Marijuana and the State:
In the outset, I want to make sure you understand, from my point of view, what the role of the State (The U.S. government, or any other government) is, and second how it relates to issues of the people, e.g., marijuana (the legalization process). So in form, laws trickle down from the State to the citizen. That's why I structured it this way.
A. The role of the state is only to protect the liberties procured in the documents of liberty and the happiness of the people therein. (Sorry for the technicalities.) I posted recently the Mayflower compact (fortuitously), which have the people's role in ruling themselves. I don't know if you can recall the history of the U.S.'s making, but there was a debate that was present in the minds of the people at the time of the "new inception." (I will define everything and what I mean.)
The new inception: What I mean here is that the government (if there was one) was separated and there was a desperate need to unify the states; however, the debate was all the more heated by articles published by the press against federalism (Federalist Papers), the belief that there should be a central government over "small government," that is that the states should themselves. When it pertains to Marijuana the debate becomes highly pertinent. (One example of the importance of the view of government here is an article that I wrote about in my political science class, which was about marijuana labs being raided by fed operatives. The outcome was not amicably handled.) I believe here is where you might want to brush up on some of your readings concerning the Federalist Papers. It might make more sense for you. They show what the concerns were, and I believe they had more than a valid case against federalism. Personally, if I was alive at the time I would have voted against it. I now see how it is affecting the state of affairs within every state, e.g. marijuana. There is a breakdown in each law and its enforcement due to the difference of the present "climate" in opinion within every state, however. I think that the only reason it didn't work at the time was due to the debate over slavery. It churned debate as to who gave the final word, North v. South. A new form still exists, i.e., Government v. States. I think personally that this form of government is falling apart, and examples can be seen over the current seat of government being overseen by the tyrannical G.W. Bush. For example, look at the PATRIOT act. I know that there is no exclusive law per se for "privacy," but apparently the state is still misguided as to what they see as liberties and "privileges." Here's what the report said:
"As the original cosponsors of the SAFE Act, we are deeply concerned about the draft Patriot Act re-authorization conference report made available to us early this afternoon. The Senate version of the bill, passed by unanimous consent in July, was itself a compromise that resulted from intense negotiations by Senators from all sides of the partisan and ideological divides. Unfortunately, the conference committee draft retreats significantly from the bipartisan consensus we reached in the Senate. It simply does not accomplish what we and many of our colleagues in the Senate believe is necessary – a re-authorization bill that continues to provide law enforcement with the tools to investigate possible terrorist activity while making reasonable changes to the original law to protect innocent people from unnecessary and intrusive government surveillance."
Do you see the inherent problem with central government? They dictate throughout the entire nation as to what should be "their" responsibility. This is also another reason I believe people--and especially other Christians like myself--should get involved in politics or at least know what's going on. So then, the government's role is to establish and amend laws, but not to enforce unruly and unjust laws upon its citizens (my opinion). A simple review of the first documents of this country should be my only protests against what is going on today with governmental policies and legislative processes. The State needs a redefinition as to what its role is.
B. Marijuana, as it is legislated, cannot under strict scrutiny be illegal under the prohibition of any State.
This is plain and simple: if there is a solid view of the State and its responsibilities, I think anyone with a rational mind can determine what the State can do about little issues like marijuana. However, due to the place in our socio-historical context, I think that marijuana shouldn't be made legal for reasons that history can defend. For instance, Dr. Francis Schaeffer notes the history of philosophy and the culmination of the "drug" world. Because his work is lengthy (and apparently, mine too), I'm only going to summarize it. He states that we have moved away from thinking in terms of universals (a theory and problem in philosophy) and bringing those universals to a complete unity with the particulars, and this is vital to the defining what a moral law is. This is known in philosophy as the One-Over-Many argument. This is overly complicated for me to explain, but suffice it to mean that in the history of philosophy as it stands here today is that strict measures should take place to inhibit the use of drugs.
Here's what Schaeffer had to say: "The work ethic, which had meaning within the Christian framework, now became ugly as the Christian base was removed... Because the only hope of meaning have been placed in the era of non-reason, drugs were brought into the picture...They hoped that drugs would provide meaning "inside one's head," in contrast to objective truth, concerning which they had given up hope (p. 206)." Can we be surprised? I think not.
Back to my evaluation: Herein I fall into a dilemma and fallacy:
1. I stated that the role of the state should be re-defined and relieved of its central governmental form over all the states.
2. Then I stated that the only way to enforce such a law and amend that certain drugs be illegal can only make sense in a central form. How do I make sense of all this?
Here is my answer: establish new form of government, i.e., Theonomy. Under a Theonomic government drugs will not only have their proper place, but the moral philosophy (which is where the problem is in question) under which marijuana is dealt with can make sense. It could help patients, restrict the unjust use of it, and protect the rights of the citizens against tyranny. Dr. G.L. Bahnsen in his Master's thesis wrote that there is a difference of the moral ethics of Statism, which affects the Christian and non-Christian alike to submit to its hegemonic ethic (that is, one supreme ethic that is enforced by law, though it is subtle); this form is atheistic and enforced to be obeyed in the schools and other social atmospheres. Here is where the impasse begins: A Christian ethic versus an anti-Christian ethic. There should be laws that protect the needs of the ill and the healthy. Theonomy I believe is the best and only solution that provides a viable and justified meaning to law and to liberty, in contrast to the current atheistic laws being amended and procured by the State. (Theonomy is taken from two Greek words: God and Law, which together means God's Law. It isn't a theocracy, but the laws in the bible, if maintained correctly with the exception of the ceremonial aspects of the law, should be amended.) Most of the debate however will always be one moral code over against another, whether it is Christian or atheist. The battle will never be won unless a truly moral ethic is procured. Atheism doesn't necessarily provide a moral code, because it denies the existence of universals, i.e., laws in general; it denies them in form, but not actually.
I do find that the socio-historical definitions of prohibitions, like marijuana, should not be legal as yet. However, there are measures that the state can use to secure the medical use. Hospitals could immunize the drug, thus inoculating the "effects" of marijuana but maintaining the medical. This type of bill should be passed. But as Prop. 215 stands, I cannot in good conscience vote yes. Reasons being that the proposition doesn't state what "kind" of marijuana is being allowed to the patients. It only states that "proposition 215 was designed to protect seriously and terminally ill patients from criminal penalties for using marijuana medically." Notice that there is no reference to what type of marijuana will be used. But say there was a bill that is drawn up and states that marijuana will be inoculated and available to "patients only," then I would vote a candid yes, but here it is not the case.
Do I believe that Marijuana should be legal? No. Due to the socio-historical context in moral philosophy and the diversity of Americans using it for personally unjustified motives, I think that restriction should only be procured by those who "need" it medically. The only way it can be legal in any sense, it should be under a Theonomic form of government, because laws are moral in it and make sense metaphysically.
No comments:
Post a Comment