“On Morality and Marijuana”
I am beginning to wonder whether our politicians in this country are even capable of having a moral debate.
Stephen Harper has been lambasted in the media for his hyperbolic claim that the health effects associated with marijuana smoking are “infinitely” greater than those associated with tobacco smoking. Has anyone bothered to notice that the comparative health effects of the two activities are rather beside the point?
Whether marijuana smoking is less harmful that tobacco smoking is morally irrelevant. Why not legalize marijuana because, after all, a man is already allowed to sniff paint in his own home? To wit, even if one were to argue that the legality of the one act sets a precedent for the legalization of the other, one would still have to argue on moral grounds that the two acts are similar.
I doubt that a convincing argument could be made for this claim. But Justin Trudeau does not seem interested in arguing the issue either way. Instead, he’s glibly claimed that the law no longer works for Canadians, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Let it be known that His Royal Highness has decreed that the anti-marijuana law no longer suits the people!
If the Liberals do not rule by fiat (and I have my suspicions), then what is the basis for Trudeau’s claim? Have some Canadians expressed their preferences in a survey? That, too, is irrelevant. This is a moral discussion, after all. It’s not simply a matter of taste, as though legalizing marijuana were as trivial as selecting the food options for a banquet. The good of Canadians, including the most vulnerable among us, is at stake. And for this reason, the question of preference or personal pleasure is quite beside the point. Psychopaths might find pleasure in the act of torturing animals. Should then the act be legalized? Predictably, Trudeau offers nothing resembling a moral principle to help us make these crucial distinctions.
Morally speaking, marijuana smoking is nothing in principle like tobacco smoking. Most individuals who smoke marijuana – with the exception of those who use it for medicinal purposes – do so to escape the world. The act is inherently anti-social. (Imagine passing a bud around the thanksgiving dinner table!) To be sure, tobacco use is risky and harmful. But it is one thing to permit something harmful because criminalizing it would cause more problems than it would solve. It is quite another thing to legalize something harmful because it bears a superficial resemblance to the former thing.
The question our politicians should be asking is whether we want to live in a country where harmful and anti-social behaviours are legalized, with no more than personal preference as our moral guide. After all, the law is nothing if not a teacher.
Brian Rogers, PhD