Marijuana: Politics, Partisanship, and Demagoguery 11
The harm principle, paternalism, self-determination, and personhood
are all theories about an individual’s autonomy, personal liberty, and right
to privacy. These theories share a common theme: the state should play
no role in certain matters pertaining to individual activity. The idea that
the state knows what is best for individuals and should be allowed to gov-
ern under this principle goes against the ideals of our founders and their
beliefs in natural law. For the state to do so would be an “almost un-
American rationale for any type of government activity.” 68 The framers
explicitly acknowledged that individuals possess certain “unalienable
rights” 69 that are not enumerated in the text of the Constitution and are
not contingent on the relationship between individuals and the federal
government.70
By implementing the harm principle in our nation’s legislative and
judicial branches of government, the rights of individuals to maintain
lives by their own standards will once again be a reality. This their
government was founded on the principles of natural law; for the past
100 years, however, it has strayed from this foundation and created the
current system of overreaching legislatures with the mindset that the few
know what is right for the masses. The harm principle in no way is a
blank check to allow society to do as it pleases; it is simply a check on
government to respect the individual’s autonomy, liberty, and right to pri-
vacy. Drug use, for example, needs to be regulated to a certain point. Much
as with alcohol and tobacco, there must be age limits, quality standards,
and restrictions on when and where these products may be used. The war
on drugs has failed and will continue to fail; criminalizing drug use is not
the answer. The governmental interest in the well-being of the drug user
can be served best by controlling the quality and labeling of drugs and by
increasing the availability of drug treatment to those seeking such assis-
tance.71
There will always be opposition to drug use, simply because it is
viewed as immoral, but this alone should not cloud the judgments of the
legislature and the courts. In Bowers v. Hardwick,72 Associate Justice Harry
Blackmun quoted the following in his dissent: “Reasonable people may
differ about whether particular sexual acts are moral or immoral, but we
have ample evidence for believing that people will not abandon morality,
will not think any better of murder, cruelty and dishonesty, merely
because some private sexual practice which they abominate is not pun-
ished by the law.” 73 The correlation can be made to the issue of drug use,
and the moral disagreements of certain sections of society should not
carry the day.