I think it's entirely legitimate to have a strong--though not absolute--presumption in favor of liberty. Heroin would quite reasonably exceed what that presumption allows...
I guess what I don't understand is how this isn't a slippery slope? I think skydiving is safe but not marijuana. Therefore in my mind obviously skydiving should be unregulated, but marijuana should. TPI thinks marijuana is safe, but not heroin. Therefore in his mind marijuana should be legalized but not heroin. So based on the argument that because TPI and a lot of other people feel this way about marijuana, therefore it is okay to legalize it?
What about the lobby of people who think heroin is safe compared to methamphetamines? And then the group who finds methamphetamines safer than playing Russian Roulette? Doesn't legalization of marijuana basically admit a gradual loosening (liberals get giddy at this) of restrictions, in a gradual slide towards legalization of everything, even things that are clearly a threat to society? And how does TPI (and Sullivan, and others) justify their view of marijuana as safe, but people who believe in legalization of "harder" drugs aren't right that their drugs should be legal?
It seems like the go to argument for pro-legalization types is "but alcohol is legal and worse for you" or "guns are legal and worse for you," and they claim, as TPI fairly does, that guns kill more people than pot does. But people who die from cirrhosis of the liver via alcoholism would have died from poisoning of their mind via marijuana, if the same amount of drug abuse had been rendered. And saying that legal guns justified legal anything else is backwards logic: guns kill more people than anal sex with horses...should we legalize anal horse sex? Guns kill more people than flying a couple airplanes into a pair of high-rise commercial office buildings...should we legalize flying planes into high-rise buildings? Obviously not.
All this does is circle right back around to my original argument: that in a perfect world we wouldn't have to regulate anything, because everyone is smart enough to make good choices.
So in this imperfect world, where I might have someone make a poor choice and break in to my home and threaten my family, I'd much rather have a handgun to protect my daughter than a baggie of cannabis.
And let's be serious here. My single biggest problem with marijuana is that the majority of users I know primarily enjoy it for the escape it gives them from their real life. A gun does not offer that (in a practical, non-suicidal sense). I admire the human mind above any other object in the known universe, and it fundamentally sickens me that people willingly want to alter their minds in unknown, semi-permanent ways.
Now, there may be a good argument for widening legalization of medically-applicable marijuana, as it does have certain health benefits for terminally ill patients. But you don't see polls debating whether or not codeine should be available over-the-counter!
And though I admire TPI's courage for admitting previous use of marijuana in his younger days, I have to ask him: you have one of the finest minds I have ever known. Do you really want to risk harming it with psychoactive drugs? Can you absolutely confirm that marijuana doesn't have lasting effects? Is it an opportunity cost worth taking? And although you have had the resolve to stop, what exactly do you think will keep your son from being influenced by a future marijuana lobby that almost exclusively targets children in their advertising campaigns (get em hooked while they're young, they'll be yours for life)?
For me, I think less about my world, and more about the world into which my daughter will grow. And pot seems less like a fun, safe addition to a party and more like Aldous Huxley's Soma.
_
0 comments:
Post a Comment