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.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Values and Beliefs in the Marijuana Debate
Over the past few postings, I have frequently brought up the rule of law and its relationship to the marijuana question. In the last post, I further argued that it is neither attractive nor realistic to expect the law to function as the sole moral arbiter of what constitutes “good” and “evil” in society. I rounded up my argument by making the assertion that to do otherwise would be to surrender our distinctive ability to make choices – even ones on marijuana that are relatively morally-trivial in comparison to the less morally-ambivalent acts of murder and rape. Worse, it would serve as a tacit and faithless acceptance of an innate inability to make rational choices on our own.
As the exploration of this topic through this blog draws to a close, I guess whether or not marijuana ought to be legalized depends largely on the kinds of values we would like to adopt towards morality, liberty, and law. Is the use of marijuana moral? Insofar as marijuana use does not cause any form of harm or injury to anyone else other than the user, my sense is that the use of marijuana is amoral. Should people be allowed to decide if they want to use marijuana? To the extent that people are equipped with the knowledge for them to make an informed choice on marijuana use, and given further that any decision to use marijuana does not come at the expense of harm caused to any other individual, I believe that people should be allowed the freedom to exercise this choice. Should the law arbitrarily criminalize all forms of marijuana use? Yes, but if and only if the law can justify convincingly that the use of marijuana causes such great damage to its user and the surrounding community that the only possible, logical, recourse would be to outlaw marijuana altogether.
Legalization or not, what is nonetheless clear is that underpinning any support for either side is a set of values which help guide us towards a resolution of the marijuana question. A successful negotiation of the question of marijuana legalization would therefore need to pinpoint these value assumptions; more importantly, the product of the law should be the aggregated representation of the values held by the general society, and not a select representation of the views of the bureaucratic elite.
As the exploration of this topic through this blog draws to a close, I guess whether or not marijuana ought to be legalized depends largely on the kinds of values we would like to adopt towards morality, liberty, and law. Is the use of marijuana moral? Insofar as marijuana use does not cause any form of harm or injury to anyone else other than the user, my sense is that the use of marijuana is amoral. Should people be allowed to decide if they want to use marijuana? To the extent that people are equipped with the knowledge for them to make an informed choice on marijuana use, and given further that any decision to use marijuana does not come at the expense of harm caused to any other individual, I believe that people should be allowed the freedom to exercise this choice. Should the law arbitrarily criminalize all forms of marijuana use? Yes, but if and only if the law can justify convincingly that the use of marijuana causes such great damage to its user and the surrounding community that the only possible, logical, recourse would be to outlaw marijuana altogether.
Legalization or not, what is nonetheless clear is that underpinning any support for either side is a set of values which help guide us towards a resolution of the marijuana question. A successful negotiation of the question of marijuana legalization would therefore need to pinpoint these value assumptions; more importantly, the product of the law should be the aggregated representation of the values held by the general society, and not a select representation of the views of the bureaucratic elite.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Legalizing Marijuana Even As We Recognise Its Harm
“Do we want another substance that is harmful legalized in our society?”
This question was raised by fellow blogger, AW, in a response to my implications post, and I would like to use this entry to address this, particularly because AW’s point is especially pertinent in light of my stance supporting marijuana legalization.
One of the strongest arguments championed by supporters of legalization – and an argument this blog has frequently called upon – is that there is no reason why marijuana should not be legalized give that more “harmful” substances such as cigarettes or alcohol (especially alcohol) have legal status. The strength of this argument, as AW has rightly alluded to, lies not in the persuasiveness of marijuana as “non-harmful”, but in the fact that it is less “harmful”. This however, does not detract from the fact that marijuana is nonetheless a substance that – by conventional standards – causes more harm than good to the body.
If a case for marijuana legalization can, therefore, be made on the basis that is “less harmful”, the key question to ask next is whether an equally persuasive case can be made regardless of a recognition of its “harm”. While this seems at first glance to be a tall order given the near-impossibility of arguing for something harmful to be legalized, it is my contention that an argument for marijuana legalization can in fact be convincingly outlined.
A negotiation of the moral component implicit in AW’s comment involves an interrogation into the function of the law. What is the role of law in society? Is the law meant to protect and buffer society completely from an arbitrarily-defined set of ills and evils? Is it realistic to expect the law to carry out such a function effectively? Should the law be the sole arbiter of what constitutes “good” and “harmful” objects and practices in any given society?
My sense is that it would not be realistic for the law to be the sole arbiter of morality, for the simple reason that apart from universally-unacceptable acts such as the murder of a fellow human being, all other things exist in shades of moral gray. What is unacceptable to some, such as marijuana use, may in fact be acceptable to others. My sense is also that even if we assume the law ought to serve the function of bubble-wrapping society from all forms of moral-ill, this desire is couched more in idealism that reality. After all, the condemnation of the law nonetheless does not prevent the act of murder from being committed. Closer to the context of this debate, the law has certainly not prevented marijuana from continuing to be the most-abused drug in the country.
If the law therefore should not, and cannot, be the only mechanism by which “harm” and “good” is decided by society, what then can supplement and make up for the shortfalls of the law? I am of the opinion that people need to empowered to make choices on their own, and this would involve the trickier and often-misrepresented mechanism of education. It is true that the law should, to some extent, act as an aggregated representative for the general moral values of a society. But we are not talking here about the legalization of acts as contentious as euthanasia, abortion, or suicide which involve questions of life and death. We are talking here of the moral and legal acceptability of marijuana use, a question that is far less morally controversial than what it is often made out to be.
Within the boundaries of this conceptual frame, I would accept that there can be a case made for the immorality of marijuana, because it does cause harm to one’s body. I would even go as far as to concede that the “harm” it causes is significant enough to warrant some form of moral consideration for its use. Yet, one needs to make a distinction between the moral acceptability and legal acceptability; they do not necessarily reinforce the other. Just because it may be immoral to lie or cheat does not mean that all forms of lying and cheating should be outlawed. In the same vein, while society can be taught that the use of marijuana, like alcohol and cigarettes, is undesirable and even immoral, people should nonetheless be given their right to exercise their choice on marijuana use - with some provisos – without fear of being unnecessarily punished by the law. If we surrender our ability to make choices altogether to the law (notwithstanding the fact that the law is, in the final analysis, an arbitrarily set of guidelines defined by the society’s elite), we lose the very thing that makes us unique as human beings – the ability to rationalize our own choices through a complex consideration of moral, legal, and personal perspectives.
This question was raised by fellow blogger, AW, in a response to my implications post, and I would like to use this entry to address this, particularly because AW’s point is especially pertinent in light of my stance supporting marijuana legalization.
One of the strongest arguments championed by supporters of legalization – and an argument this blog has frequently called upon – is that there is no reason why marijuana should not be legalized give that more “harmful” substances such as cigarettes or alcohol (especially alcohol) have legal status. The strength of this argument, as AW has rightly alluded to, lies not in the persuasiveness of marijuana as “non-harmful”, but in the fact that it is less “harmful”. This however, does not detract from the fact that marijuana is nonetheless a substance that – by conventional standards – causes more harm than good to the body.
If a case for marijuana legalization can, therefore, be made on the basis that is “less harmful”, the key question to ask next is whether an equally persuasive case can be made regardless of a recognition of its “harm”. While this seems at first glance to be a tall order given the near-impossibility of arguing for something harmful to be legalized, it is my contention that an argument for marijuana legalization can in fact be convincingly outlined.
A negotiation of the moral component implicit in AW’s comment involves an interrogation into the function of the law. What is the role of law in society? Is the law meant to protect and buffer society completely from an arbitrarily-defined set of ills and evils? Is it realistic to expect the law to carry out such a function effectively? Should the law be the sole arbiter of what constitutes “good” and “harmful” objects and practices in any given society?
My sense is that it would not be realistic for the law to be the sole arbiter of morality, for the simple reason that apart from universally-unacceptable acts such as the murder of a fellow human being, all other things exist in shades of moral gray. What is unacceptable to some, such as marijuana use, may in fact be acceptable to others. My sense is also that even if we assume the law ought to serve the function of bubble-wrapping society from all forms of moral-ill, this desire is couched more in idealism that reality. After all, the condemnation of the law nonetheless does not prevent the act of murder from being committed. Closer to the context of this debate, the law has certainly not prevented marijuana from continuing to be the most-abused drug in the country.
If the law therefore should not, and cannot, be the only mechanism by which “harm” and “good” is decided by society, what then can supplement and make up for the shortfalls of the law? I am of the opinion that people need to empowered to make choices on their own, and this would involve the trickier and often-misrepresented mechanism of education. It is true that the law should, to some extent, act as an aggregated representative for the general moral values of a society. But we are not talking here about the legalization of acts as contentious as euthanasia, abortion, or suicide which involve questions of life and death. We are talking here of the moral and legal acceptability of marijuana use, a question that is far less morally controversial than what it is often made out to be.
Within the boundaries of this conceptual frame, I would accept that there can be a case made for the immorality of marijuana, because it does cause harm to one’s body. I would even go as far as to concede that the “harm” it causes is significant enough to warrant some form of moral consideration for its use. Yet, one needs to make a distinction between the moral acceptability and legal acceptability; they do not necessarily reinforce the other. Just because it may be immoral to lie or cheat does not mean that all forms of lying and cheating should be outlawed. In the same vein, while society can be taught that the use of marijuana, like alcohol and cigarettes, is undesirable and even immoral, people should nonetheless be given their right to exercise their choice on marijuana use - with some provisos – without fear of being unnecessarily punished by the law. If we surrender our ability to make choices altogether to the law (notwithstanding the fact that the law is, in the final analysis, an arbitrarily set of guidelines defined by the society’s elite), we lose the very thing that makes us unique as human beings – the ability to rationalize our own choices through a complex consideration of moral, legal, and personal perspectives.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Implications of an Unresolved Debate
Having considered the merits of legalizing marijuana over the course of this entire blog, the time is now perhaps ripe in addressing the question of implications – what does the future hold if the marijuana question remains unresolved?
All things considered, it would seem that a failure to re-examine the laws governing the use of marijuana would result in the continuation of the current status quo. Marijuana would still continue to be outlawed, petty possession of marijuana would still account for the majority of marijuana arrests, state funding for marijuana enforcement would continue to incur high costs, and criminal smuggling of marijuana by foreign cartels would continue to exist. In essence, the contentious idea of “marijuana-as-vice” would continue to underpin a harsh but proportionately ineffective bureaucratic drug policy, a policy that would continue to preserve the country’s title of being the third largest consumer of marijuana in the world.
The fact is that a failure to change would not necessarily result in a degradation of the current status quo (though this possibility cannot be ruled out), but what is certain is that it would definitely not result in an improvement of the current situation. If the rejection of “marijuana-as-vice” is not the way forward, then an intermediate acceptance of “marijuana-as-vice” would have to do for the moment. What is nonetheless common, and necessary, in both cases is that they demand a re-examination of the law, either to halt the increased use of marijuana, or to reconfigure the extent of marijuana persecution. A failure to address this by the current administration would therefore be tantamount to turning a deliberate blind eye to the exigencies of the issue. My only fear is that if allowed to fester, the question of marijuana legalization might reach a deadlock where neither solution – criminalization or legalization – would serve as an attractive means to resolve what is undoubtedly a cause for social concern.
All things considered, it would seem that a failure to re-examine the laws governing the use of marijuana would result in the continuation of the current status quo. Marijuana would still continue to be outlawed, petty possession of marijuana would still account for the majority of marijuana arrests, state funding for marijuana enforcement would continue to incur high costs, and criminal smuggling of marijuana by foreign cartels would continue to exist. In essence, the contentious idea of “marijuana-as-vice” would continue to underpin a harsh but proportionately ineffective bureaucratic drug policy, a policy that would continue to preserve the country’s title of being the third largest consumer of marijuana in the world.
The fact is that a failure to change would not necessarily result in a degradation of the current status quo (though this possibility cannot be ruled out), but what is certain is that it would definitely not result in an improvement of the current situation. If the rejection of “marijuana-as-vice” is not the way forward, then an intermediate acceptance of “marijuana-as-vice” would have to do for the moment. What is nonetheless common, and necessary, in both cases is that they demand a re-examination of the law, either to halt the increased use of marijuana, or to reconfigure the extent of marijuana persecution. A failure to address this by the current administration would therefore be tantamount to turning a deliberate blind eye to the exigencies of the issue. My only fear is that if allowed to fester, the question of marijuana legalization might reach a deadlock where neither solution – criminalization or legalization – would serve as an attractive means to resolve what is undoubtedly a cause for social concern.
Renegotiating Marijuana-as-Vice
As I’ve outlined in my theory post, what is perhaps needed to move the polarized debate on marijuana towards a constructive course is a re-examination of the laws governing the use of marijuana. Two questions need to be addressed by bureaucrats. First, is it still useful to use the “marijuana-as-vice” value judgment to underpin contemporary drug policy? And if so, what are the current limitations of the law in tackling the problem of marijuana use? If not, how should the law be changed to move away from the concept of “marijuana as vice”?
In the development of my stance on the issue thus far, I have made a supported argument for the rethinking of “marijuana-as-vice”. From there, I made the consequent claim that if one accepts the argument that there needs to be a shift away from the idea of “marijuana-as-vice”, an attendant shift in the legal status of marijuana would then be the next logical step.
At this juncture, however, I recognise that this may perhaps be asking too much of the law, because it requires not only a radical shift in policy values, but also an equally seismic change in the law. As such, the complete move towards marijuana legalization, while still the fundamental goal of my contention, can perhaps be reconfigured more as an eventual target, rather than as a next step of action. This therefore brings my attention to arguing for an intermediate re-evaluation of the law by taking the current assumption that the “marijuana-as-vice” judgment would continue to underpin any change to the law. This is because the general ineffectiveness of the law in combating excessive marijuana use should at least merit its reconsideration in tackling the marijuana problem.
In the light of this, how can the law be changed? Ideally, there needs to be a standardization of marijuana laws across states, or, at the minimum, a standardization of laws governing personal marijuana possession – by far the greatest single category that accounts for marijuana arrests. Given the continued prevalence of marijuana use by teenage and adult Americans alike, could a harsher enforcement of the law – in terms of penalties – be a potential solution to bringing down marijuana use? If so, would the state and federal governments unite to collectively ensure that the necessary funding and infrastructural support would be supplied for to provide for this endeavour?
I do not profess to be an expert in public policy, and the question of how the law can be tweaked perhaps merits a separate research endeavour altogether. However, and as the above paragraph has tried to convey, there are certainly questions that can nonetheless be asked about the law even if we accept the renegotiated notion that marijuana is indeed a form of vice.
In the development of my stance on the issue thus far, I have made a supported argument for the rethinking of “marijuana-as-vice”. From there, I made the consequent claim that if one accepts the argument that there needs to be a shift away from the idea of “marijuana-as-vice”, an attendant shift in the legal status of marijuana would then be the next logical step.
At this juncture, however, I recognise that this may perhaps be asking too much of the law, because it requires not only a radical shift in policy values, but also an equally seismic change in the law. As such, the complete move towards marijuana legalization, while still the fundamental goal of my contention, can perhaps be reconfigured more as an eventual target, rather than as a next step of action. This therefore brings my attention to arguing for an intermediate re-evaluation of the law by taking the current assumption that the “marijuana-as-vice” judgment would continue to underpin any change to the law. This is because the general ineffectiveness of the law in combating excessive marijuana use should at least merit its reconsideration in tackling the marijuana problem.
In the light of this, how can the law be changed? Ideally, there needs to be a standardization of marijuana laws across states, or, at the minimum, a standardization of laws governing personal marijuana possession – by far the greatest single category that accounts for marijuana arrests. Given the continued prevalence of marijuana use by teenage and adult Americans alike, could a harsher enforcement of the law – in terms of penalties – be a potential solution to bringing down marijuana use? If so, would the state and federal governments unite to collectively ensure that the necessary funding and infrastructural support would be supplied for to provide for this endeavour?
I do not profess to be an expert in public policy, and the question of how the law can be tweaked perhaps merits a separate research endeavour altogether. However, and as the above paragraph has tried to convey, there are certainly questions that can nonetheless be asked about the law even if we accept the renegotiated notion that marijuana is indeed a form of vice.
Annotated Links Post
Drug Enforcement Administration’s Position on Marijuana
This link outlines explicitly the strongly anti-marijuana stance adopted by the US Justice Department’s DEA. In essence, the DEA is strongly against all forms of marijuana use, including the less controversial use of medical marijuana. Not only does this link serve as a useful starting point for visitors to understand the reasons underpinning the DEA’s position; more crucially, it can also be used a resource by which reasons for the criminalization of marijuana provided by the government can be critically examined, and where appropriate, challenged.
Myths and Facts about Marijuana Use
This website serves as a useful resource when used in tandem with the link above. In this link, the myths and facts of marijuana use are outlined, with close support from a wide range of referenced sources. A comparison of the material presented in this source and the DEA’s website therefore gives a more rounded picture to the nuances surrounding the polarized character of the marijuana question.
Perspectives on the Question of Legalizing Marijuana
This report by The CQ Researcher Online puts forward general arguments for and against the legalization of marijuana, which are useful to the extent of providing a broad overview of the immense breadth of the topic. Visitors to this website will find amongst other things a detailed presentation of both sides of the argument for marijuana legalization, a useful chronological timeline of marijuana milestones in the country, as well as links to other web resources for further research.
Marijuana Use Statistics
This link is a useful factual resource that breaks down the numbers and types of marijuana arrests from 1980 to 2008 in an easily-understood table form. The legitimacy of its statistics comes from the fact that it is derived from figures supplied by official governmental agencies, such as the FBI and the Department of Justice. The numbers show that marijuana is the drug most commonly used in America that results in an arrest. It further shows that of the number of arrests made for marijuana use each year, an improportionate number are for marijuana possession alone.
State Laws Governing Marijuana Use
The website of The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws provides a comprehensive section that details the individual laws governing marijuana use across the different states of the country, and a quick comparison of these laws through a drop-down menu would reveal their lack of uniformity across different states.
Historical Circumstances of Marijuana Legalization
This website provides a gateway into the ”reefer racism” which had characterized early marijuana policy in America. Through a juxtaposed historical presentation of marijuana’s initial acceptability and subsequent criminalization by the federal government, the website informs that the marijuana laws that have come to govern modern-day drug policy was couched more in xenophobia and bureaucratic paranoia than in rational scientific thinking.
Opinions on the Slippery Slope of Marijuana Legalization
This opinion page hosted by The New York Times contains responses contributed by renowned academics and bureaucrats on whether the legalization of marijuana would result in higher rates of addiction. It also contains a plethora of comments posted by the online community in response to the initial posts put forth. Taken in its entirety, the dialectical structure of this link helps to contextualise the debate surrounding the merits of marijuana legalization, revealing its nuances in the process.
The Relative Harm of Marijuana in Comparison to Alcohol
This link contains a scientific report on a study conducted by scientists from the Department of Pharmacology from the University of Sydney, who investigated the interaction between alcohol and marijuana. One of the key findings of the report was that alcohol was found to have relatively more harmful effects than marijuana, in spite of the former’s legal status.
Marijuana as a Substitute to Alcohol
This link argues – with support from scientific sources – that the use of marijuana is safer than that of alcohol. While it is clearly favourably biased towards the latter, a critical reading of the source allows the reader to grasp the fundamental arguments raised in support of such a stance, which may then be used for further evaluation and analysis.
A Former Police Chief’s Stance of Marijuana Legalization
This link details the interesting stance of marijuana legalization taken by retired Seattle Police Chief, Norm Stamper. The main thrust of his argument is that because marijuana is safer than alcohol, there is no basis for its continued criminalization that is in contrast to alcohol’s legal status. This is just one many related articles on marijuana hosted by political blog The Huffington Post, and any visitor with the time and effort to pore through them would find that they contain a multitude of perspectives pertinent to the discussion of the marijuana question.
This link outlines explicitly the strongly anti-marijuana stance adopted by the US Justice Department’s DEA. In essence, the DEA is strongly against all forms of marijuana use, including the less controversial use of medical marijuana. Not only does this link serve as a useful starting point for visitors to understand the reasons underpinning the DEA’s position; more crucially, it can also be used a resource by which reasons for the criminalization of marijuana provided by the government can be critically examined, and where appropriate, challenged.
Myths and Facts about Marijuana Use
This website serves as a useful resource when used in tandem with the link above. In this link, the myths and facts of marijuana use are outlined, with close support from a wide range of referenced sources. A comparison of the material presented in this source and the DEA’s website therefore gives a more rounded picture to the nuances surrounding the polarized character of the marijuana question.
Perspectives on the Question of Legalizing Marijuana
This report by The CQ Researcher Online puts forward general arguments for and against the legalization of marijuana, which are useful to the extent of providing a broad overview of the immense breadth of the topic. Visitors to this website will find amongst other things a detailed presentation of both sides of the argument for marijuana legalization, a useful chronological timeline of marijuana milestones in the country, as well as links to other web resources for further research.
Marijuana Use Statistics
This link is a useful factual resource that breaks down the numbers and types of marijuana arrests from 1980 to 2008 in an easily-understood table form. The legitimacy of its statistics comes from the fact that it is derived from figures supplied by official governmental agencies, such as the FBI and the Department of Justice. The numbers show that marijuana is the drug most commonly used in America that results in an arrest. It further shows that of the number of arrests made for marijuana use each year, an improportionate number are for marijuana possession alone.
State Laws Governing Marijuana Use
The website of The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws provides a comprehensive section that details the individual laws governing marijuana use across the different states of the country, and a quick comparison of these laws through a drop-down menu would reveal their lack of uniformity across different states.
Historical Circumstances of Marijuana Legalization
This website provides a gateway into the ”reefer racism” which had characterized early marijuana policy in America. Through a juxtaposed historical presentation of marijuana’s initial acceptability and subsequent criminalization by the federal government, the website informs that the marijuana laws that have come to govern modern-day drug policy was couched more in xenophobia and bureaucratic paranoia than in rational scientific thinking.
Opinions on the Slippery Slope of Marijuana Legalization
This opinion page hosted by The New York Times contains responses contributed by renowned academics and bureaucrats on whether the legalization of marijuana would result in higher rates of addiction. It also contains a plethora of comments posted by the online community in response to the initial posts put forth. Taken in its entirety, the dialectical structure of this link helps to contextualise the debate surrounding the merits of marijuana legalization, revealing its nuances in the process.
The Relative Harm of Marijuana in Comparison to Alcohol
This link contains a scientific report on a study conducted by scientists from the Department of Pharmacology from the University of Sydney, who investigated the interaction between alcohol and marijuana. One of the key findings of the report was that alcohol was found to have relatively more harmful effects than marijuana, in spite of the former’s legal status.
Marijuana as a Substitute to Alcohol
This link argues – with support from scientific sources – that the use of marijuana is safer than that of alcohol. While it is clearly favourably biased towards the latter, a critical reading of the source allows the reader to grasp the fundamental arguments raised in support of such a stance, which may then be used for further evaluation and analysis.
A Former Police Chief’s Stance of Marijuana Legalization
This link details the interesting stance of marijuana legalization taken by retired Seattle Police Chief, Norm Stamper. The main thrust of his argument is that because marijuana is safer than alcohol, there is no basis for its continued criminalization that is in contrast to alcohol’s legal status. This is just one many related articles on marijuana hosted by political blog The Huffington Post, and any visitor with the time and effort to pore through them would find that they contain a multitude of perspectives pertinent to the discussion of the marijuana question.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
