Raising children is not easy. Traditional – Biblical – values are everywhere under assault, as the culture questions, criticizes or condemns beliefs that were once commonplace. In just
one example, the past twenty years has brought us “medicinal medicine,” a catchy
phrase that seeks to normalize what was once rightly considered to be a
dangerous drug. Demonstrating the power
of the “big lie,” it appears that the constant repetition of this phrase is
misleading more and more people - Christians included - into believing that marijuana is somehow a “good”
that should be allowed.
An increasing number of Christians are starting to wonder, as
well, whether we should simply legalize this drug. After all, won’t that
minimize gang violence? Liquor and cigarettes are legal, and they are harmful
too? As the debate shifts from the main
question – is marijuana the kind of substance that society should endorse? – to
other questions – shouldn’t sick people have access to it, or isn’t reducing
the gang problem a good thing? – the balance tilts away from the traditional view.
As a prosecutor for a quarter of a century, I have come to
appreciate the importance of getting the question right. If jurors think they
are being asked to weigh in on whether the cops “rushed to judgment,” they may
well return a different (and incorrect) verdict than if they are given the
actual elements of the crime under consideration. The debate regarding
marijuana has evolved in a way in which the wrong question keeps getting out
there in the public square, so that opponents of legalization are constantly on
the defensive. We didn’t help matters by framing enforcement efforts as a
“war on drugs,” because wars are things we want to fight for a period of time
and then emerge victorious.
As long as there is a desire to escape sobriety, alcohol and drugs
will always be a problem. We cannot eliminate the source of the problem – human
weakness – any more than we can end, once and for all, vandalism, gang activity
or theft. But the law doesn’t seek to eliminate entirely, once and for all, a problem; that is of course not realistic. The law's purpose
is to set the normative values of the society and then enforce the rules, so
that people perceive the benefits of “right living” and experience some
deterrence when they want to act in ways that are self-destructive or
destructive of society. This of course requires that adults – people with mature judgment –
make the decisions. The only ultimate solution to the drug problem is to combat
demand - to show the mistake involved in using a controlled substance to help
cope with the stresses of life - but such involves a changing of one’s heart,
not a war. And we appear to be losing in that arena as well. Few times has “the
big lie” been utilized as effectively as in the campaign to legalize
marijuana. Crafting it as “medicine” was a master stroke. Who can argue
with the “goodness” of medicine? This lie is taking increasing hold in
our culture, and we see it with teens seeking “medicine” for their anxiety,
apparently oblivious to the fact that this mind-altering substance is making
matters much worse. Yet, this is the state of things today. Despite the initial
lie that legalization was necessary to help people with terminal illnesses who
have no appetite, such people were not being prosecuted and there were more
than enough palliative drugs available that could be used by a responsible
physician. Ask any police officer today and they will tell you about
young kids using their “medicinal marijuana card” as a ticket to get high.
So, bringing these reflections back to the question of whether to
legalize marijuana, the first question to consider is the one described above:
what is the proper role of law and of government as it relates to mind-altering
substances? It doesn’t take a social scientist to see the destructive impact on
lives that drug use carries. Regular use causes apathy, impairs judgment,
interferes with learning and memory, distorts perception and diminishes
coordination. The danger posed by drivers under the influence of marijuana is
becoming increasingly recognized. High doses can result in hallucinations and
panic reactions and for teens, the normal risk of depression and other psychiatric
disorders is increased. The substance contains carcinogens, so the risk of
cancer is also present. In short, nothing
good comes out of a dependence on
marijuana for the vast majority of users. Additionally, though it is not the
case for all users, marijuana is a gateway drug for some, leading them to
increasing dependence on harder drugs. Whatever problems have led the user to
seek escape in this fashion will not go away, as he effectively sticks his head
in the sand by “tuning out.” The problems persist, and get worse. Jobs are
lost, friendships and families broken, children and dependents hurt.
Start running from life, as most users do, and you never stop running, as
the inherently addictive nature of these substances requires greater and
greater use to attain the same result.
What does the adult say to this? He teaches the benefits of
sobriety, of a life lived in sober and positive pursuits. No doubt, this
is an unpopular message; indeed, to modern ears it will sound bizarre. But the
history of this country shows the benefits of what can be accomplished when
children are taught character. Read the biographies of any of the great men and
women of our history. And the message, however unpopular, has the added
advantage of being true. There are positive ways to deal with stress and with
problems, most notably those involving exercise and the cultivation of
friendships. Interdependence with others and dependence on God are key
components. Working for the good of others can also be greatly rewarding. Is it
any coincidence that successful twelve step programs make use of these ways of
living? The user does not want to hear these things, but it is what he needs in
order to get back on a healthy track.
But perhaps healthy living isn't what the user wants. What then
does society do? What good comes from eliminating the social stigma and the
deterrent effect that comes from the law – the expression of society’s
understanding of “the good” – staking out the clear position that this is not
the way to live? When did we become so confused as a culture that what we
took for a given in the past - dependence on mind altering substances is bad -
is not recast into part of a "healthy lifestyle" and expression of my
personal choice that doesn't harm anyone?
If we believed that users could still be productive and would not
harm themselves and others, perhaps the case for legalizing could be made. But
where does that notion come from? Does it take anything more than common sense
to realize how much society suffers when an increasing percentage of people
want to "medicate" themselves into apathy and nirvana?
In my next post, I'll consider two of the most popular arguments in support of legalization.
3 comments:
Thank you for this post. I have worked with high school students for over 15 years, so this important topic is germane to my vocation in Indiana. I look forward to your next post, especially if you will address how the ills of marijuana are substantially different than alcohol.
How would you answer the arguments I deal with: 1.) Alcohol is just as destructive as marijuana, yet the government has chosen to regulate and tax one while spending billions to ineffectively restrict another. 2.) At great cost, Prohibition failed to effectively restrict alcohol while ironically helping establish the American mafia. 3.) It's not the role of government to keep people from ruining their lives. 4.) There are many vices in our culture that are legal if operated within regulations (alcohol, strip clubs, gambling, even unhealthy food and cohabitation). While there are biblical injunctions against ungodly practices, in the framework of modern jurisprudence, why is marijuana illegal instead of regulated?
Any response would be appreciated or perhaps a future post will address this.
Dan,
My next post does address those points, but I'll answer them here in brief. Feel free to write me at al@pleaseconvinceme.com if you'd like to discuss any of these points in greater detail.
1) Alcohol is no doubt worse than marijuana when its abused, especially considering the violence that alcohol often fuels and the carnage on the roadways. We would be better off without it, but it is 1)so heavily embedded in our culture that it cannot be eliminated and more importantly 2) it has positive attributes to it. After all, it is a beverage, has certain beneficial qualities to it (eg. red wine) and it can be consumed moderately and responsibly. I'm still waiting to hear what good marijuana brings, other than to a tiny fraction of terminally ill people. The broader point is that we should not add to the list of bad but legal things; we should only endorse it as a culture - which is what making it legal will do - if it offers something positve. The argument at play would be like me saying that I intend to produce a product that will pollute the rivers with some nasty chemical and I should be allowed to because other products also pollute the river. Such thinking would logically lead to allowing all drugs to be legal, hardly a movement in the right direction.
2) This is a variation on the argument implicit in 1): if one bad thing is legal, then all bad things should also be legal. By this logic, all drugs should be legal, because the demand for them will encourage gangs to supply them. I would, again, draw the line at allowing things that have some positive good to them. Notice that the proponents of marijuana understand this and are purporting to offer it - it's "medicine" after all. But this is the big lie - let's have them offer real proof of the benefits of inhaling mind-altering carcinogens before we endorse their use. Notice too the shifting of moral blame - the gangs are not the fault of the users - after all they are the ones whose demand for the product fuels the violence associated with distributing it - it is instead those who think that law should function as its always functioned. This, by the way, is why I would not adopt the current model of treating drug abuse as a "disease" that eliminates any moral responsibility from the user. While we should offer programs to help addicts, we should make clear that they are responsible for their behavior and their choices, and that it's not okay to shift the blame to others, their upbringing or society.
3) Government serves a number of purposes. It defines normative behavior and seeks to discourage bad behavior. Think for a moment about what it means to ruin one's life. Perhaps if the person lived on a deserted island, he could claim the right to be left alone. But each of us accepts the benefits of society and each therefore owes something to society - the social contract theory. If I become addicted to drugs, what can I offer society? Addicts are users, who end up destroying not just their own lives but the relationships that once mattered to them; they end up costing society quite a bit because they need to get funding to continue living that lifestyle. Where do they get that funding, if they can't work, or refuse to? Will they steal for it? Take if from family and friends? Go on disability? Again, we are dealing with a "big lie" that being a "user" is a victimless crime. That may be what we see on the surface, but there is much more at play in reality.
4) This again is a variation on other arguments. There are vices that are part of the human condition, and we seek to discourage them even if they remain legal. Eventually, if enough people think marijuana is benign, it too will become legal. My reason for opposing legalization is that I am yet to be convinced that it has any positive value (again other than for a tiny fraction of terminally ill paitents and for them I suspect pharmaceutical drugs can perform the same function). It is a mind altering substance with long term deleterious effects on the mind, brain and body. There is, in my view, nothing to be gained by making it legal.
You didn't mention cigarettes in your list. I think it serves as a good example to end with. It is a vice that is deeply embedded in our culture, and so it remains legal but regulated. We are far better off by eliminating it entirely, so we seek to educate and influence people through the media about how harmful it is. Making something worse like marijuana legal is a move in the oppostive direction. It would be as if some group strarted pushing the notion that cigarettes were medicine, so we should be able to smoke in restuarants again and in offices. A rational society tries to eliminate dangerous vices wherever it can, and educate the population as to healthy and productive ways to live. Chemical dependency takes a heavy toll on us as a culture. Better to combat it than to believe the lie and act as if it were true.
Post a Comment