Monday, November 15, 2010

The Right to Be High

There are many conspiracy theories on why marijuana is banned. Some say Nixon banned marijuana because the Hippies, who were the ones protesting against the Vietnam War, used it and he needed a reason to lock them up. Others say that William Randolf Hearst and Lammont Dupont from the Du Pont Company who developed and patented fuel additives such as tetraethyl lead, as well as the manufacture of pulp paper were threatened by hemp (plant which creates marijuana) which was promised to eliminate much of the need for wood-pulp paper, thus threatening to drastically reduce the value of the vast timberlands still owned by Hearst. But a conservative politician would say, with a straight face, that it has harms, it’s a drug and it’s addictive etc. Really? It should be, right? Since most nations in the world makes it illegal (including Malaysia) except for Holland and a few other states.

I’m not a pothead. I neither smoke cigarettes nor drink alcohol. I also don’t gamble. I consider myself a teetotaller and try my best to lead a clean life. Whatever it is, I have a firm belief that Malaysia should legalize marijuana for all purposes, not only for medical purposes. Yes, legalize. No, not only decriminalize. There is a stark difference and I believe that the state should play an active role in the regulation of marijuana, not just decriminalizing it only. From growing the stuff, selling it to the public in controlled quantities, creating a register for users and taxing it. The whole shebang! It’s like cigarettes lah. Who knows? Maybe we can establish a multinational corporation which sells marijuana like BAT which sells cigarettes. Malaysia Boleh!

The objective of this article is twofold. First, is advocating the libertarian approach where people have the right to bodily autonomy and that choices must be empowered. Secondly, is the ancillary view on how to minimise the drug trade and cartels. I got the inspiration from the referendum in California which was supposed to make marijuana legal. It was defeated by a 7 point margin....delaying the inevitable if you ask me.

When a state makes something illegal, there must be harms attached to that substance. Harms are negative effects. A state coerces something when there are potential harms (seatbelts, preventive detention), excessive harms to one’s own body (suicide, narcotics) and when there are harms to others (murder, torture). And this view varies according to a nation’s belief on paternalism or liberalism.

Let’s talk about the harms of marijuana. Are there any? Well, I have never heard of a brother who died due to an overdose of marijuana! It’s different from narcotics like heroine or ecstasy as marijuana is from a plant instead of heroine and ecstasy which are chemically made. It doesn’t lead to lung cancer like cigarettes or liver sclerosis like alcohol. It is clinically proven to be addictive, but if the substance has no harms attached to it, what is wrong with the addiction? It makes you inactive and hungry but how can that sort of harm be put as premium over individual liberty? There are neither immediate/instant nor latent harms to the body/mind, unlike alcohol or cigarettes where there are instant (hangover, smoke, bad breath) and latent harms to an individual (like cancer). Please bear in mind that marijuana has been allowed for medical purposes, such as the stimulation of hunger in chemotherapy and AIDS patients, lowered intraocular eye pressure (shown to be effective for treating glaucoma), as well as gastrointestinal illness. Marijuana is therapeutic yo!

Having said that, let’s talk about the right to bodily autonomy. We need to have the freedom to choose our actions. We, as social animals require freedom for self-actualisation. Yes, the social contract prescribes that citizens cede rights to the state in exchange for protection and social order. But in the context of marijuana, what is there to protect? From getting high, which has no tangible harms? Rights are a means to an end. And if that end is the sensation of getting high, who are we to judge? People are entitled to their own pursuit of happiness and self-actualisation. Marijuana does not cause 3rd party harm. In fact, it falls within the bounds of the Harm Principle advocated by John Stuart Mill. Even if the act of smoking marijuana causes harm to one’s soul, if it does not harm another’s soul, why should we prohibit it? It’s not against morality to smoke marijuana! Even if it is, morality is subjective and cannot be imposed against individuals arbitrarily!

Marijuana is a vehicle where the actual contention is the role of government in the lives of her citizens. To what extent can a government intervene in the private lives of her citizens? In this context, the government should play a supervisory role in the lives of her citizen, not a tyrannical role. Supervision must be done by informing the rakyat on the choices that they shall make, the merits and demerits of that choice (Hence the term informed choice). This can be done via campaigns and education. Instead what we see today is the government being a tyrant and banning things without respecting the citizen’s choice, thinking it is more intelligent than us in deciding what is best for ourselves!

On choice, arguments have been made that if a person takes marijuana, he is addicted to the substance and thus his choice is an irrational one. On that premise, the government being the rational actor is able to make decisions for that poor soul. Think of addiction to narcotics and people who wants to commit suicide (very irrational). Let’s dissect this argument and rebut it, shall we? There are varying levels of addiction. There is the minor addiction which is not that bad and cravings are there periodically (physiological addiction). And there is the major addiction where a person has a compulsion to take that substance and do that act (psychological addiction). The former entails controlled addiction like smoking cigarettes and alcoholism (maybe sex). The latter is compulsive addiction where you simply can’t control yourselves! The thing is in your mind 24/7. Think narcotics like heroine or ecstasy and compulsive gamblers. You can’t stop! In this instance, marijuana has been proven to be under the former. The addiction can be controlled and has been controlled. The addiction yardstick is equivalent to that of cigarettes and alcohol. Since that is the case, the choice of taking marijuana is a rational one!

On the ancillary point on combating the drug trade, the most effective to combat it is through the tactical move of competing with the illegal drug pushers. Drug pushers thrive from selling all types of drugs, marijuana included. Once the government legalizes marijuana, drug pushers would be deprived of their regular marijuana taking customers. Why? Because customers would choose to go to the legal markets than the illegal ones for fear of punishment. Citizens would also be more comfortable in dealing with the government (I know this is bizarre) than with crooks and criminals. Marijuana would be taxed, but the prices would be able to be as competitive as the illegal ones. Why? Because the drug pushers charge higher prices due not only to a limited supply of drugs but also because of the high risks involved (So high, you might earn the gallows). So pricing is not a problem and the pushers would be out of business in no time.
It is also better to ensure that customers go to legal marijuana centres than black market ones. This is because the black market has all sorts of drugs. And the pusher would of course entice the customer to try other products. You know, try and error. Marketing strategy. Maybe some went to business schools. Well, of course, the customer would be tempted to try and as the saying goes, the rest is history!! As compared to legal marijuana centres which sell only marijuana, we can ensure that these people take only marijuana. It’s about harm minimization. Think of the alcohol Prohibition in USA. Alcohol was banned. People went to the black market, where the level of liquor was high as it was unregulated. And the people paid the price! Same goes in this case. We don’t want our people to get hooked in other dangerous narcotics.
In conclusion, I have stated the importance of choice, the role of the government which is to supervise and also how this proposal can combat the drug trade. I hope society can be convinced with this view and vote for liberty! I’d like to rant more but next time,k?!