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.