Legalizing Marijuana: Ethical Considerations - Essay Example

Running Head: ETHICAL THEORIES AND A TOPIC Legalizing marijuana: Ethical considerations Legalizing marijuana: Ethical considerations The use of drugs creates wasted lives and broken hearts of the families who watch their loved ones change and deteriorate from the self abuse. However, the fact that drugs are illegal causes more problems within society than does the abuse. Legal ramifications for drug use and keeping the sale of drugs illegal takes control away from the state and puts it into the hands of those who have criminal intent. Additionally, maintaining the warehousing of prisoners creates a high drain of resources that could be put to much better use. The most important factor in regard to the crime of drug use is that it is a self abusive crime, the only victim of the commission of this crime being the person using the drug. The illegal nature of drugs creates all of the victimization associated with drug use. More specifically, marijuana has properties that have the ability to naturally support different types of illnesses. Therefore, it is ethically irresponsible for society to continue to support the criminalization of drugs, especially in the case of marijuana. Through the lens of virtue ethics, one can examine an issue in regard to moral good and moral evil (Darwall, 2003, p. 53). One of the ways in which society has collectively determined that drugs should be criminalized is through the concept that they represent a moral evil. The social point of view is that anything that threatens the perception of safety and normalcy should be criminalized in order to provide perceived protection. The problem with this point of view is that it is blind to the realities of the effects of criminalization which are creating a far more moral evil than the self abuse of drug use represents. The moral evils that are created through criminalization is that it empowers people who have constructed evil intent, most often through greed, to create collaborative efforts that are outside of the control of the state. Virtue ethics is defined by perception. An example is given by Darwall (2003), in regard to two men who can provide another with the same service or advantage, the first man doing the service because he feels it is his moral responsibility and does it through a sense of altruism, where the second man does it because it fulfills an aspect of his own greed. The discussion is centered upon which man will have the greatest amount of sentiment, in this case gratitude, from the person who receives the service. It is the perceived motivation of the person providing the service that creates the level of gratitude as a response (p. 53). The fact is, however, that both men provide the same service, thus the result is not relevant to the motivation. This is the core of the problem where the illegality of drug use is concerned. Illegal drugs have been framed within the context of immoral behavior, thus criminalized. However, the effects are far worse than the social cure. Morality is a central issue in this assessment. One of the biggest issue in socially constructed morality is the confusion that is apparent between the concept of morality and the perception of weakness. Weakness is often perceived as immoral, thus creating a conflict with the legal system and the public good. Despite the ideologically defined constructs of freedom within the United States, many of the laws are based upon perceptions of morality. According to Gardiner (2005, however “Some philosophers hold that a person’s actions and attitudes are open to moral assessment only so far as they affect other persons” (p. 101). Therefore, the use of drugs, the specific effects on the body in using drugs, is not viable as a defining aspect of personal choice in regard to morals. A weakness that is sometimes perceived in those with addictive behaviors is that of a lack of self respect, thus society has determined that many behaviors that are signs of a lack of self respect must be made illegal. This form of thinking is very flawed, and laced with notions that a collective sense of self respect throughout a community must also be established through criminalizing certain behaviors such as drug use or prostitution in order to establish a moral community. Gardiner states that if morality is concerned with actions that are interpersonal, then often the respect of self might come into conflict, thus creating a dilemma in regard to strict morality (p. 102). Marijuana, more specifically, creates an ethical dilemma for the determination of the criminality of its use in regard to the morality issue. Marijuana is a plant, dried and then put into a form that can be either smoked or ingested. The medical uses for marijuana are plentiful, many of those uses replacing drugs that have far more serious side effects and have a lack of the natural elements that are available through the use of marijuana. There are over 200 medical uses for marijuana. Some of these uses include effectiveness as an anti-nauseant and appetite stimulant, which is very important in combating the effects of chemotherapy during cancer. Another condition where this use is helpful is in AIDS patients where the condition of wasting disease is a primary cause of death in third world countries and a contributing factor to deaths within the US (Gieringer, Rosenthal, & Carter, 2008, p. 44). Some of the adverse affects of using marijuana include headache, dry-mouth, decreased coordination, tachycardia, changes in pulmonary function, and altered body temperature (Oneivi, 2002, p. 622). In contrast, possible side affects of compazine, a commonly used anti-nauseant used in patients on a chemotherapy course of treatment include severe allergic reactions which include hives, itching, difficulty breathing, etc., agitation, altered mental abilities, drooling, excessive sweating, irregular or fast heartbeat, tremors, and a whole host of serious issues (Drugs.com, 2011). The purpose of keeping marijuana illegal is not morally justified, but is in fact, immoral in that it adversely affects those who need the drug for a more safe course of anti-nausea treatment. Moreover, the drug can be used for the purposes of anti-anxiety, a social affliction with which many people legitimately suffer. The drug also provides relief from many of the effects of a variety psychological disorders, thus the concept of self-medicating which occurs in patients who are seeking relief when medical help has not been available (Castle & Murray, 2004, p. 168). With the evidence of potential benefits to the use of the drug, the fact that it has, until recent history, been universally illegal in the United States, with only some states just beginning to legalize it for medical purposes, the purpose of its criminalization would not seem to be for true moral purposes. Marijuana has less side effects than does alcohol and tends to induce mild paranoia, thus lowering the event of driving while under its effects or other risky behavior, so its illegality is in conflict with the concept of moral structuring of the community. Moreover, the criminalization of marijuana runs in direct contradiction with moral thought. There are many people who can medically benefit from the use of marijuana, thus denying them better medical treatment is contrary to moral behavior as it is defined by actions that have an effect in other peoples lives. As well, the criminalization of the use, possession, and sale of the product means that a great number of people have their lives ruined by deciding to assert personal choice over legal considerations. This, unfortunately, includes a great number of young people who are still trying to find their identity through rebellion in their youth. Therefore, a personal choice, one that has little to no effect from a legal point of view on the lives of others, is a source of negative affect on their lives because of the choices that others make about how they should live their lives. That is in contrast to the philosophical discussion about morality as it is seen in virtue ethics. One of the ways in which the attitude toward morality should be approached within a social construct is through negative morality. In Asian philosophy, negative morality is found through finding inner stillness and in doing nothing that might cause harm. Negative morality suggests that the impact on another life may be worse than that of doing nothing. In addition, one might take the road of the definition of justice as defined by Socrates. Socrates primarily defined justice as minding one’s own business and not interfering in the business of others (Gardiner, 2005, p. 126). Justice should be moral, but in the United States it is not defined by true morality, but by the perception of morality. Therefore, while the concept of making marijuana illegal within the United States may appear to be through the theories of virtue ethics, the truth is that it constitutes a selfishness on the part of politicians in promoting the concept of danger in order to create a demand and a need for their interference. In creating this demand for interference, the politician positions himself as important to the safety of the public, thus creating the illusion that without his interference in the lives of “them”, the ones who are not “us’, “them” being those who live on the fringes of conformity, the community will not be safe. There is nothing moral about this illusion, nothing that suggests that it is done for any reason other than selfish desire on the part of the politician to retain his power. The truth is that the theories of ethical egoism allow for better explanations for the reasons that marijuana is illegal. Ethical egoism suggests, in contrast to virtue ethics, that whatever is done is ultimately done in order to benefit the self. Conversations about ethical egoism revolve, not around how people do behave, but how they should behave, creating a ripe environment to promote judgments that surpass the threshold of the rights of others (Ingram & Parks, 2010, p. 29). Marijuana is not a recreational drug that is attractive to those who desire power and prestige. The drug depresses ambition, creates a mellowed out attitude towards life, and creates a general feeling inner peace. The drug affects short-term memory and creates some paranoia within those who use the drug. Therefore, those who are seeking a public position would most likely not be attracted to this type of drug on a regular basis. There is no benefit to using marijuana within society for those who seek power, therefore, those who seek power demonize it in order to fulfill self promotion. Alcohol, on the other hand, is a socially respected drug, used for social inclusion and providing a position for a person who can imbibe without serious affects. Having a scotch with a group during a social situation that is connected to the public sphere is an effective way to become one with the group, however, if that scotch has too much of a physical impact, then one is viewed as weak. Therefore, the social construction of the belief system that revolves around alcohol use creates a conflict where one must imbibe, but must not be a victim of the effects of using the drug. This creates a secondary group of people who reject the idea that the effects are negative, but suggest that the effects are a source of humor and frivolity. Contrast the austere upper middle class as they take a glass of wine at dinner or a scotch with colleagues against tailgaters, full of beer, sweating and shouting at the game. Both groups have defined their use through the expectations that have been constructed by ethical egoism. They have expectations of how their peers should behave that are not based upon facts of human behavior. Marijuana use has not developed socially acceptable groups in which the use of marijuana fits into the expected behavior of its members. This is not to suggest that the use does not exist, but that social definitions have not included its use within the framework of expected behavior. Therefore, the use of marijuana has no personal value to those who are in power, thus it creates a fertile topic in which to point fingers and create socially undesirable members. History holds a story of President Clinton as he said he tried marijuana, but did not inhale. The question becomes, what if the place where he was at when he tried the drug had been invaded by police, putting him in jail? His life would have forever been marked by this experimental choice, his political career over before it began, and regardless of one’s political beliefs, depriving the United States with a man who has worked towards the benefit of its citizens. If you ask any person for the reasons that they do not use marijuana, it is doubtful that they will say that they choose not to use it because it is illegal. Criminalization is not a deterrent, but it creates a market that is not regulated, a buyer who is buying a product that has no determination of safety, and a user who is risking his future through personal choices of how he or she wants to use his mind and body. In addition, criminalization of marijuana burdens the public with the expenses of law enforcement, incarceration, and forced rehabilitation. None of these effects fall under the category of responsible moral behavior within the public sphere. Criminalization is the central responsible concept that causes harm to those who sell and use marijuana. In addition, the benefits of the natural substance is routinely deprived to those who could have credible advantages through the medical benefits it contributes. In any form, whether it be marijuana, or through alcohol, msg, or sugar, the body should not be abused with substances that do harm. However, just as it is difficult to regulate the food choices of Americans because they have been given the freedom to pollute their body with trans-fats and high fructose corn syrup, it should not be within the power of the legal system to regulate which drugs an individual wants to use. Through the concepts of morality within virtue ethics, an individual does not have the right to adversely affect another persons life. Public morality would include the idea that in criminalizing behavior that has no direct effect on others would be a violation of morality. The choices one makes may create a social response, denying them employment, alienating them from their families, or causing harm to their bodies. However, public consequences violate the sanctity of personal choice, imposing consequences that may never be redeemed, and empowering the behavior of one age to ruin the rest of one’s life. References Castle, David J., and Robin Murray. 2004. Marijuana and madness psychiatry and neurobiology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Darwall, Stephen L. (2003). Virtue ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Drugs.com. (2011). Compazine side effects. Micromedex. Accessed on 21 February 2011 from http://www.drugs.com/sfx/compazine-side-effects.html Gardiner, Stephen Mark. (2005). Virtue ethics, old and new. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University. Gieringer, Dale H., Ed Rosenthal, and Gregory T. Carter. (2008). Marijuana medical handbook: practical guide to the therapeutic uses of marijuana. Oakland, Calif: Quick American. Ingram, David, and Jennifer A. Parks. 2010. The complete idiots guide to understanding ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books. Oneivi, E. S. (2002). Biology of marijuana: From gene to behavior. New York: Taylor & Francis, Inc. Read More