DOES "ILLEGAL" MEAN "IMMORAL"?

The Michael Phelps controversy has certainly sparked some lively
debate on the issue of one particular crime, marijuana use. I think
this is a good debate to have, but shouldn't we really be talking
about the entire basis for all of our laws, and not just marijuana
laws? Whenever I talk to people who seemed shocked by Phelps smoking
pot, I try to rationalize the outrage. I can certainly understand why
people would be angered if he were driving while drunk, since he would
be putting other people at risk, but why the outrage over something
that is really just a personal choice? The most common answer I get
about why smoking pot is wrong is "because it's illegal." I hear the
same thing about illegal immigration. This is precisely the logic that
we need to question here. Does "illegal" mean "immoral"?

For someone to believe that an activity is morally wrong based solely
on the fact of its illegality, he or she has to be making several
assumptions. Obviously, they have to believe that legislation defines
morality. While this assumption tends to be applied inconsistently to
other behaviors not covered by legislation, I suppose it's possible to
rationalize that assumption if one assumes there is no competing
standard of morality. This assumption also creates an overly
optimistic perception of those who make the laws. Are politicians
really more ethical than average citizens? The evidence doesn't seem
to indicate so.

Of course, I think that while a lack of morality in politics is a
natural tendency related to any kind of power, I think this moral
deficiency is largely amplified by the average American voter, who
ultimately has the power in American politics, and who is also
immoral. Corruption is defined as using a position of power and public
trust for private gain. I don't apply that standard to politicians
alone. Voters hold the real power, and they are entrusted with the
preservation of our republic. I would argue that any voter who uses
the government to serve their own selfish ends at the expense of
another should be considered a part of the corruption problem in
politics. This abuse of power by citizens doesn't just apply to those
who use the government to claim ownership over money earned by other
people, but it also applies to those insecure people who use the
government to impose their own puritanical personal choices on other
people.

Since we have established that our political system is nothing more
than majoritarian exploitation, where then do we derive any sense of
morality? Respect for the law seems to have become a civic virtue in
America. When did this happen? We don't obey laws out of respect, we
obey them out of fear. That was the view held by early Americans, but
somewhere we lost that perspective when we began to glorify the state.
The law certainly has its place. America's founders saw the law as a
necessary evil by which we can ensure the protection of our natural
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They reasoned
that respect for the natural rights of individuals should be the
starting point of morality. Laws were supposed to exist to protect our
rights from those who don't respect our rights. Now, the law has
become a means by which others can use the government to exploit us.
If the law is meant to serve our rights, and not the other way around,
then shouldn't our natural rights be morally superior to the law?

For those who insist that the law needs to be respected, I would argue
that the law should be made to be more respectable. For those who
argue that President Bush or President Obama should be given the
benefit of the doubt, I would argue that no politician ever deserves
the benefit of the doubt until they earn our trust. I am not
suggesting that people violate the law. I want people to follow the
law, but I also believe that people should think critically about the
moral justification behind our laws before becoming self-righteous
about the decisions of another individual.