In this post, I will address the function of the law in bringing about an effective resolution to the question of legalizing marijuana. This is particularly crucial in the context of my argument because the law, while imperfect, is nevertheless a persuasive means by which social norms and practices can be altered.
Perhaps it may be useful at this juncture to restate my stance that I am concerned about the legalization of marijuana in general, over and above already-existing provisos granted by some states for the legal use of medical marijuana. Yes, I am talking here of legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes, in the same way that alcohol has been legalized to allow for consumption with certain provisos.
A reform of current laws, in my opinion, can serve as the means by which to stitch together gaps between existing marijuana policies and the contrastive realities of the marijuana phenomenon these policies were designed to address. This is because the rule of law underpins the aim of public policy, by serving as a powerful signifier of what constitutes acceptable “standards” of behaviour in society.
What clearly needs to be reformed, at the minimum, is a standardization of marijuana laws across the country. Even if one takes the ultra-conservative stance that marijuana should not be legalized in any form, the fact that state laws not only differ from federal guidelines, but also differ from state-to-state with regards to the legal treatment of marijuana is surely counterintuitive to any concerted effort to weed out this “vice”. To illustrate this, while California only imposes a fine of $100 for marijuana possession below 28.5 grams, any possession of marijuana in Delaware would require a 6 month stay in prison and a $1500 fine.
My view is that marijuana laws need to be standardized for the responsible use of marijuana, but standardized justifiably. I do not think it would be unreasonable to outlaw the sale of marijuana to minors, nor to outlaw excessive cultivation of marijuana by parties who have an interest to peddle the drug, or even to drugged driving. These should rightly be harshly persecuted, because they go against the principle of responsible use. What I do think would be unreasonable, however, is to disallow the personal consumption of marijuana, within the confines of private property.
Of course, I am not making the argument that tweaking the law would indefinitely result in the responsible use of marijuana. To use the law conveniently as a solution to the problem grossly understates the complexity of the mechanism by which the law functions. What is nonetheless clear, however, is that allowing the personal use of marijuana would accurately reflect already-existing trends of marijuana usage in society, which I have argued to be proportionally less harmful than alcohol consumption. More crucially, the attention of the Drug Enforcement Agency can be turned to more pressing and serious problems of drug trafficking especially by foreign organizations, rather than the arrests and upkeep of petty offenders in state-funded jails and prisons.
Perhaps the real problem underlying all this inertia surrounding the law and gaps in reality is the notion that the law is expected to somehow shape society into an idealized utopia of a “drug-free” world. This thinking is unfortunately couched in the subjective “marijuana-as-vice” value judgment, a judgment that is out-of-sync with reality. The law should not be expected to reverse the course of marijuana usage, and it would not be realistic to do so. The focus should therefore be on responsible legislation, rather than on making the law fulfil an impossible function.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Having a universal marijuana law would be helpful, like a universal metric measuring system (except that the US is the odd one out). This would be easier to regulate.
ReplyDeleteYou mention the "drug free" world. Perhaps why this issue is so controversial is because children are taught that "drug free is the way to be" at a very young age. However, do they actually follow the rules? There are some instances where curiosity plays a role. Where there are rules and laws, there are deviant people-those who break the law for personal gain or attention.
Do you think that a lack of a universal marijuana law is also an impediment to current efforts by the DEA to stamp out its usage?
ReplyDeleteNatureNurture, you raise an interesting point about children being taught that "drug free is the way to be" at a very young age. This then seems to be - at first glance - a structural impediment to any attempt by the law to legalize the use of marijuana.
ReplyDeleteI think it is reasonable for any education system to promote good social and health values. Though I am for the legalization of marijuana, and though the use of marijuana is relatively less harmful than the use of alcohol, it is one thing to promote its use and another to give people the legal right in deciding whether or not to use marijuana for their personal consumption. The law merely does the latter. In this sense, changing the law does not necessarily conflict with the goals of education.
In the same way, it would be reasonable for the education system to teach students at a young age that obesity is undesirable because it could lead to coronary heart disease, or that smoking is undesirable because it can lead to lung cancer, or that sexual promiscuity is undesirable because it could result in the transmission of STDs. Ultimately though, it is important to distinguish the function of education and the function of the law, because while education informs, the law persecutes. What is key to this issue is in deciding what aspects of marijuana use needs to be persecuted.
If I may restate your reply to NatureNurture, what you are saying is that the law cannot, and should not attempt to create an idealized world. Instead, it should account for the realities of individual choice and make room for that. Is that right?
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the point on education, I think it is often the case that we are first taught in simple, black and white terms. Then as progress is made, complexity is added to the situation and we are compelled to grapple with the grey areas. So as you say, there is little reason why teaching children to be drug free is at odds with legalizing marijuna.
Yes Jane, your restatement is largely correct, albeit with the qualification that it is with regards to morally grey issues such as marijuana use, alcohol use, and sexual promiscuity.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary and for example, the act of killing can be thought otherwise to be an act universally frowned upon, and in this case, it would be in the interests of both education and the law to reinforce the moral impermissibility of such an action.
I think that you also make a good point about the process of education - a process that encompasses the quality of progressive development. The intended outcome of this is to equip the child with the ability to make rational decisions on his/her own. In this sense, the goals of education may not necessarily conflict with the rule of the law.