accepted drugs, which is often a “Zero-Tolerance” policy such in Asia and the USA. On the other hand, socially accepted drugs like alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and fancy designer drugs like Prozak (an anti-depressive drug) are part of the daily life. As we can see, the policy according to recreational drugs is pretty inconsistent, mixing arguments of a liberal and paternalistic approach. In arguments against this historically based segregated treatment of recreational drugs, you will often find the thoughts of the nineteenth century philosopher John Stuart Mill concerning “Civil or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised over the individual 1 ” in order to loosen the regulations. In his book ,“On Liberty”, h e states out the main principle in order to leave the “details of live 2 “ to the individual, protecting it against the “prevailing opinion and feeling 2 ”. “That principle is that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of actions of any of their number, is self protection. 3 ” In contrast to the paternalistic view, “[h]is own good, either physical o r moral, is not a sufficient warrant. 3 ” Thus, a governmental restriction to protect its citizen from harming themselves by an incompetent usage of drugs, which is common in the case of ecstasy or heroin, is not morally justified by Mill’s concept. This so called harm-principle is the decisive scheme of his work, trying to combine Utilitarianism and Liberalism. In his view, giving priority to liberty over other goods and even over the claims of general welfare will on the long run best promote general welfare. Hence, we have to examine whether drugs interfere with the interest of others or better saying whether they are harming them.

In order to reason for a prohibition of drugs, one could claim the pernicious effects of drug usage which is indeed harming others directly. As a matter of fact, drug users are more likely to harm someone in their state of intoxication, which often goes together with the loss of mental or motor control. For instance, in the majority of serious car accidents, the usage of

1 Mill (1859): p.5.

2 Mill (1859): p.9.

3 Mill (1859): p.14. accentuation added

2

Mirko Gropp, An essay concerning Mill’s „On Liberty“

drugs was involved. On the other hand, not every drug use results in hurting others. Who is a student harming, smoking marijuana in the privacy of his home? With the example of poisons Mill points out that just potential harm-causing effect cannot be used to justify governmental coercion of the whole in order to prevent harm as long as there is no direct correlation between the act and the harm that is caused 4 . In contrast, it would be legitimate to warn the customer “with some word expressive of its dangerous character. 5 ” As we can see, preventive governmental compulsion would interfere with the social freedom according to the harm principle. As a consequence, a person cannot be held responsible for taking drugs, but for failing to meet his duties to the public. T herefore, a drunken person who fails to meet his family obligations and hence hurting his family should be punished. The punishment, however, is for failing to meet his family obligations not for being drunk 6 . Also in the case of drug related car accidents, a government may regulate such combined activities but not the availability of drugs itself. As a result, there is no moral legitimization of prohibiting drugs out of preventive reasons no matter how expedient it would be. You will find the same pattern of argumentation in the case of drug related crimes such as murderer and robbery.

In addition to a direct damage, we could harm others indirectly by not using our capacities or giving a bad example. Where is the frontier between personal freedom and the interests of society? No man is an island. All acts may affect others. “If he injures his property, he does harm to those who directly or indirectly derived support from it 7 ” and hence diminishes the resources of a society. Should we, therefore, be not allowed to spent money for our own pleasure (which would include drugs)? Is it already harming society if we do not make use of our full mental and physical capacity (which could be restricted by drug use)? Should the society prevent us from conducting the same mistakes as others before us (by getting addicted to drugs)? Mill’s answer is a clear: No. A constructive loss is no legitimization to interfere with someone’s personal liberty 6 . Even i n the case of assignable obligations like the afore mentioned duties towards a family, creditors, or at the working place, just the failure of meeting them “is a subject of moral disapprobation […], but not […] the cause of it, nor the errors, merely personal to himself, which may have remotely led to it. 6 ” If drugs would cause a “definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province o f liberty, and placed in that of morality and law. 8 ” The

4 Mill (1859): p.106.

5 Mill (1859): p.107.

6 Mill (1859): p.90.

7 Mill (1859): p.89.

8 Mill (1859): p.90. accentuation added

3

Mirko Gropp, An essay concerning Mill’s „On Liberty“

associated “inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom. 9 ” Once more, one can just be punished for the probable effects of drug use ore better saying drug abuse and not for the mere cause ( taking drugs). The individual itself has the right to decide what to do with its life 10 . As a mean to protect the personal liberty Mill proclaims “liberty of tastes and pursuits 11 ” no matter how “foolish, perverse, or wrong 7 ” our conduct will be perceived. He sees no point in prohibiting a bad example which just harms the a gent itself, because the misconduct will display its negative consequences as well. So to speak, if drug usage would be destructive to the user, logically, the example will prevent others from taking drugs. Hence, there is no need to prohibit drugs out of the reason that their usage will be a bad example to the people.

Children are excepted from Mill’s harm principle as they still “require being taken care of by

others” in order to “be protected against their own actions as well as their external injury. 12 ” Therefore, the probable effects of drugs on the mental and physical development would justify the paternal care in form of coercion and compulsion such as prohibiting drugs for this audience. “But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way. 13 ” This distinction will be of interest in a later section.

If we cannot justify a prohibition of consume of drugs, what could we do against likely

just pointing out the frontiers of social ( governmental) restrictions, especially coercion and compulsion. Society can convey its disapproval and dislike by the means of helpful “advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance 14 ”, always respecting the personal freedom of the agent. Due to security reasons, one could also restrict the places where drugs are allowed to be sold 15 . Furthermore, person who were already convicted for any act of violence to others under the influence of drugs (like in the case of drinks 16 ) lose this peculiar personal liberty.

9 Mill (1859): p.91.

10 Mill (1859): p.84.

11 Mill (1859): p.17.

12 Mill (1859): p.14.

13 Mill (1859): p.64.

14 Mill (1859): p.104.

15 Mill (1859): p.112.

16 Mill (1859): p.108.

4