Thou Shalt not Sin Differently
THESE ARE SOME OF THE STATEMENTS OFFERED IN OPPOSITION TO THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILL, WHICH IS PRESENTLY WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE STATE LEGISLATURE:
“We’re all supposed to say, ‘Look, they’re the scientists,’” Hise said. “Well, where are the FDA recommendations on medical marijuana?” … “Maybe society is changing to accept this one day,” Hise said. “But I just didn’t want to be part of taking the first steps.”
Ignoring for the moment that this supposed reliance upon “science” is almost certainly disingenuous, “scientists,” technicians, and bureaucrats do not run government. Such “experts” do not run our collective or individual lives. (At least, they should not.)
In our Constitutional Republic, the people elect “representatives,” who advocate to protect and advance the interests of the people, and the primary interests to be defended and advanced are individual liberty and personal freedom. Politicians cannot abdicate their roles to technocrats any more than the people can successfully abandon prudence, self-reliance, and personal responsibility by allowing themselves to become wards of the state.
Hise says, that he “didn’t want to be part of taking the first step” among a “society … changing.” That is not the attitude of a “leader.” Leaders assume their position at the head of the line. Good leaders commit themselves to leading others in positive change and to a better place.
The benefits of medical marijuana have been repeatedly established. The “risks” are no more dire than those related to tobacco or alcohol. Might one live a better life or be a better person should (s)he completely abstain from all vice? Perhaps.
However, we cannot, as a society, judge people simply because in our minds they choose to “sin” differently than we do. It is not among the legitimate roles of the state or within the purview of government to protect competent adults from themselves. That is the antithesis of liberty and freedom. That is contrary to the role of a “representative.” The erosions of liberty and affirmative restrictions upon freedom are inconsistent with the ideals of the Constitution, despite the fact that each such politician takes an oath to “support, defend, and maintain” that Constitution.
“All three of my sheriffs are against this bill, saying it’s going to cause a probable cause nightmare from them,” said Burgin, who represents Harnett, Lee and Johnston counties.
Do you know how to eliminate the “probable cause nightmare”? Legalize the recreational use of Marijuana! Again, marijuana use is no more deleterious to society generally than tobacco and alcohol. Again, government has no legitimate role or authority to protect competent adults from themselves.
The “probable cause” issue, which is likely motivating the objection, is that law enforcement officers could no longer use the “presence and odor of marijuana” as an excuse or pretext to conduct more extensive stops and searches of persons, vehicles, and homes.
Yes, that might make the jobs of law enforcement incrementally harder, but it should be “hard” for the state to detain, charge, and convict a citizen for a crime. In order for such state action to be warranted and justified, the alleged crime should result is some material harm or loss to another person or that other person’s property.
Alleged “self-harm” is not a criminal act. Refusing to conform to normative behaviors is not a crime. Refusing to participate in the supposed efficiencies dictated by self-serving state actors is not a crime. So, I ask you, “What ‘crime’ is being committed by someone, who chooses to use marijuana either for ‘medical’ purposes or ‘recreationally’?
We all have anxieties and stressors, with which we must deal in our day-to-day lives. Who gets to decide the “best” manner, in which one deals with the challenges of his own life? Who gets to decide how we, as free persons, get to live the single life that each of us is afforded?
If you have ever drank alcohol or smoked cigarettes (or do so even today), it is unlikely that the decision to prohibit someone else’s access to or use of marijuana should fall to you. Even if you are fortunate enough not to have a single vice, theirs is not your life to live.
The freedom to do something does not mean that the certain something must or should be done. There are reasons not to use marijuana just as there are reasons not to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. There are potential costs and adverse consequences, but it is the individual, who must perform the cost-benefit analysis for himself. Prohibiting something, particularly something that the actor deems beneficial to himself, does not in and of itself mean that persons will refrain from the prohibited act. We had a Constitutional Amendment and a nationwide experiment, which lasted thirteen (13) years and which demonstrated conclusively the utter futility of “Prohibition.”
Removing or limiting access to one potential vice merely means that persons likely will turn to other potentially more dangerous vices (e.g. prescription opioids). The argument of the opposing legislators boils down to, “We cannot trust the people to live the lives that we want and expect them to live.” That is undoubtedly true, but those are their lives to live. Individuals have no duty to live their lives for the benefit of the collective. They are not cogs in a machine.
Some lives will be lived well. Other lives will be squandered. Some lives will be exemplary and will be held up to be emulated. Other lives will serve as cautionary tales and as examples of behaviors to be avoided. That is life. Life is sometimes hard, but political minions often make it harder than it has to be.
