Self-Analysis Post

This blog was started with the intention that it would function as a space where perspectives on the legalization of drugs could be presented, discussed, defended, or overturned. Over the past five weeks, a close adherence to this purpose has not only helped to develop my general awareness of the marijuana controversy in the States; I have also developed a close interest for, and a clear personal stance on, the issue at hand.

My first post was titled “Would you legalize drugs?”, and in the post I challenged myself and the online community of readers to question if there were legitimate and persuasive reasons to take the controversial stance of drug legalization, in light of the inadequacies of the country’s drug prohibition policy. I focused thematically on the broad arguments that there could be medical, social, economic, moral, and legal reasons for the legalization of marijuana, despite arguments to the contrary.

I acknowledged the fact that marijuana was – by conventional standards – harmful, but I disputed the argument that its “harm” was sufficient to warrant its outright criminalization by the law. I accepted that the federal government is right to outlaw all forms of marijuana smuggling, marijuana distribution, and illegal marijuana production, but I questioned if the same force of the law should be brought upon to bear on the personal use of marijuana. I conceded that a medical argument for the “non-harm” caused by marijuana would be contentious at best, but I qualified that its historical and contemporary acceptance as a drug of treatment by at least thirteen states in the country is at the minimum a concession that whatever harmful effects of marijuana are insufficient to warrant a complete rejection of its medicinal properties. I demonstrated the historically xenophobic and contentious circumstances surrounding the initial criminalization of marijuana which has persisted till today, and I challenged the usefulness and accuracy of thinking of marijuana as a form of vice in contemporary society. I raised the fact that a harsh drug policy has nonetheless not stopped America from being the one of the largest consumers of marijuana in the world, and argued that this should suffice to warrant a re-think, if not reversal, of contemporary laws governing marijuana use.

As I matured in my analysis, I focused my interrogation on how to achieve a satisfactory conclusion to the polarized debate, which I tried to achieve by proposing that the mechanics of a pro-choice or pro-criminalization position should not detract from a constructive re-examination of the law. In doing so, I argued that that it would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the law to function as the sole arbiter of moral standards in society, and that people should be equipped with the ability to make an informed choice on their own. In my defence, I asserted that this is because to do otherwise would be to subordinate our unique human trait of agency to a convenient moral benchmark that reflects a lack of faith in our ability to make rational choices. In addition, to rely solely on the rule of law would also be to overlook the fact that the law is fundamentally still a representation of the values and beliefs of its writers, and not necessarily an aggregated representation of the values of society. This is especially crucial given how Harry Anslinger and his bureaucratic machine almost single-handedly dictated the country’s policy on marijuana – a policy that has remained largely unchanged for the past 80 years. In the final analysis, I reasoned that all things considered, the fundamental tipping point of the marijuana debate is couched in a question of values – to what extent is society willing and able to sacrifice the rule of law for an enlightened exercise of liberty?

Writing from the perspective of a foreign citizen where drug laws in my society would be considered repressive by American standards, this exercise was also for me a self-reflexive examination of the values underpinning the formation of law in my country. Even as I sought to uncover and challenge the normative assumptions and values that have guided the formation of drug policy in the US, there was concurrently a mirroring dialogue which made me question if my treatment of the subject here would be as applicable to my own country and its set of values. This writing process has, therefore, made me more invested in the topic-at-hand, and I have become more aware of how such an exercise can help us develop a deeper appreciation of the argumentative nuances surrounding complex real-world topics, which affect the way we think about the world we live in.