Prohibitionists often make the claim that marijuana law reform is essentially a fight to get high.

• They call medical marijuana an “excuse” or a “Trojan horse.”
• They claim that the religious use of marijuana is “a smokescreen by people who just want to get stoned.”
• Even the publication of new scientific research or landmark court cases is often answered with a dismissive, “Why can’t you potheads just accept that marijuana is illegal?”

These characterizations are paternalistic and naïve. Using them publicly may work for the time being, but eventually they will open the door to ending prohibition.

Treating adults like children can’t last forever in a free society. In fact, it contradicts freedom. This isn’t just about getting stoned; it’s about respecting the very nature of a free existence. Prohibition, on the other hand, requires a new definition of what it means to be free.

John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher who lived from 1806 to 1873. In 1859, he published On Liberty, articulating a concept of freedom that today’s Western leaders rightfully hold up as, not only a different way of life, but a superior way of life. In an era where tolerance is a virtue, we should never be deluded into forgetting that liberty is not merely one option among equals.

One of Mill’s most important contributions in the understanding of Liberty was his articulation of the “harm principle.” It is the basis for many modern civilizations. It is also a core value of those who seek an end to marijuana prohibition.

Mill explains the harm principle:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.
That 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not 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…The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.

In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

In order to support marijuana prohibition, one must reject the harm principle and embrace a belief that people are not responsible for themselves. The government must be accepted as a father figure from whom rights are granted.

Some still respect the harm principle and the historic definition of liberty. When we see a sane adult being prohibited by law from smoking marijuana in the privacy of his or her own home, we see a government that has overstepped. Totalitarian societies impose morality by machine gun. Free societies do not.

Not everyone agrees. Marijuana prohibitionists believe that when you smoke marijuana in your own home, you actually harm people who are not there. Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork once stated, “No activity that society thinks is immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.” It is almost hard to believe that this came from a man nominated to the United States Supreme Court and not a leader of the Taliban.

Americans are not so amenable to the moral argument. We respect science. But even if the government did believe that marijuana smokers were shrinking their balls, killing their brains, or losing their memories (all of which are bullshit, by the way), is that now enough for us all to surrender our liberty and allow bureaucrats to make our personal decisions for us? To some it is.

Sure, there are some people for whom marijuana law reform is all about getting high. There are others for whom it is about communicating with God. Many marijuana smokers don’t get high at all; they just soothe the pain that otherwise nags them. But all of these people are being made criminals and none is hurting anyone else. They are being punished for taking control of their own bodies.

In a free and responsible society, marijuana would be taxed and regulated. Adults would be free to make their own decisions about marijuana. If those decisions harmed anyone else, that person would become a criminal at that point. Drive stoned, give marijuana to your neighbor’s kid, or otherwise cause real harm and you break the law – just as it is with alcohol.

As it stands, we tolerate the government punishing people for what they do in private. We endanger our children by failing to put in place adequate controls for substances we claim to want to keep from them. We surrender our liberty and we get nothing in return. It doesn’t take a desire to get stoned to have a problem with that.