[89] in libertarians
Re: Atlantic Monthly on Marijuana
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Thu Jul 14 20:15:10 1994
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 94 20:09:36 -0400
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: seelig@MIT.EDU, vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
>Marijuana, like all drugs (including many prescription and over-the-counter
>drugs), ARE potentially dangerous if misused.
Agreed, though it happens that for mj the dangers are about the same as
for tobacco and the same if not less dangerous than alcohol. (I been
around pot abusers and alcohol abusers at parties, I'd much rather deal
with the potheads.)
>However, am I to believe that a law, such as the one on marijuana, should be
>repealed on the basis that this drug is not seriously harmful?
No. There is more to it than that.
1) By making it clear that pot users will not "go off all crazed and kill
someone" you take that argument away.
2) By making it clear that lots of average people are involved with it, you
take away the argument that it creates subversive social behavior
or is not likely to be a problem if criminalized.
3) By showing that it was banned for cultural reasons rather than
medical ones, you take away a medical dangers argument.
There are many factions of people with their own agenda for drug prohibition.
1 knocks out the "law and order" opponents, 2 the "good of society crowd",
and 3 the medical (FDA type) opponents.
By stripping apart the arguments for this drug in particular you, are left
with only one central issue. Should people be able to put things into
their bodies for pleasure that have a low level of health risk?
I make an analogy with legal test cases. A good test case is one in which
there are little extraneous issues for debate (such as "does this law
apply here or there," "is this a state or federal issue" and so on).
When there are lots of other issues, it is hard for the central issue
to be debated.
With evidence of this sort for pot, the opponents of pot legalization have
only the arugment of "moral decay" vs. personal freedom. It is much easier
to win that apart from all the others.
Then, once that has been won, it is no longer an issue for the next
drug in question. Then the next legal/moral/policy question can focus
only on the new issue. E.G. we agreed with pot that its better to have
personal freedom than possible "moral decay," (and will have the
experience to show that the decay doesn't happen or is a problem
only for a few) now can we agree that its also better to have freedom
even when there is more pronounced danger to the person wanting to use
the drug? And so on.
Strip the opponents into their pieces. Attack each piece en masse
apart from all the others, then move on. This is good political tactics.
It's the "slippery slope" argument in reverse. (Gun opponents are
best at this - "but its only a waiting period...") We have to
tilt the slope in the other direction for a change.
We get people to accept principle one step at a time. Even if we
are only partially successful, we still have a better situation
than if we were not at all successful. At least those persecuted
for pot, and those jail cells wasted on pot users, would be free.
