Thursday, February 2, 2017
Drugs and Liberty
Many states are beginning to experiment with legalizing marijuana for medical uses as well as for recreational uses. Currently the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington permit some form of the recreational use of marijuana. Nonetheless, the federal government still prohibits such uses. Furthermore, other recreational drugs, such as LSD, cocaine, and heroine are illegal in all of the states, including those that now permit marijuana. In many of those states the possession of at least some of those illegal drugs is a felony. What would Mill say about the drug laws in the U. S.? Should some recreational drug use be permitted? Should all? What about currently legal drugs such as nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine? Is Mill's position the current one? Or do drug laws show that we need to go beyond the Harm to Others Principle?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that John Stuart Mill would strive to have a legality of all drugs in the United States. Mill states that, “A person should be free to do as he likes in his own concerns”, and acknowledging this it seems only reasonable that this statement would include drugs, regardless of their harm or benefits on the users. However Mill’s follows up this statement with the assertion that, “he aught not to be free to do as he likes in acting for another, under the pretext that the affairs of the other are in his own affairs”, which is an important addition in the regards of the responsibility that any citizen holds with their freedom. This is an important addition to an argument for the legalization of all drugs as it gives a restriction to a possibly dangerous freedom. Acknowledging this concept, it is clear that clear that Mill would advocate for any substance which does not have a detriment on others without their consent. While this is a broad assertion it does not include substances such as cigarettes given the second hand which can be a detriment to the health of anyone surrounding the smoke, and it also does not include the use of a substance which results in the detriment in the wellbeing of a citizen, regardless of what that substance may be. Given the amount of drugs which are illegal in the United States, which do not fall under the “Harm to Others Principle”, it is clear that the United States’ current opinion on drugs does not fall under Mill’s philosophy of personal freedom. However, given Mill’s liberal stance on drugs, his philosophy would not absolve drug laws from the “Harm to Others Principle” and would in fact enforce it with the same stringency as any other realm of society.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill would advocate for the legalization of all drugs across the United States, and would blame any incidents on drug-users’ own decision making skills. In other words, Mill would indeed criticize the current drug laws in the US. Of course, everyone knows that drugs are dangerous, and everyone knows that some drugs are more dangerous than other kinds of drugs. Still, no matter how dangerous certain drugs might be, Mill would choose to give any drugs to whoever demanded them. His reasoning for this can be seen in his “harm to others” principle, where he states that “the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it” (12). Later in the book he also notes that “no one but the person himself can judge of the sufficiency of the motive which may prompt him to incur the risk” (95). Here, he states that citizens should be free to do whatever they want with their own lives, and not be denied anything by the government as long as it doesn’t interfere with others’ liberties. So yes, drugs can kill people - but according to Mill, that danger is ultimately assessed by themselves - as long as they know the risks (and as long as this doesn’t affect others), they shouldn’t be denied the right to use harmful drugs.
ReplyDeleteYet, besides the fact that drugs are dangerous for oneself, in many cases drugs can certainly affect others’ lives; and this clearly interferes with Mill’s “harm to others” principle. Nonetheless, John Stuart Mill additionally states that if a substance (such as drugs) was to be used in a way that harmed others, that person should be “be placed under a special legal restriction, personal to himself” (97). Lastly, he continues to say that if the person continues to misuse these substances, “he should be liable to a penalty”, and then if committed once more, it would become a crime against others (97).
In theory, Mill’s position makes sense; but in reality, the idea that society should entirely rely on each others’ own judgement is a frightening one - The people making these decisions are humans, and if there’s anything to be known about humans, it’s that humans make mistakes; in the end, I certainly don’t want to see how often these dangerous mistakes would occur.
In On Liberty, J.S. Mill’s argues that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (9). Mill furthers that a person’s “own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” to limit one’s liberties (9). This idea, known as the harm to others principle, can be applied to evaluate the drug laws that we have in place today.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to how to punish individuals for taking drugs, it is important to take into account one of the key stipulations of the harms to others principle. Although Mill believes that it is one’s liberty to cause harm to oneself, when through “conduct of this sort, a person is led to violate a distinct and assignable obligation to any other person,” then that person is no longer only causing harm to himself (79). This can be an obligation for one to help one’s family, or in the example Mill provides, “no person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty” (79). Society should be able to regulate self-harming behavior that impedes upon one’s ability to fulfill their duties. Mill would agree with laws that prevent drinking or using drugs while at work or in any situation that would prevent a person from doing what society obligates them to.
With cases involving drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine, or any other “hard” drugs, Mill’s viewpoints would side with the current law. Addiction to one of these drugs will likely result in severe harms to one’s well-being, relationship with one’s family, and ability to function as a normal human being. This can lead to expensive trips to the hospital, the inability to provide basic needs for one’s family due to buying drugs, doing one’s job proficiently, and almost any other obligation one has. These costs, Mill would argue, is clear justification for limiting the use of “hard” drugs, since the harms to society are clear and probable. Furthermore, under Mill’s philosophy, even recreational use should be banned because these drugs are highly addictive and even a small amount can lead to devastating effects including death.
For most drugs, such as marijuana, nicotine, alcohol, and even caffeine, recreational use should be completely fine when looking to Mill’s beliefs. Even though usage of these drugs could disrupt one’s ability to fulfill an obligation, the effects of these drugs are for the most part marginal. Mill recognizes that in some cases the harm to society will be so minimal that “the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom” (80). People who are drunk and high might act slightly crazy in social settings or cause people frustration, but Mill argues that these harms are far outweighed by the benefits of not restricting further individual liberties. The number of people who become addicted to these drugs is extremely small in comparison to the whole. It is not justified to suppress liberties simply due to a small fraction of the population; those who are addicted can get help from society instead. Mill’s position is slightly more liberal than our current law, since he would likely permit the recreational use of “soft” drugs like marijuana.
I believe that Mill’s harms to others principle, along with the specifications he makes that I mentioned earlier generally applies to responsible drug use. The principle would outlaw extremely dangerous drugs while allow recreation use of far less harmful drugs but only in scenarios where the drug use would not impede upon one’s ability to fulfill one’s obligations.
I think that John Stuart Mill would be under the belief that all drugs should be legal in the United States. Mill constantly emphasizes the importance of self-governance. One of his core arguments is his belief that an individual should be able to do anything he or she chooses under the assumption that those decisions do not harm anyone in any way other than the individual making the decision. Mill firmly believes that “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” This is stating that nobody other than the individual himself should be able to make any decisions pertaining directly and exclusively to that individual. It also means that the individual is granted the liberty to make any decision he so chooses, regardless of the possible negative effects, as long as those negative effects are contained to only impacting the individual who made the decision. Following this argument, it is clear that Mill would advocate for the legalization of almost any drug. Despite the negative impacts of many drugs, those impacts are contained most of the time to only the consuming party. Although drugs may indirectly affect emotionally people close to the individual taking drugs, the vast majority of drugs directly impact only the individual consuming or using that drug. It is peculiar that one of the current legal drugs would be a drug that Mill would most likely not immediately jump to support. Cigarettes are legal in the United States, but they do not solely affect the consumer. Second hand smoke can have immense negative repercussions on people around cigarette smokers. This might be an exception to Mill’s support for drug legality because when an individual chooses to smoke a cigarette, they can be affecting more than themselves. Overall, one of the pillars of Mill’s beliefs is the idea of self-governance under the right circumstances. Mill’s defining belief in the right of an individual to make any decision assuming it affects the individual and only the individual directly can be used as strong support that Mill would promote the legality of most drugs.
ReplyDelete