The real reason pot should be legalized
There’s been a lot of buzz on social bookmarking sites like digg and reddit about yesterday’s announcement of a California bill that seeks to legalize marijuana. Those who introduced the bill and are defending it, as well as the hundreds (or thousands) of people who have been commenting on the story online, have listed a host of reasons the bill makes sense: it would allow the state to finally start profeiting from California’s largest cash crop and possibly fix its financial problems, it would take revenue away from criminals trafficing the plant on the black market, it would reduce crime enforcement costs, it would be great fun for pottheads…
While these are all great reasons to legalize pot, I was struck by the fact that hardly anyone is talking about the most important issue: freedom.
Have we become so used to being babysat by the govenment that we don’t mind them telling us how to live our own lives? Are adults capable of weighing the risks versus the benefits of pot use on their own – or do we need the government to make that choice for us?
We need to be thinking bigger than just pot…
Update:
A Canadian Member of Parliament has also called for an end to prohibition. His reasoning: it would help to curb gang violence. Once again, no mention of freedom.
Update 2:
In light of increasing gang violence, the Conservative government in Canada is getting tougher on gang-related drug crime. Why not just legalize drugs and take the wind right out of the sails of gangs? Remember Al Capone? You don’t hear about gangsters killing people over alcohol now that it’s legal. It’s all drugs, now.
Re: We need to be thinking bigger than just pot…
You might even say.. thinking outside the pot?
Okay. That was terrible.
Classic Bruntang. Never change.
As long as the police crack-down isn’t particularly hard on users, I don’t really care if we have some prohibited substances in our society. That is to say I don’t care either way. If the government’s research shows that it is a good idea to chase people who traffic coke then they should do that. I don’t disagree that we shouldn’t have access to anything.
-
It’s reasonable that date-rape drugs are always illegal to buy. Roofies are more like a weapon than a substance. I think an argument could be made that heroin is more like a weapon than it is a ‘fun thing to do.’ I’m open to other arguments, but for now I’m not on the Libertarian Drugs train.
And even if we did make Heroin legal I think only doctors should administer it, or it requires a prescription. It’s crazy to think about, but the guy who cuts your hair has certification and has gone to school. The guy who sells you acid has no education at all.
-
Like I said though, I don’t think users should be jailed for more than a month. IMO the most common punishment from police to a user should be a warning.
@Fraser H.
I find it intriguing that you’re so adamant about total and uninhibited free speech, but haven’t fully come around to the idea of free action. I’ve always thought the two went hand-in-hand. Just goes to show how varied perspectives can be on this issue.
Thanks for sharing yours.
Yea I think it’s kinda weird too.
I keep re-thinking about it and get into weirder and weirder territory.
What if the government started mandating that a drug must be injested? Under my model, do we have the right to refuse? Refuse flu vaccinations, and hep A, floride in the water and condom use? Pasterized milk? If the government has the ability to prohibit heroin, can’t it use the same justification to force you to get vaccinated? “it’s good for you and society.”
I may be wrong on the drugs thing. But something about the addictive nature of meth makes me want to find a way to say it is okay for society to resist it with full force.
Maybe you can’t untangle free speech and free drug use. But what do you say to a guy who buys a bunch of roofies?
Society should (willingly) help to educate that guy (for his and society’s own good) of the risks and (potential) immorality of roofies. They are often used casually, not always as a date rape drug. But ultimately, it would come down to that guy’s choice.
However, I don’t advocate freedom in a case that it would inhibit the freedom of another person. Acts such as using roofies as a date rape would be illegal and dealt with accordingly. Just like murdering someone would be illegal because it inhibit’s someone else’s freedom to life.
While society generally accepts murder is wrong, hardly anyone is considering outlawing knives. Where do we draw the line?
I think it’s okay to draw the line at date rape drugs. It’s not enough to give someone an education on why that it would be wrong to use the roofies. And really, what if the guy doesn’t want to hear the education? Are you going to force him into moral theory classes?
@Fraser H.
Right, it’s not enough to simply educate the guy, which is why we outlaw the act of using the drug on someone else (who is not willing). And you don’t necessarily have to force him to go to a class – think about how effective the anti-smoking campaign has been. But anything you want to do to your own body is fair game. That’s not to say that people won’t break the law. But people break the law that prohibits possessing and distributing roofies, too.
This is much like the handgun ban debate. It’s already illegal to murder, but there are a lot of people calling for a ban on handguns. The thing is, murderers clearly don’t listen to laws. If they’re willing to murder someone, they’re willing to break the handgun ban. The old cliché is true: guns don’t kill people – people kill people. And someone willing to use a date rape drug on another person will find some way to achieve that, no matter if the substance is banned or not.
We have too many laws. Isn’t outlawing the act enough?
Maybe I’ve found a topic for my next post.
I find your argument logically sound, but you better be okay with someone owning weaponized anthrax. They can even publicly announce their intent to use the anthrax and you would be unable to stop them.
I agree the law should be simpler, and focus permissiveness until it impacts someone freedom, but someone owning a cluster-bomb is enough to make it okay for society to stop them.
I look forward to the next post!
@Fraser H.
I think there’s also something to be said for the idea of intent. If someone has a cluster-bomb or anthrax and it’s known that they intend to use it on others, society is fully within its right to step in. I’m okay with society restricting the freedoms of someone who intends to restrict the freedoms of others – I consider that self defence.
But why can’t everyone just get along? I think we might get along better if we were more free.
Edit: I think a lot of the most heinous acts of violence are a result of people lashing out because they feel oppressed. More freedom could help curb that. Of course, some people are just crazy. But are we going to let those few crazy people ruin freedom for the rest of us?
We’re pretty free though.
I mean really.
Yea, I can’t own cluster bombs, and I can’t own roofies. But really there aren’t many cases where someone would want to own such things without criminal intent. The only things that are BS is that an individual can’t own drugs legally (which should be their choice) and I’m concerned over human rights tribunals.
Mostly though, things are great in the personal-freedoms front. So what if I can’t own heroin? I never really wanted to anyway. I’ve never heard of anyone getting more than a small fine for smoking pot.
Note: I am pretty happy with the things the way they are. My concern is mostly with free-speech which I will defend to almost any limit.