Digging a Deeper Hole
David Frum writes:
(CNN) -- Last week, I joined the board of a new organization to oppose marijuana legalization: Smart Approaches to Marijuana. The group is headed by former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy…
Oh dear.
In no particular order, marijuana prohibition is a moral disaster, a practical failure, a colossal waste of public funds, a destroyer of lives, a gift to criminals, an insult to the notion of individual responsibility, and a brutal assault on the idea of limited government.
It’s grotesquely appropriate, in a way, that this new group is headed by Patrick Kennedy.
The Huffington Post reports:
Kennedy admits to having smoked pot but also said that, as an asthma sufferer, he "found other ways to get high."
In 2006, he crashed his car into a security barrier in Washington, D.C., and soon after sought treatment for drug dependency. He said he was addicted to the pain reliever Oxycontin at that time and suffered from alcoholism. He added that he has been continuously sober for nearly two years.
Patrick Kennedy is to be congratulated for getting his life together.
He is, however, to be condemned for suggesting that the legal system of the United States should be organized in a way to suit the needs of a small minority unable to cope with the temptation presented by a relatively innocuous plant.
It should also be noted that, as described in the Huffington Post, Kennedy’s own problems were with a prescription drug and with alcohol. The former is, under certain conditions, legal, and the latter is freely available for anyone over the (ludicrously advanced) age of 21.
Should alcohol be banned too?
David Frum goes on to point out that marijuana comes with health risks. He’s right. Their extent can be debated, but not their existence, even if (unlike the case, say, with alcohol) nobody has ever died of an overdose of this particular drug.
Ban pot for the under-18s by all means (and have penalties for those that inhale and drive too), but everyone else should be free to decide for themselves whether weed is a risk that they want to run. Some—Patrick Kennedy types—will make the wrong decision—and they should be helped back on to the right path when they do, but to assume that most people are incapable of deciding this relatively trivial matter for themselves is not only an insult, but a further step down the road to the infantilization of a society that once knew how to think for itself.
- Comment (64)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (23)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
I was going to keep on gassing away to try to clarify my point, but thank God WC showed up to cut through all the rhetoric. If my long comments are unclear or seem bone-headed to you, can I direct you to comment # 59.
Jul '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Severely Ltd.
EJHill
Except that is what the state exists for. A nation's laws are it's collective expression of right and wrong. It may not be a 100% match to your concept of morality but it never will. ·
Your view doesn't even make sense from a spiritual or philosophical point of view. If you're being chaste because of laws against adultery, you're not being virtuous in any real sense.
Edited 54 minutes ago
But isn't that basically the same thing as being chaste out of a fear that God will punish you through eternal damnation? In both cases, you are complying at least partly because of the sanction, not necessarily solely because of a belief that the activity is immoral.
Plus, you might still think something is wrong and give in to the temptation. The law can be used precisely to help citizens avoid those temptations. For example, if there is a legally operating brothel down the street, it will be easier for young men to succumb to the temptation than if they have to search one out.
Oct '10
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
Wow, theology now.
Since no qualified person has answered you:
Who knows how God is going to parse these things, but an Evangelical or Fundamentalist might argue that their motivation is love or at least respectful obedience to their creator.
Sep '12
Re: Digging a Deeper Hole
De_Maistre
But isn't that basically the same thing as being chaste out of a fear that God will punish you through eternal damnation? In both cases, you are complying at least partly because of the sanction, not necessarily solely because of a belief that the activity is immoral.
Plus, you might still think something is wrong and give in to the temptation. The law can be used precisely to help citizens avoid those temptations. For example, if there is a legally operating brothel down the street, it will be easier for young men to succumb to the temptation than if they have to search one out. · 2 hours ago
I'll take a stab. Whether or not you are being prevented from doing something by fear of God, that depends on your relationship with Him. This is independent from punishment on Earth. We shouldn't take a poll of what God wants in each individual's eyes and impose that on other people beyond the listed restrictions repeated so far.