The Complexities of the Pot Legalization Debate
All Things Consider — By Daniel Strauss on November 5, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Andrew Sullivan argues that marijuana should be legal because it’s a product of nature:
My view – regardless of the arguments back and forth about the effects of marijuana – is simply that it is absurd for any government to prevent people from growing a naturally-occurring plant that requires no processing to provide humans with pleasure. It’s pretty basic, actually. This is a core freedom for human beings and requires an insane apparatus of state control and police power to prevent it from occurring. All you have to do is burn a plant and inhale the smoke. If humans are not free to do this in the natural world in which they were born, what on earth arepremise is freedom; Josh’s is not.
Should we ban roses because they give us pleasure with their beauty and their scent? Should we ban herbs, like rosemary or thyme, because they give us pleasure and encourage us to eat more? Should we ban lawn-grass because maintaining it consumes too many people’s weekend afternoons? Should we cut down trees because the beauty of them can sometimes distract someone from the road? I could go on.
The point is the government has no business regulating how its citizens derive pleasure from a naturally occurring plant. Period. The whole idea is preposterous. And yet it is taken for granted.
I think this is an interesting and strong argument in favor of pot legalization, but, as is often the case with policy debates on controversial issues, it doesn’t address the primary criticism of legalizing pot: namely, the health risks. The immediate counterargument to that is that alcohol has acknowledged health risks as well. That, like Sullivan’s pro-legalization argument, is a strong rebuttal but it doesn’t tackle Sullivan’s case. You really need to discuss what the health risks of pot are and how severe they are before you can decide the issue one way or the other. Until both sides agree about what’s really at stake with pot legalization or other hot button issues, I don’t think there will ever be any kind of new legislation put in place that either side would like.
(Image by sxc.hu)
| Share and Enjoy: |
|
Tweet |
Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Marijuana
Subscribe
2 Comments
In response to Andrew Sullivan’s argument:
This seems to be a straw man if I’ve ever seen one. The justification for banning pot is not that its natural and gives pleasure.
“The point is the government has no business regulating how its citizens derive pleasure from a naturally occurring plant. Period.” Such an overarching and absolutist statement really ignores just how complicated the world is. I am left wondering what exactly you mean by natural – if I roll it in paper is it still natural? What if I combine it with some other naturally occurring plants? Does that still count? What if my pleasure comes at the cost of substantially higher crime rates or enormous health risks? There are societal costs associated with personal choices. Sometimes those costs are larger than others – and people have to decide whether those costs are worth the pleasure. But we should definitely be in the business of quantifying those costs and benefits.
Good point. I think Sullivan means that weed is a plant that grows in nature and provides pleasure to people. In the context of your response though I don’t think that helps his argument very much.