Introduction.

John Stuart Mill stated 1

'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.'

He goes on to state that to say that the citizen's own good, physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant and that society can only exert power over an individual for self protection. These statements will form the core of my argument for the legalisation of cannabis.

Cannabis use in the 1960s

The use of cannabis became widespread in the 1960s. It became hip and cool to smoke with many rock stars such as the Rolling Stones and the Beatles openly stating that they used the drug. Ex Harvard professor Timothy Leary, one of the 60s counter culture icons stated that ''one should tune in and drop out'' and advocated the consumption of mind altering chemicals like LSD and cannabis. Mill surprisingly was against this advocacy as he felt one should not give advice on a subject that society finds evil if one gains financially from doing so. He 1 On Liberty, chapter 1, page 6. would also be against voicing an opinion about cannabis that may cause harm i. e. in front of school children. Rock stars may increase their album sales and greater publicity from promoting their drug use, as Mr Leary may have been able to sell more books on the counter culture.

Society's disapproval

Many people in our society find the idea of people using cannabis and enjoying it abhorrent. Mill stated this in that many people consider as an injury to themselves, acts carried out by other people with which they disagree with. Mill would argue that just because the majority of the population disapproves of people using cannabis we should not make it illegal. The majority should not oppress the minority. He stated that the 2 ''The tyranny of the majority'' should be one of the evils that society requires to be on its guard. This majority is unelected and tries to control individuals through etiquette and morality. The 60s persecution of cannabis users was not just carried out because people used cannabis.

Many people who lived alternative lifestyles and rock stars who the establishment thought were living decadent lifestyles and setting a bad example to the country's youth became prime targets of the police. The Rolling Stones were first a target for the press and then the Police. The News of the World reported on the Stones excesses and then informed the local police of a party where drugs were present. On 12th February 1969 the police raided the party and found drugs. 2 On Liberty, page 3, chapter 1 Mill believed that there should be a balance between social control and individual autonomy. He was not against all social control but believed there must be valid reasons for this control. He felt that people are prone to intolerance, especially when they are passionate about something they care about.

People may abandon reason when they judge people's behaviour and rely on their intuition. Because they do not use cannabis they feel it is wrong for other people to use the drug. Mill also felt that the morality of a country emanates from the ascendant class. In Britain the middle classes widely use cannabis. This could now be one of the reasons in the 21st century why cannabis is now more acceptable. It has crossed the class divide. In the 1960s it was the artistic/bohemian community that tended to use the drug. Today it has spread to every economic group. This was the case when cannabis first became news. In the 1960s many people saw this as a strange new drug from the east that would corrupt our youth and severely damage society. Mill was also passionate about free speech. The cannabis laws may have been used in the past to target people who the establishment felt were being too vocal about social issues and sought to silence them by targeting their cannabis use.

Harm

Mill strongly believed that harm (and by harm he meant physical and harm to a persons interests) to the individual from an action should not be a reason to pass laws to ban this action. The only reason Mill felt that a state could impose legal penalties on an individual or collection of individuals was self protection. The individual must be causing harm to others by his action. An individual using cannabis is usually causing no harm to anyone but himself. Mill felt that the individual should be the only one to have power over himself regarding his interests. The individual should not need to justify his cannabis use. This only applies to adults in full command of their faculties and omits young persons not yet defined by the law as adults. The same criteria should be applied to cannabis use with severe penalties for anyone supplying this drug to children.

Cannabis is harmful. Smoking cannabis is usually done with tobacco, without a filter and inhaled more deeply than cigarettes. This can lead to lung cancer, heart problems etc. Mental health can also suffer from heavy use of new potent strains of marijuana that can lead to depression and possibly schizophrenia in later life. I believe that Mill would put personal liberty above the potential harm from cannabis. Unlike heroin, which quickly destroys lives many heavy cannabis smokers lead productive lives. Mill would argue that we may judge a cannabis user and if we dislike his habit we can avoid him but we must not make his life uncomfortable. If we feel that cannabis is very harmful then Mill would argue that the cannabis user is punishing himself by his habit. If cannabis were sold through retail outlets like cigarettes then Mill would agree to the packets of cannabis joints having a warning on them. This would not be a violation of liberty but would allow the individual to make his or her choice whether they used the drug. Heavy cannabis use can lead to individuals ignoring the welfare of their family, debt problems etc. Mill would argue that that the individual using cannabis could rightfully be punished for neglecting his children due to his cannabis use but not for using cannabis. In this way an individual is given the freedom but must use this freedom responsibly or suffer legal sanctions for his actions or omissions due to the using of this drug. Mill was a utilitarian and believed we should strive to create the maximum happiness from our actions. When making a decision about an action we should act for the greater good. Simply put, we should add up the good against the bad before we act and the good that results from our act should outweigh the bad. A person may exercise regulary, look after his family, have gained an education and do charity work. Should this person be punished and gain a criminal record with all that conviction may entail just for using a mild intoxicant like cannabis?

The effects on society

Regarding cannabis I believe that cannabis can cause harm but the act of making it illegal causes more harm than legalising it. From a utilitarian view I believe that there are more advantages to legalising the drug than the disadvantages from keeping it illegal. The positive consequences of legalising the drug would be

1.

People would have the liberty to enjoy a recreational drug without fear of arrest

2. By not risking having a criminal record if caught in possession of the drug they would be free to travel to many countries that they may be barred from if they had a conviction for cannabis use. The same applies to many careers in this county

3. Importers of the drug would be put out of business as businesses could apply to sell the drug with similar restrictions that off licences/pubs have now. Mill, when discussing the sale of articles that may be adapted for instrument of crime suggested that the seller of the article should keep a register that would record the buyers address etc. A similar system could be used for the sale of cannabis. Mill would not agree to the selling of cannabis in coffeeshops like in Amsterdam. Using the example of gambling, Mill felt that it was impossible to stop all individuals gambling, however if they gambled in the privacy of their own home then only people seeking premises to gamble would find them. This mirrors my belief about the use of cannabis. The retail sale of cannabis should not take place on the high street but at locations that are only known to the cannabis using fraternity.

4. This would also provide the government with tax revenue and would stop cannabis users supporting criminals in this country and possibly terrorists abroad from profiteering from their purchase of cannabis. Mill would agree to this taxation though this taxation should not be used as a means of prohibition. Mill would agree to high levels of taxation on the retail sale of cannabis only if this revenue was used by the state wisely. Governments tend to give grants for leisure activities they approve of (Sports centres, environmental schemes) and tax leisure activities they disapprove of (gambling, alcohol). Mill would expect the appropriate tax levels for the sale of cannabis as he believed in the individual's autonomy and his right to make his own choices in life.

Members of our society who abhor cannabis use may be against the lawful sale of cannabis due to the fact that they do not wish to live on immoral earnings.

(a)

There are two answers to this; Many people do not agree with abortion but have to pay taxes which subsidise this operation so one should not complain if the sale of cannabis produces revenue benefits that can be used to help society.

(b) If commercial sales were not allowed a law could be passed that would allow a cannabis user to apply for a licence to cultivate cannabis for his own use with severe penalties if she sold it to anyone.

Mill was against a government that had a patronising attitude to the labouring classes or working classes in regard to alcohol availability in that they would severely limit the number of beer and spirit houses available to this class. The same attitude has prevailed concerning the use of cannabis by the population. The government has not treated the public as adults and felt that the population needs protecting from itself.

Mill's argument for our individuality

Many cannabis users argue that cannabis enhances creativity and abstract thoughts. Mill was emphatic that we should have freedom of consciousness and free to develop our spiritual development. By this he meant freedom to hold opinions on all subjects and freedom to plan and live our lives regardless of the consequences to ourselves but as long as we do not harm others. Rastafarians call their cannabis spiritual food and use cannabis for spiritual development. Many people as teenagers rebel against society by smoking cannabis. Many eccentric people enjoy smoking cannabis and heavy use of cannabis can enhance eccentricity if that person has a propensity towards eccentricity. Mill believed in diversity amongst humankind and felt that a society that promotes individuality is a healthy society. Mill felt that a society's level of eccentricity amongst its population has a direct baring on the amount of genius, strength of character etc in that society. By criminalising cannabis we do not, by Mill's definition have a free society.

The medical benefits of cannabis

Recently the medical benefits of cannabis have been widely publicised. The pharmaceutical company GW Pharmaceuticals have been given a licence to grow cannabis for research into the benefits of cannabis for such medical conditions as Multiple sclerosis, certain back conditions and to reduce the nausea associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients. Cannabis use as discussed can cause harm but denying it to people who are suffering from medical conditions is not ethical. Mill being a utilitarian would agree to cannabis being made available for medical conditions. The small amount of harm that the patient may suffer from their cannabis use is heavily outweighed by the benefits. Finally should we deny a drug that may alleviate pain to someone who is dying?

Conclusion

It does seem that we are slowly accepting that a large number of the general Public are regulary breaking the law in relation to their use of cannabis. Cannabis was recently downgraded under the misuse of drugs act from category B to category C. Cannabis also made headlines when it was recently reported in the press that the government was considering letting users have in their possession up to four ounces of cannabis for their personal use. Mill, I believe would have the opinion that an individual's use of cannabis is of no concern to anyone only Herself and that she is not accountable to society provided that her use does not harm anyone. He would approve of the society warning people about the adverse effects of using cannabis but not prohibition. He felt that diversity and eccentricity was healthy for a society. Above all Mill felt that an individual should control his destiny. This is I believe the argument for the legalisation of cannabis.

Bibliography

John Stewart Mill, On Liberty, www.utilitarianism.com 16/11/05

Derek Taylor, It was 20 years ago today, 1987, Bantam Press.

Daily Mail, 1/12/05 www.ica.org, (The Legalise Cannabis Alliance web site) 18/12/05