Pubdate: Thu, 07 Feb 2008
Source: Daily Toreador, The (Texas Tech, TX Edu)
Copyright: 2008sDaily Toreado
Contact: http://www.dailytoreador.com/home/lettertotheeditor/
Website: http://www.dailytoreador.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3949
Author: Jason Hoskin
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

MARIJUANA USAGE, LEGALIZATION ISSUES OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR U.S.
CITIZENS

On Jan. 30, a debate entitled "The Debate Over the Legalization of 
Marijuana: Heads vs. Feds" occurred on campus between DEA agent Bob 
Stutman, sometimes called "the most famous narc in America," and 
Steve Hagar, editor of "High Times" magazine. I expected a debate on 
marijuana legalization would draw the usual suspects.

The one arguing in favor of legalization is often an unkempt, 
abrasive, ex-hippie spouting anti-government conspiracy theories and 
generally doing his utmost to marginalize those of us who support 
marijuana legalization on an individual-rights basis. In the 
relativistic world view of the far left, individuals ought not to be 
constrained by standards of decency and morality and should be free 
to engage in whatever self-destructive acts suit their whims while, 
at the same time, they should be insulated from the consequences of 
their actions.

In opposition is the rightist, understandably horrified by this world 
view in general and its implications for drug use in particular, who 
jumps to the conclusion that a paternalistic government needs to 
intervene to save college potheads from the detrimental consequences 
of their own bad decisions. One cannot help but wonder if there is 
really any difference between conservatives and liberals.

In the view of conservatives, the government should seize my property 
- - in the form of taxes - in order to finance the initiation of force 
- - in the form of fines and/or incarceration - against my classmates 
for their bad choices. In other words, as one philosopher quips in 
another context, we should beat the stoners' brains out, so they may 
better utilize them. The arguments put forth by both Stutman and 
Hagar during the debate largely confirmed my suspicions.

The first part of the debate largely was focused on whether marijuana 
use is harmful. Each man quoted experts who supported his view. 
Although safe and "medicinal" marijuana would comport with the 
"everything-is-permitted" hippie mentality, I must admit I am not in 
a position of expertise with regard to its safety. I will say I am 
skeptical that a benign substance could produce a room filled with 
students suffering from halitosis and B.O. Did anyone really expect 
students would not show up high to a debate on marijuana legalization?

Couple this with my own experience with the highly irritating smoke 
from marijuana; I have my doubts this substance is not harmful to 
human tissue. More importantly, I am pretty sure any substance that 
interferes with the function of the uniquely human attribute of 
reason is inconsistent with a set of standards that promotes one's interest.

But all this is really beside the point and counterproductive to the 
goal of marijuana legalization. While making the apparently ingenious 
argument that pot smoking is harmless good medicine, leftists such as 
Hagar cede the argument to the other side - that government has a 
right to regulate issues of personal safety and morality. With this 
approach, the debate degrades into determining what is safe and what 
is moral and who should make this determination. When the proper 
issue of the debate did come up, Hagar, to his credit, declared that 
it is none of anyone's business what substances one puts into his or 
her own body.

After all, Hagar posed to his opponent, shouldn't we all be free to 
engage in whatever acts we choose so long as we do not harm anyone 
else, or more correctly, violate anyone's rights without an intrusive 
government coming in to referee? And how did the freedom-loving, 
small-government-advocating defender of the American way respond? 
Certainly not!

After all, he claims, almost every action we take has some effect on 
others. The drug addict certainly is harming those who love and care 
for him, claims Stutman. I am not unsympathetic to this statement, 
but by this standard, I am violating the rights of others by writing 
this column. I'm confident some people will be offended deeply by my 
words and possibly even cry.

Should conservatives then seize my property - in the form of fines - 
or take my liberty from me by incarcerating me to uphold the noble 
principle that people living together should not have any negative 
effects on one another? Since a great many human actions have effects 
on others, both positive and negative, how do we decide which actions 
require the government to wield a gun on its citizens?

As Thomas Jefferson said in a different context, my classmates' pot 
smoking "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." As such, the 
government would do well to refrain to do either to its citizens. To 
anticipate, violent crimes potentially committed by aggressive, 
testosterone-crazed marijuana smokers are already illegal, as are 
laws against driving while impaired, as they should be in a society 
based on the protection of individual rights.

The purpose of government is not to legislate morality, but to free 
individuals from the initiation of force from others, thereby 
protecting each individual's ability and potential to use his or her 
reason to further the goals of his or her life. I sympathize with 
Stutman's disdain for some college students, whom at one point in the 
debate cheered at the prospect of the new-found freedom to show up to 
class high, in an eager display of self-parody - Hagar, to his 
credit, chastised this display.

But the historical evidence is in. Societies that protect individual 
rights amass the greatest wealth, see the greatest technical 
innovation, see the greatest prosperity and gain the most longevity, 
and I dare say, achieve the greatest happiness.

This should indicate that people, if left free, in general have both 
the will and ability to determine and implement those actions 
consistent with their best interests. Conservatives like Stutman 
would do well to trust both in this case, and he should have 
confidence in his own ability to persuade a sizable contingent of 
stoner-dom not to indulge in self-destructive behaviors such as drug 
abuse but choose the straight path instead.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom