Sample Answer
John Stuart Mill, Individual Liberty, and the Limits of Authority: The Case of Marijuana Use in a University Dormitory
Introduction
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty remains one of the most influential texts in modern political thought, particularly in debates surrounding individual freedom, social control, and the legitimate limits of state authority. Mill’s central concern is the protection of individual liberty against both legal coercion and social tyranny. At the heart of his argument lies the harm principle, which holds that power may only be exercised over an individual against their will in order to prevent harm to others.
This essay applies Mill’s framework to the scenario of a Hunter College student being arrested for smoking marijuana in her dorm room. This case raises important questions about personal autonomy, moral regulation, public order, and institutional authority. By drawing directly on On Liberty, this essay presents Mill’s arguments both for and against state or institutional interference in this scenario. The analysis engages with Mill’s views on self regarding actions, social offence, paternalism, and the role of moral opinion in law, using page references throughout. Ultimately, the essay demonstrates that while Mill offers strong reasons to oppose such an arrest, his philosophy also contains internal tensions that could be used to justify limited restriction.
Mill’s Conception of Liberty and the Harm Principle
Mill defines liberty primarily as freedom from coercion, whether exercised by governments or by society itself. Early in On Liberty, he identifies the central question of political philosophy as determining “the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (Mill, 2003, p. 7). His answer is the harm principle, articulated most clearly in Chapter One.
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” (Mill, 2003, p. 14). This principle excludes paternalistic justifications, meaning the state cannot interfere simply because an action is immoral, unhealthy, or socially disapproved. The individual, Mill argues, is sovereign over their own body and mind.
Applied to the scenario of marijuana use in a private dorm room, Mill’s starting position would be sceptical of arrest or punishment. The act appears to be self regarding, affecting primarily the individual student rather than others. Mill insists that self regarding conduct must remain outside the scope of legal punishment, even if others regard it as foolish or morally wrong (Mill, 2003, p. 72).
Arguments Against Arrest: Self Regarding Conduct and Individual Autonomy
Mill’s strongest argument against arresting the student rests on his distinction between self regarding and other regarding actions. In Chapter Four, Mill explains that conduct which “concerns only the agent himself” should enjoy absolute liberty (Mill, 2003, p. 73). Smoking marijuana in a private dorm room, provided it does not endanger others, fits closely with this category.
Mill explicitly warns against allowing public opinion to harden into law. He argues that social intolerance is often more dangerous than formal legal repression because it enforces conformity under the guise of morality (Mill, 2003, p. 9). Laws criminalising private drug use, from a Millian perspective, risk becoming tools for enforcing dominant moral norms rather than preventing harm.
Mill also emphasises the importance of individual experimentation in living. In Chapter Three, he defends the value of allowing individuals to make their own choices, even poor ones, because such freedom promotes personal development and social progress (Mill, 2003, p. 63). Preventing adults from choosing what substances they consume treats them as incapable of rational judgement, which Mill sees as incompatible with human dignity.
Furthermore, Mill argues that suppressing individual liberty often produces greater social harm than the behaviour being suppressed. He notes that prohibition tends to drive behaviour underground, increasing hypocrisy and reducing transparency (Mill, 2003, p. 88). From this view, arresting students for marijuana use may damage trust in institutions without achieving meaningful social benefit.
Social Offence and the Limits of Moral Discomfort
A common justification for restricting drug use is that it offends social norms or undermines public morality. Mill directly addresses this type of argument and rejects it. He insists that “offence” or moral discomfort does not constitute harm in the relevant sense (Mill, 2003, p. 82). To allow offence to justify coercion would permit the majority to silence any unpopular lifestyle or belief.
Mill’s defence of liberty includes protection for actions that others find distasteful. He compares moral disapproval of private conduct to religious persecution, noting that majorities often mistake their preferences for universal truths (Mill, 2003, p. 20). In the case of marijuana use, Mill would likely argue that personal distaste or institutional embarrassment does not justify arrest.
Arguments Supporting Restriction: Indirect Harm and Institutional Context
Despite his strong defence of liberty, Mill does not argue that all actions occurring in private spaces are automatically immune from regulation. He acknowledges that context matters, particularly when conduct has indirect effects on others or undermines legitimate social functions.
One argument supporting restriction is that drug use in a shared dormitory may impose risks on others, such as second hand smoke, fire hazards, or impaired behaviour affecting communal living. Mill allows intervention where conduct creates a “definite risk of damage” to others, even if harm has not yet occurred (Mill, 2003, p. 75). If marijuana use plausibly endangers other students, limited regulation could be justified.
Mill also recognises that individuals can be legitimately restricted when they voluntarily accept certain roles or obligations. He argues that liberty may be curtailed for those whose actions directly affect others in structured environments, such as soldiers or public officials (Mill, 2003, p. 94). A university dormitory, as an institutional setting, may impose rules that go beyond what the state could impose in private life.
Additionally, Mill distinguishes between liberty and license. He notes that freedom does not entail the right to act without regard for the interests of others sharing the same space (Mill, 2003, p. 77). If marijuana use disrupts the educational environment or violates agreed codes of conduct, disciplinary action short of arrest could align with Mill’s reasoning.
Paternalism, Capacity, and Young Adults
Another tension in Mill’s thought concerns age and capacity. Mill famously excludes children and those lacking rational maturity from full liberty protection (Mill, 2003, p. 14). While university students are legally adults, one could argue that institutions retain a partial paternal role due to students’ transitional status.
However, this argument sits uneasily with Mill’s broader commitment to adult autonomy. Mill does not specify an upper limit to paternal authority once legal adulthood is reached. Arresting an adult student for private drug use would therefore risk sliding back into the paternalism Mill explicitly rejects.
Evaluation and Judgment
Taken as a whole, Mill’s philosophy weighs heavily against arresting a student for smoking marijuana in her dorm room. His defence of self regarding liberty, rejection of moral legislation, and commitment to individual experimentation all point toward tolerance rather than punishment.
Nevertheless, Mill’s arguments allow for limited regulation where clear harm to others can be demonstrated or where institutional rules are knowingly accepted. Importantly, Mill would likely favour non criminal responses, such as fines or disciplinary measures, rather than arrest and prosecution. Criminal law, for Mill, represents the most extreme form of coercion and should be reserved for genuine harm to others.
