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.
Previous Page Next Page