Theory Post

In this post, I attempt to present a schema by which a satisfactory solution to the marijuana question can be made. But before such a schema can be convincingly outlined, it may be useful to revisit the main points of contention that have polarised the debate surrounding marijuana legalization.

On the one hand, opponents of marijuana legalization commonly assert the ill-effects of marijuana on health and society. They further assert that legalization of marijuana would be tantamount to the tacit promotion of its use by the law. Worse, the legalization of marijuana could signal the start of a slippery slope for general drug legalization.

Contrastively, proponents of marijuana legalization dispute the ill-effects of marijuana, by arguing that the “harm” it causes is relatively less than the already-legalized entities of alcohol and tobacco. An economic argument is also put forth given that state budgets are used excessively for the arrests of petty cases of marijuana possession, which detracts from the larger issues of tackling drug distribution and marijuana trafficking by foreign cartels. In addition, a re-examination of the historical circumstances that led to the criminalization of marijuana further reveals how this was couched more in bureaucratic xenophobia and paranoia, than to any rational scientific basis. More crucially, the strong arm of the law all these years has neither halted the trend of marijuana usage in society, nor stopped the country from being the third biggest consumer of marijuana in the world.

In balance, it is clear that an argument can certainly be made over why marijuana legalization is superior to marijuana criminalization or vice-versa. It is also clear that this argumentative schema is further complexified by the fluid, and at times juxtaposed, application of a common body of evidence to support one stance against the other – which gives the debate its contentious quality. However, and given the near-impossibility of using a limited blog entry to outline how such a deeply-entrenched schism can be reasonably resolved, it is not the intention of this theory post to put forth an outline that promises to change the status quo of the marijuana debate. Rather, this post aims to at least outline how a constructive approach can be taken towards a reconsideration of the marijuana question; specifically, this involves a reconsideration of the effectiveness of the law.

While the dichotomous structure of this argument is evident from the almost diametrically-opposed viewpoints taken by both sides of the debate, what is nonetheless common is that there needs to be at the minimum a re-examination of the role of law in the marijuana debate. What I am saying here is that the solution to the inadequacies of the law in tackling marijuana usage in society need not necessarily require a convenient and intuitive swing to the side of legalization, as thinking through the lens of polarization within the marijuana debate may tend to make one do. But this does not mean that the laws governing marijuana use should be exempt from a critical review and, if found necessary, be further subject to alteration. What is therefore crucial, in my opinion, is that the polarised mechanics of the debate must not divert attention from, or worse, supplant the practical exigencies of the issue at hand, which would go against any constructive approach to resolving the marijuana question.