Classic Liberal Blog

Legal versus illegal ... Marijuana ... What are rights?

Lethal force.

While perusing the posts over at American Power, I happened across a post titled "Black-Tar Heroin: A Glimpse of California Before Decriminalization."

I was then directed to a very interesting debate on the subject, but we'll get to that in a minute.

Let's Talk Marijuana ...

Whenever discussing what should be illegal, we must first accept what something being illegal means. Which is that we have the right to use the threat of, or actual violent force against another, in order to stop him/her from engaging in said act.

In other words, we're going to arrest him by the force of a gun, then possibly take some of his property (fine/penalty/etc.) and/or take away his/her freedom (lock 'em up in jail).

Don't kid yourself either ... Cops don't carry guns to protect you, they carry guns to enforce the law. And mind you, not all laws are just. Think about that.

Question:

One day you see your neighbor, a nice guy who never causes anyone any trouble and a friend, in his backyard smoking a joint. Do you have the inalienable right to walk over there, point a gun to his head, and demand he stop smoking that joint? Furthermore, do you also have the inalienable right to take some of his property (fine him) for smoking that joint?

If you don't, then you have no power to extend to the government.

And guess what? You don't.

The Marijuana and Conservatism Debate

The following excerpts are from a debate between Mary Grabar and David Swindle, "The Marijuana and Conservatism Debate," at FrontPage Magazine.

David Swindle: A single question for which all self-described “conservatives” should have a fairly similar answer: what is the purpose of the government as the founders intended?

The federal government does not exist to make the world better. It’s not here to eliminate poverty. (Look at inner city ghettos to see how effective the Left’s efforts have been.) It’s not supposed to try and make sure that more people can buy homes. (Look at the economic crash of 2008.) The founders never intended a government which would require all citizens to buy health insurance. (Look into a crystal ball of how the next few years will turn out.) When government is shifted toward bringing about some form of utopia it fails.

The purpose of government is to protect a free society. It’s to allow for a country in which the individual is sovereign, in which every man and woman can pursue his own destiny as they see fit. If they want to create jobs and raise families they can. If they want to destroy themselves then that’s their freedom.

So how does throwing people into jail for growing and consuming a plant fit into this understanding of government?

It does not.

Thus it makes sense that Goldwater was hardly the only important conservative whose opinion of marijuana softened over the years. William F. Buckley, Jr. went even further, advocating full-blown legalization in 2004.

Right! Don’t Let Them Immanentize the Eschaton!

Government never could, nor ever will be able to create Heaven on Earth. In fact, there's no "conservative" way of even trying! And I'll take it one step further too. It's blasphemy to believe a mere mortal can create a paradise on Earth.

Mary Grabar: Many, including those on our side, have simply forgotten the traditions and values that inform the fight.

Many of the young have been brought up on the liberalism now reigning in our culture. It is a culture that says that all values are relative, that all matters of morality are a function of personal choice. This also seems to be the tack of a certain strain of libertarianism.

These libertarians rightly want to be left alone to live their lives. They want to be free to make their own decisions about health care and how they spend their money. They want to be free to protect themselves with firearms. I agree with all these goals.

But I often see something very reactionary in the responses that are made whenever laws affecting such social issues as drug use or prostitution come into play. An apt display is radio talk show host Burnie Thompson’s reference to Andrew Grande [who swallowed the bag of marijuana] as “a casualty of the war on drugs.” The statement, of course, ignores a central tenet of libertarianism, which is personal responsibility.

I think it also points to a certain absolutist world view, which goes something like “if we put any restrictions on marijuana all our freedoms are at peril.” But this absolutist worldview is based on an either/or fallacy. It promotes anarchy more than libertarianism. It assumes that we are a society of atomistic individuals; it can exist only in a cultural vacuum. The fact that I am accused of advocating “collectivism” because I favor keeping marijuana illegal I think is indicative.

Certainly, our government regulates substances it deems dangerous, doesn’t it? It regulates certain drugs by prescription and outlaws others that are deadly. That government regulation of a substance considered harmful will necessarily lead to infringements on all our freedoms seems to be a slippery slope argument.

Like many of my detractors, you point to the harmlessness of the drug. But people are not thrown “in jail” for “growing and consuming a plant.” Surely, you would have to agree that marijuana is not just a “plant” that you would grow in your garden, like spinach. In fact, a better analogy might the one of growing poppies to produce opium.

... and I revert back to an argument based on tradition and specifically our Judeo-Christian heritage. I openly—and non-relativistically—assert that it is a heritage that is superior to all others. I base my arguments on this premise.

The fact that I am accused of being a theocrat for simply invoking our cultural heritage and advocating for its values again points to an absolutism on the part of these libertarians, and I think, implicitly a rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundations of our culture. Many of my detractors are absolutely hostile to the mere mention of the Bible or of why we should pay attention to it.

Such an attitude I think springs from an ignorance of history and a lack of appreciation for the roots of our culture, the very culture that supported the founding of this republic.

As I see it, this debate really is about more than whether or not you smoke a joint in your living room—which for all practical purposes neither I nor the cop on the street much cares about. What I do care about is this one more capitulation in the Culture Wars.

Make sure you go read the whole thing. Mary has a lot more to say, and Swindle rebuts her quite well. But since this is my blog, I get to provide the final analysis.

Speaking of traditions, both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington farmed hemp (you don't grow hemp without producing marijuana). The Declaration of Independence is written on hemp paper. While there's no record that I know of saying so, it's quite logical to believe they smoked it too!

Marijuana didn't come under attack until the 1930's, during the Progressive Era. So making it illegal and starting a Drug War is hardly an American tradition. And for the life of me, I can't imagine Jesus holding a gun to someone's head telling him/her not to smoke pot ... or else!

There's no need to make a moral argument in favor of smoking marijuana either, because the burden of proof is on those who insist on using force to stop it. Is the barrel of a gun a moral virtue? Do you have the inalienable right to use force against your neighbor because he's smoking a joint?

No.

And nobody's arguing against the "rule of law" here, because the argument against marijuana prohibition is an argument against the "rule of man." It does not violate your inalienable rights when your neighbor smokes a joint. And say what you want, but that's the reality of what we're talking about here! Laws affect individuals only, and are enforced by the threat of, or use of violent force.

Mary's argument is collective in the sense that she sees society as something other than the individuals that make up the society (her neighbor smoking a joint in her living room), but the real failure of her argument is that it is Statist. She believes not in natural law, but in the law of man.

What I do care about is this one more capitulation in the Culture Wars.

Culture is not the government, nor can government improve culture by fiat.

Besides, there's certainly nothing virtuous about forced behavior. So what virtue can be found when looking down the barrel of a gun?

Again, read the whole thing: The Marijuana and Conservatism Debate »»