In Support of Legalizing Marijuana

            I was recently reading John Stuart Mill’s work On Liberty, in which he touches on the issue of banning alcohol from society.  Although his refutation of prohibition was by no means the central theme of his work, it elucidated some of its founding principles.  By applying Mill’s thoughts on prohibition to today’s discussion on legalizing marijuana, we can see how Mill would support the legalization of marijuana.

            Mill begins his thoughts on prohibition by introducing Lord Stanley, a proponent of prohibition, whose stance on the limits of government at first glance seems similar to his own.  Stanley states that “[a]ll matters relating to thought, opinion, [and] conscience” are private matters, while “all pertaining to social act, habit, relation...and not to the individual” are within the government’s jurisdiction.  Though this appears consistent with the ideas Mill presents in On Liberty, Mill makes a distinction when applying these thoughts to prohibition, and thus to the legalization of marijuana.

            Mill sees a third class: “acts and habits which are not social, but individual”.  It is under this class that Mill places the consumption of liquor, and where for our argument we may place the consumption of marijuana.  At the foundation of Stanley’s argument in favor of prohibition is the belief that the government has the right to legislate when “social rights are invaded by the social act of another”, and that the violation of social rights that alcohol induces through destruction of security and social disorder is just grounds for prohibition.  Remember these are also arguments against the legalization of marijuana.

            By distinguishing between social and individual acts/habits, Mill debunks Lord Stanley’s argument in favor of prohibition.  Mill shows how Stanley’s thought process, if widely applied, would lead to an inappropriate amount of government intervention on the liberty of individuals.  Referring to Stanley’s stance, Mill declares that “[s]o monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty; there is no violation of liberty it would not justify”.  Under Stanley’s and those who oppose the legalization of marijuana’s logic, all of our habits/acts are liable to government intervention.  As Mill illustrates, there is some truth to this statement, for some acts/habits are social.  However, if the act/habit is private, such as the consumption of alcohol and marijuana, the government no longer has jurisdiction.  The use of marijuana is an individual act/habit for the same reason the use of alcohol is, so for the sake of our liberty as individuals, we must legalize marijuana.

            Once legal, marijuana can be taxed using the logic applied in In Support of a Carbon Tax.

-Simon

Feedback

Dear Simon.
     Congratulation on your Web Site. I wish you and your Friends great joy and success. I like to add some observations. 1- Marijuana is not addictive like smoking.2-The fight against it has cost billions of Dollars for Fighting drug dealers and the extensive crimes connected with them. 3-A big percentage of the prison population are miserable victims of the drug fight which has destroyed the life of people who can otherwise be good productive citizens. Each such prisoner is costing an estimated 60,000 Dollars yearly, which translates into Billions of Dollars that can be spent on other social essential activities. Finally I want to add that Professor Milton Friedman who is a Noble prizewinner and staunch conservative was a great fighter of all those futile anti drug laws.

-Grandfather Jacob Cohen