Marijuana.com

Lothar121

A Question of Consequences
Jesse Fitts | The Rebel Yell | 09/25/2006

This November, the people of Nevada will vote on a number of ballot initiatives, one of which deals with marijuana laws. This initiative, known as Question 7, will decriminalize possession of the substance up to one ounce for people over the age of 21. The laws for minors will stay generally the same. There will be harsher penalties for helping minors acquire marijuana and for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Half of the tax and licensing money for marijuana will benefit drug education; the other half will go into the state fund.

Some might claim Question 7's motivation is amoral. The advocates say, look, the laws have failed; everyone that wants to smoke pot does it anyway, so let's regulate and tax it, making it safer. The thrust of the argument is pragmatic, and pragmatic arguments ring well with people, especially Americans. But these arguments often don't consider whether something is inherently good or bad. In this argument, from consequences comes merit or malignance. Though most people mix their ethical theories, conservatives of an odd stripe pounce on this pragmatism. This strategy generally fails—especially in this case.

It is important to note that many advocates of Question 7 are impartial regarding marijuana usage. Generally, this is the case with these types of arguments, as with abortion. I don't want women to have to go through abortions, and I don't urge everyone to start smoking pot, but reason dictates that both should be legal.

Also, one shouldn't feign that all in Question 7 is perfect. There are costs and benefits to weigh. The pull is between the desire to stop unjust incarcerations and the simultaneous desire to strip the government of as much power as possible. Anti-authoritarians cringe to relinquish any power to the government, even the power to regulate. It takes more power from the people. This inclination must be juxtaposed with the costs of not passing it. One must ask, what's worse, more government control or unjust incarcerations stemming from laws that don't work or make sense? The reasonable answer is the latter. The argument for Question 7's passage is pragmatic. The evaluation of the cost benefit analysis works just the same.

Back to the argument: Suppose I argue that abortion should stay legal because the likely consequences of outlawing it would be terrible. One could counter by claiming that abortion is wrong in itself and should be illegal regardless of consequences. Now further suppose someone uses this strategy with Question 7. They would say, regardless of the consequences, it shouldn't be passed because marijuana usage is bad in itself. One can't consistently condone the use of alcohol and tobacco while condemning Question 7 without appealing to consequences. What could one say? One could perhaps disallow all drug usage, but most don't take this position. Or, one could say that outlawing tobacco and alcohol will have dire consequences, as did prohibition.

Once someone makes this move, then the battle is between consequences. There is not the space here to compare consequences, but advocates for Question 7 win the argument.

Progressives endure criticism that they are impractical. Reason and reality are on our side.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference.. Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

Buzzby

The law shouldn't be concerned about whether something is "good" or "bad". These are abstract moral terms with no solid definition. The law should deal with activities by which individuals cause harm to other people, not what they do to themselves. The state is there to guard us from what others might do to us, not from what we might do to ourselves.

__________________

replica

You always hit the nail on the head, buzzby. Should we not be allowed to pursue any type of happiness, granted it does not inflict upon the pursuit of happiness of others??

And if we were talking strictly self harm, shouldn't Alcohol and Tobacco be illegal as well

__________________
sleep please

Moderation is a smoker's best friend

More Rights, Please.