my essay...plz pm me after...

Should we be free to use Narcotics without others interfering and why?
Do you agree or disagree?

Rephrased harm principle





Are we free to use Narcotics without others interfering?
This question, has been exemplified since the first prohibition of Narcotics was enforced, existing at various levels of government or other authority from the Middle Ages to the present. However, an individual might interpret this; citizens are not free to advocate their liberty beyond the boundaries of our existing laws, institutionalized under the human rights act stating ‘everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person’ to an extent. Religious laws consisting of family ethics, morals or a preferred lifestyle does not condone this act of freedom that can destroy their beliefs, socio culture and society. This essay will address these issues articulated from John Stuart Mill Harm principle, which asserts that ‘…people are free to do as they please, unless they jeopardize another’s individual fundamental pursuit emotionally/physically or in propriety…’(on liberty, John Stuart Mill-Penguin Classics-1985)




Elaborating on Mill Harm principle in depth, what his definition of harm entails. His contradictory words not coinciding with his principle in his essay Liberty, leads one confused and disorientated questioning his sanity and self-preservation for his quest for individual liberty/utilitarianism, ultimately an unrealistic societal Utopia. The definition of harm is not precise in his essay stating ‘An individual or group cannot rightly punish a person’s behaviour (for example the use of narcotics) if his actions only affect himself governing his right to self-liberty than the public disapproval is not accepted’(On liberty-John Stuart Mill-1985). By rejecting, the legitimacy of freedom to exercise self-liberty towards narcotics (illegal substance) Mill principle undermines not only the laws of the government but effects the liberties in-directly of the user’s kin, friends and social community. He argues that an individual harming himself or acting against his own good provides insufficient reasons for others to interfere. Again undermining the in direct effects of others liberties. His philosophy of the individual, obstructed from the ability of any argument on the concept of utility. Conformity hurts society and the individual in the minority. In conformity, citizens lose potential ways of seeing life and learning from each other a progress, which requires a give and take between the complex way of life. Furthermore, cementing his erroneous incompetent theories of a genuine Naturalist.




The laws institutionalized, prohibits the use of any illegal substance in safety of the individual and the minority of the people within society. Labelled hard paternalism enforced by the state to take away the option to do what is harmful to one-self for example the use of narcotics, sees Mill principle to individual liberty acts in favour for the use of narcotics that condemns the user to assimilation under the government laws. Since his argument is not entirely for the actions of individual rights but more for the repercussions of ones actions on others, whom would his principle affect if not just the narcotic user? Using the example of a casual responsible drug user, the dangers of obtaining the substance is already an illegal offence and ensures the possibility of a criminal record or sentencing. This will have a devastating effect on family, friends, lifestyle and his future. With studies, showing the use of narcotics is detrimental to an individual’s well-being. ‘The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost’(Pg 119-120 On Liberty). Thus, causing the individual to condemn himself, but what of his family, friends and others associated? Does the indirect effects of
their liberty associated with the user not cause harm to them? Even with hard paternalism, the law still have allowances to the use of some narcotics. However, a system that was processed which have people go through to guarantee narcotics, prescribed. Called soft paternalism, an alternative coercion assigned by the state as a clinical efficacy psychiatric medication implemented for the individuals health and liberty. Consequently, this coercion does not make the person a responsible drug user. Falling victim to a maladaptive pattern, of a substance often co-ingested with alcohol, chronic use changes the central nervous system. Meaning more of the substance is essential to gain desired effects. Stopping or reducing will cause withdrawal symptoms. Effects for narcotic use can range from dependability, hallucinations, instant high feeling, and a clouded judgment of mentality, which could increase the crime rates in society, (only to name a few). With those, pre-existing issues with people who already have easy access to narcotics, and the disadvantages that occur to other areas affected. This is only unacceptable to Mill because he does not agree with the coercion of the state. ‘Citizens should be free to admission to self-destruct if they are aware of the implications’(On Liberty John Stuart Mill-1985) . Mill observes that many of the reasons for respecting different opinions also apply to respecting actions. So the use of narcotics should not be criticized and should be respected as long as the user is not harming anyone else accept for himself and is conscious of his actions and consequences. This will influence his work capability, causing a lethargic uncooperative dazed individual. Again what of the harm and liberties of the in-direct people associated to this offender? Is Mill principle protecting or harming? More importantly, whom does it harm more?





Religious Law consist of religious beliefs, morals and ethics institutionalized by citizens as a moral reprobation act for civilization and upheld against acts of un-moralistic law’s. Even families that are not religious, family morals still coincide with religious laws of what is right and what is destructive to ones-self within that particular group. The in-direct effects would have children believe that the use of narcotics is accepted and medical disadvantages harmless, just a social norm amongst individual liberty, eventually resulting to a next generation of tyranny and misuse of laws and values of individual liberties. Social stigma would act against Mill Harm principle, and the conformity of the community. Mills defence that religious morals are ‘incomplete and one-sided,’(on Liberty-penguin classics-1985) so for the act of free will and the choice to use narcotics without others interfering, dissents the heretical and moralistically opinions of family/societal ethics. Since we are fallible, different experiments of living are valuable. He places great moral emphasis on the process of making choices, and not just accepting customs without questions, and his belief that it is through a free and dynamic development of ones-self and interacting with different ways of life that individuals perfects themselves, through dissent and discussion; conformity leads to social stagnation. In other words ‘for the quest of utility, conformity damages society and social progress, act on your desires and impulses (for example, for narcotics) and ultimately we all will gain utilitarianism’(On Liberty-John Stuart Mill 1985). . Does that include the desires and impulses of individuals in-directly? Even when the ideal utilitarianism for each individual is different? In addition, is this in-direct nuisance doing more harm than good? That is the claim and counter claim with every individuals value they were raised under, a consisting battle with peoples values towards narcotics. Mill calls this ‘the tyranny of majority opinion ’ (on Liberty-John Stuart Mill, Penguin classics-1985), which his principle was put in place to protect individual freedom against societies moralistic and conformity of the majority public opinion. However, one person’s traditional family value against narcotics is another person’s tyranny of majority opinion. His search for the evolution of moralistic thinking is seen as a pillar to the foundation of 19-century philosophy. A theory for the fundamentals of humanity with the statement of ‘pleasure and freedom of pain are the only things desirable as ends’(John Stuart Mill-On Liberty-1985) Mill utility synthesis where all good things would go together and protect individual freedoms; promote social utilitarian based on science. Unfortunately, his theory proves to remain only that; a theory of a derailed naturalist intent of a perfect society that is unreachable, unethical and unrealistic.





From the presupposition of Mill harm principle and the free choice of exercising liberty beyond the measures of the state, law and moralistic views against the use of narcotics, this essay has examined critically the fundamental capacity of Mill principle and the serious harms affected to the individual, indirect people associated to him/her, community and society. From the view of an idealistic, naturalism philosopher Mill harm principle has fallen short because not only has his definition of harm not been precise, it would mean every action taken by a person would defile his harm principle. This act of an unrealistic approach for a perfect rights utility synthesis for individual freedoms and a social utilitarianism is questionably the mind of a philosopher who indulged in narcotics himself. An individual has the freedom to choose to use narcotics, under the harm principle as long as that individual is aware of the consequences and implications, and no harm is to come to another individual with this action. Mill fundamental principle was to ensure the liberation of individuals and to censor the state from coercing individuals from restricting liberties but it becomes readily apparent that this exercise for liberty and for utilitarianism could easily guide society into ruin. Laws are institutionalized for the safety and benefits of the individual and society, breaching that would disrupt that system which citizens subconsciously depend on and should abide by for their own peace of mind; so now ask yourself, are we free to use narcotics without others interfering?