Summary Of John Stuart Mills Revised Harm Principle
An Argument for the Legalization of Drugs, Based on John Stuart Mills' "Revised
Harm Principle"
The question of whether or not to legalize certain drugs has been debated for decades. Although opponents have thus far been successful in preventing this, there are nonetheless a substantial number of people who believe that legalization should be given a chance. Their arguments range from the seeming ineffectiveness of current drug laws to the simple premise that the government has no right to prohibit its citizens from using drugs if they choose to do so. This essay will address the issue from the standpoint of John
Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle²," which asserts that people should be free to do what they want unless they threaten the vital interests (i.e., …show more content…
Many opponents to legalization point out that drug use leads to spousal and child abuse, random criminal acts precipitated by the effects of drugs on a user's inhibitions, and crimes committed to support drug habits. This argument is fundamentally defective because it addresses the abuse of drugs, which is not the issue here. When an individual's use of drugs leads him to harm others, it becomes a behavioral problem. That is, the issue is no longer drugs, but the behavior of the individual. If that behavior breaks a law, the individual should be punished for that specific conduct--not for drug use. In its pure form, drug use affects only the user, and the government is therefore acting paternally when it regulates this behavior. This government regulation violates
Mills' "Revised Harm Principle²" as blatantly as would regulations against sunbathing or overeating or masturbation.
A Rebuttal
When using John Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle" to argue for the legalization of drugs, it is necessary to examine that principle (that
Harm Principle"
The question of whether or not to legalize certain drugs has been debated for decades. Although opponents have thus far been successful in preventing this, there are nonetheless a substantial number of people who believe that legalization should be given a chance. Their arguments range from the seeming ineffectiveness of current drug laws to the simple premise that the government has no right to prohibit its citizens from using drugs if they choose to do so. This essay will address the issue from the standpoint of John
Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle²," which asserts that people should be free to do what they want unless they threaten the vital interests (i.e., …show more content…
Many opponents to legalization point out that drug use leads to spousal and child abuse, random criminal acts precipitated by the effects of drugs on a user's inhibitions, and crimes committed to support drug habits. This argument is fundamentally defective because it addresses the abuse of drugs, which is not the issue here. When an individual's use of drugs leads him to harm others, it becomes a behavioral problem. That is, the issue is no longer drugs, but the behavior of the individual. If that behavior breaks a law, the individual should be punished for that specific conduct--not for drug use. In its pure form, drug use affects only the user, and the government is therefore acting paternally when it regulates this behavior. This government regulation violates
Mills' "Revised Harm Principle²" as blatantly as would regulations against sunbathing or overeating or masturbation.
A Rebuttal
When using John Stuart Mills' "Revised Harm Principle" to argue for the legalization of drugs, it is necessary to examine that principle (that