Marijuana
So, how do we apply The Party Of Choice belief to this topic? Simply use three steps:
First, measure and arrange all drugs - outside of marijuana - on a scale of addictability and potential damage. For instance, while alcohol can become a life-destroying addiction, it certainly doesn't compare to meth, cocaine, or LSD. Those drugs addict users quickly and almost always produce disastrous results, whereas alcohol is commonly enjoyed in moderation for entire lifetimes. So start by arranging drugs on a vertical scale, from "lightest" at the bottom up to "heaviest" at the top.
Second, after arranging this scale, allow society to decide where to draw a horizontal line. In other words, any drug below the line is an acceptable risk, whereas everything above it is too damaging, producing addicts too dangerous for the community. The Party Of Choice would honor society's decision of where to draw this line.
Third, allow scientific testing to decide where marijuana should be placed on the scale. The more quickly addictive and destructive it is, the higher it goes. If it is less damaging, then it goes lower. The key is this: No stigmas, no advocacy either way, just facts.
It appears at this time (though this could change) that marijuana would be near the bottom with alcohol. Both can be medicinal, both can be addictive in time, and both can be used long-term without catastrophic results. Both can also be deadly, dangerous, and destructive to one's work ethic and personal conduct. But again, studies are ongoing.
For the record, we do not use marijuana, advocate it, or even like it. But consistency is key. If marijuana poses roughly the same level of risk as alcohol, then it would rest below the line already established by society. Thus, any group making alcohol legal and marijuana illegal would be inconsistent in its message. That group would be drawing a vertical line - separating the two out of preference - rather than a horizontal line that judges all drugs on the same scale. Put simply, I don't want my preferences to be your laws.
Besides, inconsistency angers those who demand solid reasons for laws. In particular, college age voters will press the question, "How can marijuana be a crime when alcohol isn't?" To them, answers based in cultural traditions won't be answers at all.
If marijuana is indeed similar to alcohol, then they may have a point. But this issue is far from settled, and both sides should openly review the evidence, not their own press releases.
First, measure and arrange all drugs - outside of marijuana - on a scale of addictability and potential damage. For instance, while alcohol can become a life-destroying addiction, it certainly doesn't compare to meth, cocaine, or LSD. Those drugs addict users quickly and almost always produce disastrous results, whereas alcohol is commonly enjoyed in moderation for entire lifetimes. So start by arranging drugs on a vertical scale, from "lightest" at the bottom up to "heaviest" at the top.
Second, after arranging this scale, allow society to decide where to draw a horizontal line. In other words, any drug below the line is an acceptable risk, whereas everything above it is too damaging, producing addicts too dangerous for the community. The Party Of Choice would honor society's decision of where to draw this line.
Third, allow scientific testing to decide where marijuana should be placed on the scale. The more quickly addictive and destructive it is, the higher it goes. If it is less damaging, then it goes lower. The key is this: No stigmas, no advocacy either way, just facts.
It appears at this time (though this could change) that marijuana would be near the bottom with alcohol. Both can be medicinal, both can be addictive in time, and both can be used long-term without catastrophic results. Both can also be deadly, dangerous, and destructive to one's work ethic and personal conduct. But again, studies are ongoing.
For the record, we do not use marijuana, advocate it, or even like it. But consistency is key. If marijuana poses roughly the same level of risk as alcohol, then it would rest below the line already established by society. Thus, any group making alcohol legal and marijuana illegal would be inconsistent in its message. That group would be drawing a vertical line - separating the two out of preference - rather than a horizontal line that judges all drugs on the same scale. Put simply, I don't want my preferences to be your laws.
Besides, inconsistency angers those who demand solid reasons for laws. In particular, college age voters will press the question, "How can marijuana be a crime when alcohol isn't?" To them, answers based in cultural traditions won't be answers at all.
If marijuana is indeed similar to alcohol, then they may have a point. But this issue is far from settled, and both sides should openly review the evidence, not their own press releases.