Why There Is Little Moral Basis For Cannabis Consumption Remaining A Crime


Why There Is Little Moral Basis For Cannabis Consumption Remaining A Crime

Recent high-profile media coverage has prompted public recognition that cannabis in particular forms can have beneficial medical effects for some conditions such as epilepsy.

There are two main chemicals found in the plant that are used in medical cannabis – Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the psychoactive element that produces the high, and Cannabidiol (CBD) which has no psychoactive effects. Medical cannabis has a higher CBD content so there is no THC-induced euphoria, which is what recreational users of cannabis are after.

Cannabis use for whatever reason is illegal in the UK, although recently licences have been issued for treatment of people with severe forms of epilepsy; medical cannabis can reduce the frequency and severity of seizures. There is also a plethora of anecodotal evidence that cannabis has successfully eased the symptoms of other conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and cancer.

This raises a philosophical question that is crucially important when looking at public policy in areas such as drugs: when is it justifiable for the state to prohibit and punish particular sorts of behaviour?

It is wrong if someone is punished for a crime they did not commit. It is also wrong if someone is punished for an action that shouldn’t be a crime in the first place, whether or not they are guilty of that crime. It would surely be wrong, then, to try to conduct a fair trial for an alleged crime unless it is fair and just that the alleged action is actually a crime.

For instance, it would be hard to justify giving someone a fair trial for, say, committing adultery or consuming a particular drug unless it is fair and just that it is a crime to commit adultery or take that drug.


In his famous essay On Liberty, philosopher John Stuart Mill offers a moral justification for legally prohibiting and punishing particular actions.

He rejects the idea that public opinion can settle the matter. What he calls “the tyranny of the majority” is for him a subtle kind of oppression. He asks: what are “… the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual?” According to Mill: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” He specifies that:

His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.

We may challenge people in such circumstances, according to Mill, and try to persuade them of the error of their ways. But as long as they are rational adults acting voluntarily, we should allow them to make their own mistakes. Only actions that harm other people should be crimes, according to Mill. That said, not all harmful actions should, in his view, be crimes.

Mill is aware that any of our actions might indirectly affect and possibly harm other people:

With regard to the … constructive injury which a person causes to society, by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public… or to any individual except himself, the inconvenience is one society can afford to bear for the sake of the greater good of human freedom.

One way of expressing the point is to say that there is a difference between harming people and harming them wrongfully. Not all harm that we suffer is an infringement of our moral rights.

Why There Is Little Moral Basis For Cannabis Consumption Remaining A CrimePhilosopher John Stuart Mill argued that only actions that harm others should be considered crimes. Shutterstock

For instance, it would be beside the point to claim that because such drug takers are likely to become ill and indirectly affect other people adversely through, say, their need for medical treatment by the NHS, it should be a criminal offence to consume cannabis.

As citizens, we do not have a moral duty to act in such ways that the policies devised by politicians remain affordable and feasible. Rather, politicians should devise policies that are affordable and feasible, given how people actually behave.

To punch someone on the nose is not only harmful it is wrongful. People have a moral duty not to punch us on the nose and we have a corresponding moral right not to be punched. However, we do not have a moral right to demand that others refrain from doing anything that might require medical treatment or any other sort of publicly financed services.

A sense of proportion

Much of our current legislation is not in accordance with Mill’s principle. We punish people for taking drugs that are harmful to them. The more harmful the drugs, the more severe our punishments. The punishments, particularly if they involve prison, are likely to be just as harmful (or even more harmful) as the drugs themselves. The cost of the imprisonment is likely to be more of a burden to society than the cost of prisoners’ crimes. This all does seem very curious.

But objections might be made to Mill’s position. The prohibition regarding cannabis might possibly be morally justifiable on quite different grounds from those rejected by Mill. There might be a moral justification other than that suggested by Mill for making particular actions crimes.

For instance, what constitutes “harm” is debatable. Some might think that he does not convincingly suggest how we should distinguish between that which is wrongfully harmful and deserving of legal punishment, and that which is merely harmful. It might, for example, turn out that the activities of prominent and energetic Brexiteers or Remainers turn out to be far more harmful than those of, say, pickpockets and burglars. But it does not follow that such campaigners should be prosecuted as criminals.

Some actions such as, say, the defilement of corpses or voyeurism, where the people who are being watched remain unaware, might reasonably be crimes whether or not they cause harm. Perhaps not all crimes have victims.

The ConversationStill, whether or not his argument is totally satisfactory, Mill’s “harm principle” offers a good starting point for a consideration of the crucially important but neglected question of the moral basis of the criminal law. And particularly when it comes to the issue of cannabis consumption.

About The Author

Hugh McLachlan, Professor Emeritus of Applied Philosophy, Glasgow Caledonian University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Related Books:

The Business of Cannabis: New Policies for the New Marijuana Industry

justiceAuthor: D. J. Summers
Binding: Hardcover
Studio: Praeger
Label: Praeger
Publisher: Praeger
Manufacturer: Praeger

Buy Now
Editorial Review:

What happens when corporate culture takes over counterculture? This book explores the contradictions present within the cannabis industry from a business and policy perspective.

• Treats the new and growing cannabis industry in the context of more established ones, such as the alcohol, pharmaceutical, and tobacco industries

• Collects experiences and experiments from all of the regions, states, and municipalities in which marijuana has been legalized

• Explains how federal regulations or lack thereof (e.g., lack of access to banking) affect the industry

• Explores the interactions of federal, state, and local laws

• Sheds light on the evolution of public policy on legalized marijuana

Investing in Medical and Recreational Cannabis: Buy in Before, During and After Legalization (Cannabis Education Series Book 2)

justiceAuthor: Mickey Dee
Binding: Kindle Edition
Format: Kindle eBook
Studio: Frazier Publishing & Services
Label: Frazier Publishing & Services
Publisher: Frazier Publishing & Services
Manufacturer: Frazier Publishing & Services

Buy Now
Editorial Review: Book 2 of the 3 book Cannabis Education Series is now available in one set.

States on top of states and countries on top of countries are pursuing marijuana legislation.

  • What does this mean for pot stocks?

  • What does this mean for cannabis investments?

  • What does that mean for you?

A blind man can see that they are going higher and higher in the long run!

As liquor stores and pharmaceutical companies scramble to team up with cannabis companies, informed investors like you will have the opportunity to pick the best of the best and purchase them for pennies on the dollar. After reading, Investing in Medical and Recreational Cannabis, you may scratch your head and remind yourself that this may be the best ground floor buying opportunity you may see in your lifetime.

Many people will get rich in this new trillion dollar industry. With the FDA and big pharma climbing on board, the sky is the limit. As you educate yourself in this new industry be mindful of the first mover major advantage that you enjoy now.

Wall Street has not piled in yet! Major rating companies and analysts are not heavily covering the marijuana sector right now. They say it's to speculative or it's to early! That's where the average investor comes in and makes a killing. We cherry pick companies now because when Wall Street gets wind of what's happening they will run the prices up. The time for the small investor is before, during and after legalization.

High Time: The Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada

justiceBinding: Paperback
  • Andrew Potter
  • Daniel Weinstock

Studio: McGill-Queen's University Press
Label: McGill-Queen's University Press
Publisher: McGill-Queen's University Press
Manufacturer: McGill-Queen's University Press

Buy Now
Editorial Review:
Canada will become the first G7 country to legalize cannabis, and the world is watching. The primary concern facing the Liberal government as it seeks to fulfill its 2015 campaign promise to “legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana” is whether it can be done without making the situation worse. As the Liberal platform pointed out, the current regime lets illegal cannabis fall into the hands of minors, pours large profits into organized crime, and traps many people in the criminal justice system for what is arguably a victimless crime. While the legalization of marijuana in Canada begins with a straightforward change of the criminal code, its ramifications go far beyond this. Legalization will have a serious impact on the country's international treaty commitments, interprovincial relations, taxation and regulatory regimes, and social and health policies. The essays in this book address these outcomes from three main perspectives: the decades-long political path to legalization; the assumptions that underwrite the new policy, in particular the desire to stamp out the black market; and how legalization in Canada looks in an international context. Bringing together analysis by policy makers and scholars, including the architect of marijuana legislation in Portugal – a trailblazing jurisdiction – High Time provides an urgent and necessary overview of Canada's Cannabis Act.


follow InnerSelf on


 Get The Latest By Email


follow InnerSelf on


 Get The Latest By Email