Four-Twenty: Intro

Today is 4/20 and the time is almost 4:20 PM (though this will be posted shortly thereafter). This number has significance to marijuana smokers everywhere. What better day time to begin explaining my rather strong opinions surrounding this interesting plant? I’ll keep it short-ish… for now.

Indeed. Marijuana (Cannabis) is a psychoactive plant producing a high in those individuals that choose to smoke the flower (or bud) of it. It is HIGHLY illegal in almost every country, I believe. Here in the United States is no exception.

Should this be the case? Should it be illegal?  Well no, of course not. A week or so ago I did a post highlighting the importance of preserving the peaceful personal choice of the individual. Smoking marijuana qualifies as a peaceful personal choice. In short: Let the people do what they want to do.

This is what I consider to be the master argument on this issue, but I have several others that I could bring in and make this post painfully long to read. I won’t do this (and a big sigh of relief for me and you).

I will post in the future about this though. This is one issue that I have complete and confidence in arguing. This is because I believe that there exists no good argument for keeping marijuana illegal (non that I have seen so far). If you believe that you have one, then please let me hear it! I love talking about this stuff.

So let this post serve as an introduction to a series of arguments for marijuana legalization. This’ll be fun!

The Argument for Personal Choice

The following is, I suppose, mostly geared towards the United States citizens and their government (mostly because I am an American, go figure). However, this is also a philosophical topic that applies to the general notion of government (or the state) and freedom.

With that being said, I have one question to start with.

Do you believe that the government has authority over the personal choices of peaceful individuals?

To me, the only acceptable answer to this question is, of course, NO.

Now… Many individuals might agree with me on this. Unfortunately, I believe that a large portion of these individuals might not really understand what they are saying when they say yes to this question. There is much hypocrisy to be had here, on both sides of the political spectrum (left and right).

An example: democrats/liberals traditionally are quite adamant when it comes to notions of personal freedom. That’s great, me too. They advocate for equal marriage rights and the legalization of drugs, for example. I call for these things too. I believe that an individual (male, female, gay, straight, old, young, black, white, or pink) should be free to do as s/he pleases in all facets of his/her life (as long as s/he doesn’t infringe upon another’s liberty, of course). I think that personal choice (even if I don’t agree with said choice) should be free from any and all interference from other individuals and especially from the government.

So, a person who says yes to my question should advocate for (just to name some examples):

1. Gay marriage, which is a personal choice
2. Drug legalization, also a personal choice
3. Gun ownership, you guessed it… personal choice

But wait a second… it’s the democrats/liberals that tend to call for tighter interference from the government regarding guns, with some more radical individuals even calling for the complete prohibition of guns or perhaps a certain type of gun (this seems to be the most recent focus).

Buying a gun and owning a gun is a personal choice of an individual just as two homosexuals getting married is a personal choice. All the other fluff that is thrown around in this debate is of little relevance, I’m afraid. It’s not complicated, guys. Marriage, drugs, gambling, prostitution, and gun ownership are all examples of personal choices that do not negatively affect other individuals and, as I’ve said, the government has zero authority over the peaceful personal choices of individuals.

The hypocrisy extends to the right as well. Republicans/conservatives are big on gun rights, yet they are so afraid, it seems, of allowing gays to marry or to legalize drugs.

You either believe that people should be free or you do not. I don’t think you can really pick and choose what other people should be free to do and what they should not be free to do. To do this would imply that you (or the government) has a higher claim over an individual’s life than that person does. No. Just no.

Reiterating, in addition to the general question above, I ask a second, more specific question:

Do you believe that the government should prohibit x from the people? (where x is a personal choice that does not infringe upon another individual’s rights)

The answers to these questions must line up. They either should both be answered with a YES or both be answered with a NO. If you believe that the government should prohibit the people from engaging in a particular peaceful action then you must own up to the fact that you also believe that the government has authority over personal choice.

Please don’t be a hypocrite. 🙂