Letter: The pluses and minuses of legalising cannabis
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Robin Prior
Sir: In this supposedly free land of ours, I have the right to drink myself to oblivion, or otherwise harm myself in a variety of ways that many of us enjoy frequently, such as eating too much fat, breathing the air of London or playing computer games. In fact, I could do worse. I might want to immolate myself, or throw myself under a train. The actions of a lunatic, maybe, but not of a criminal. Yet, if I grow a certain plant on my window sill and smoke the leaves it produces, I run the risk of being locked up.
Where does this attitude come from? What is the fear that drives it? Is this a control issue? Or is it a matter of tradition?
John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, first published in 1859, captured the spirit of freedom that had been shouted earlier by the victors of the French Revolution and the American war of independence. His very simple statements, which are the backbone of much of the liberty we enjoy today, seem to apply to the issue of cannabis in the same way as they do to so much of the legislation that prevents or hinders the activity of our citizens. In his slim book, he makes two (amply justified) simple statements :
1. The only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
2. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Thomas Szasz and Judge James Pickles make strange allies, yet on this issue their voices, along with those of a great many others, echo these ideas. This is not an issue that is the business of government, any more than eating or drinking.
Yours faithfully,
ROBIN PRIOR
London, E8
7 March
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
0Comments