You don’t have to smoke pot or approve of smoking to make it legal because the issue isn’t really about that controversial little plant. The issue is freedom. That sounds melodramatic, I know, but bear with me. If the government said you can’t play sports, would you agree? I’m guessing you wouldn’t. If the government decided to ban all cars, wouldn’t that be tyrannical? I think so, and I’ll bet you do, too. So why should we let pot be illegal?
I could go on with progressively more serious scenarios. The Terry Schiavo case, for example. Or the relationship between government, insurance companies and our ability to manage our healthcare in partnership with our doctors. Hopefully you see where I’m headed. In general, we think of freedom as an absence of restrictions. We want to do what we want to do. We don’t want other people to tell us what to do or not do. (I fully recognize that, from a philosophical and psychological standpoint, a number of issues could be raised. For the sake of not getting bogged down, I’ll leave them aside.) There is a logical and necessary limit, however: we want freedom provided that actions don’t limit another person’s freedom or cause harm.
An aspect of this admittedly simplified conception of freedom is whether self-harm provides a legitimate reason to restrict a person’s freedom. There are undoubtedly (and arguably) situations in which, for an individual’s safety, it might be necessary to stop a person from engaging in a particularly self-destructive act. For the most part, we don’t live our lives in a bubble of total protection. We do play sports, even if we can hurt ourselves. We drive cars, despite the risk of accidents. We engage in any number of activities that puts us at risk of injury or death. The key is that we are not forced into these activities; we act based on our choices, which are hopefully informed and rational.
So what is so different about pot that justifies restricting a person’s freedom? The case can certainly be made, as it is with cigarettes, that people shouldn’t be forced to breathe second-hand pot smoke if they don’t want to. But in the privacy of one’s own home, how is the pot smoker harming anyone?
Setting aside the question of marijuana’s health benefits and harms — if we can accept the risks of drinking alcohol, it makes no sense to reject the lesser risks that come with smoking pot — the typical argument against legalizing pot is that it is allegedly a “gateway” to harder drugs. But the link is far from proven, as evidenced by a 2010 study by the University of New Hampshire that the so-called “gateway” effect is overblown. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/).
What remains, then, is moralizing of the “I don’t like it, so you shouldn’t do it” kind. I can certainly understand the “I don’t like it” part. I really dislike the smell of pot. Still, we really don’t have any reason to stop someone from smoking pot if they choose to do so just because we don’t like it. The only restriction should come from the same kind of restrictions we put on any other activity – driving, smoking cigarettes, etc. – to prevent harm to other people.
Prop. 19
Legalizing pot through an initiative like Prop. 19 promises to bring a number of benefits. 1) It relieves pressure (and costs) on our judicial and prison system by decriminalizing non-violent owners or growers of pot. 2) It provides new state income in a way that is directly comparable to taxing cigarettes and alcohol, which we obviously need in California. On a more philosophical level, it also recognizes the freedom we have, or should have, in living our lives.
Unfortunately, opponents of Prop. 19 have been making arguments that really make no sense in light of the proposition’s text. For example, in the Voter’s Guide argument against 19, opponents say:
“School districts may currently require school bus drivers to be drug-free, but if Proposition 19 passes, their hands will be tied — until after tragedy strikes. A school bus driver would be forbidden to smoke marijuana on schools grounds or while actually behind the wheel, but could arrive for work with marijuana in his or her system.”
They also try to scare us with the following scenario:
“Under current law, if a worker shows up smelling of alcohol or marijuana, an employer may remove the employee from a dangerous or sensitive job, such as running medical lab tests in a hospital, or operating heavy equipment. But if Proposition 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs.” But read what Prop. 19 actually says in Section 2 C (Intent). I’ve bolded the important bits:
“2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.”
Prop. 19’s purpose is to decriminalize possession, not to decriminalize driving or working while under the influence. All those newspaper editorials quoted by Prop. 19 opponents, all those politicians running for office – they’re intellectually dishonest if they pretend to be in favour of legalizing pot while accusing Prop. 19 of being too poorly written to vote for.
The thing is, politicians in government are not likely to voluntarily bring up the issue of legalizing pot, not even when it makes financial sense and also fits in with principles of individual liberty. If ever California’s initiative system could be used as intended – for the people to give the government a swift and well-deserved kick in the pants – Prop. 19 is it. If you value freedom, it makes sense to make pot legal.
Assistant Editor :: THE FRONT PAGE ONLINE
————————–
web: www.thefrontpageonline.com
eMail: fsisa@thefrontpageonline.com
blog: www.inkandashes.net
…and also fashion with TFPO's The Fashionoclast at www.fashionoclast.com
