Abstract
How far should the state go to prevent drug abuse? This paper rejects H.L.A. Hart's paternalism, and even more strongly opposes Lord Devlin's case for the legal enforcement of morals. It adopts instead, J. S. Mill's argument that only public defence justifies state intervention or coercion. Canadian drug laws, which embody Devlin's position, are abusive of civil rights and ineffective despite their oppressiveness. In particular, the paper examines the violation of rights involved in school and employment drug detection plans, and also in compulsory treatment programs for illicit drug users. Basic legal reform is advocated.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Paper version not known
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
