10
course of time they could not fail to secure the assent of all intelligent members of the
community. In the chapter of Mill's Political Economy which treats of the non-inter--
ference principle, a distinction is made between two kinds of intervention by
the Government--the one authoritative interference, and the other giving advice
or promulgating information. And the following remarks are made regarding the former :
It is evident, even at first sight, that the authoritative form of Government intervention
has a much more limited sphere of legitimate action than the other. It requires a
much stronger necessity to justify it in any case, while there are large departments
of human life from which it must be unreservedly and imperiously excluded. What--
ever theory we adopt respecting the foundation of the social union, and under what--
ever political institution we live, there is a circle around every individual human
being which no Government, be it that of one, or of few, or of the many, ought to be
permitted to overstep : there is a part of the life of every person who has come to
years of discretion within which the individuality of that person ought to reign uncon--
trolled either by any other individual or by the public collectively. That there is, or
ought to be, some space in human existence thus entrenched around no one who
professes the smallest regard to human freedom or dignity will call in question : the
point to be determined is where the limit should be placed ; how large a province
of human life this reserved territory should include. I apprehend that it ought to in--
clude all that part which concerns only the life, whether inward or outward, of the
individual, and does not affect the interests of others, or affects them only through the
moral influence of example. With respect to the domain of the inward consciousness,
the thoughts and feelings, and as much of external conduct as is personal only, involving
no consequences, none at least of a painful or injurious kind, to other people, I hold that
it is allowable in all, and in the more thoughtful and cultivated often a duty, to assert
and promulgate with all the force they are capable of their opinion of what is good or
bad, admirable or contemptible, but not to compel others to conform to that opinion,
whether the force used is that of extra-legal coercion, or exerts itself by means of the law.
Even in those portions of conduct which do affect the interests of others, the onus of
making out a case always lies on the defenders of legal prohibitions. It is not merely a
constructive or presumptive injury to others which will justify the interference of
law with individual freedom. To be prevented from what one is inclined to,
or from acting contrary to one's own judgment of what is desirable, is not only
always irksome, but always tends, pro tanto, to starve the development of some por-
tion of the bodily or mental faculties, either sensitive or active ; and unless the co
n-science of the individual goes freely with the legal restraint, it partakes, either in a
great or in a small degree, of the degradation of slavery. Scarcely any degree of
utility short of absolute necessity will justify a prohibitory regulation, unless it can
also be made to recommend itself to the general conscience ; unless persons of ordinary
good intentions either believe already, or can be induced to believe, that the thing
prohibited is a thing which they ought not to wish to do, ' These remarks have
been given at length, because the Commission believe that they contain a clear
e x p o s i - t i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h s h o u l d g u i d e t h e m i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f
the hemp drugs should be authoritatively enforced by Government"
Without feeling himself called upon to pronounce an opinion on all the
psychological and moral considerations raised in the previous quotation, the
Governor General in Council observes that in framing laws on sumptuary
matters, Government ought to be careful to keep touch with public opinion and
ought not to interfere in matters affecting the conscience of individuals, in which
the exercise of individual freedom is not harmful to the public. In connection
with such sumptuary matters it is. also generally accepted that acts
which are in themselves injurious to nobody except the doers of them should not
be made penal, and also that it is not expedient to make prohibitions which
cannot be enforced.
32. The previous history of the action of Government with reference to
hemp drugs is given in paragraph 556 of
the Report. The policy of the Govern-
ment is thus summarised :—
Previous history of the action of Government
with reference to hemp drugs, and question of
prohibiting the use of these drugs because of
their tendency to cause insanity.
" Thus restraining the use and improving the revenue by the imposition of suitable
taxation,' discouraging the consumption by placing restrictions on the cultivation, pre--
paration, and retail, and imposing on their use as high a rate of duty as can be levied
without inducing illicit practices,' limiting the production and sale by a high rate of duty
without placing the drug entirely beyond the reach of those who will insist upon
having restricting consumption as far as practicable, minimising the evils, and discourag
- i n g t h e u s e o f t h e d r u g w h e r e v e r i t i s a s o u r c e o f d a n g e r t o c o n s u m e r s , ' h a v e f r o m t i m e
to time been the watchwords of the Government in the matter of the hemp drugs, a policy
only once definitely abandoned, viz., in the case of Burma, where total prohibition was
introduced in 1873.