Big Brother or Little Advisor: Freedom and Personal Morality
Having been born and raised in the United States, I and most of my peers take the idea of freedom pretty much for granted. We come to adopt the cultural belief that "liberty and justice for all" is an exceedingly good thing, without necessarily gaining an appreciation for what that means in the greater international and historical context. Just what is freedom? More importantly, what should it mean when applied to modern issues? Where is the line between something being a matter of personal choice vs. a matter of public interest, or otherwise something the the government should be involved in?
As a foot in the door to the debate, here's a recent quote from a friend of mine:
"Many people (myself included) feel that it is perfectly fine to incorporate any aspect of your belief into practice, voting included, as long as that it doesn't infringe on the "rights" of other people... It could be argued that we really shouldn't passing judgment on others decision if those decisions harm no one else (abortion being a unique case, as it can be argued that abortion does indeed harm someone). But such topics as gay marriage really shouldn't be legislated, as gay marriage harms no one."
I grew up feeling like the repeal of prohibition by the 21st amendment was a sad thing. Smoking, too, being clearly a destructive practice, seemed ridiculous to be allowed. But is it the government's place to enforce moral pressures, even if they are clearly positive? And where is the line that designates what should and should not be a controlled substance?
I'm now willing to accept that just because something is unhealthy, wrong, destructive, or otherwise sub-optimal does not mean it should be legislated (Especially not federally). Or, to word it in a slightly more political correct manner, just because I believe something is unhealthy, wrong, destructive, or otherwise sub-optimal does not mean that I should vote to have it legislated. The government need not be the arbiter of moral guidance for our culture. The individual should be free to make his own moral decisions, as long as it hurts no one else. What the government can do is provide education to help individuals make informed and well reasoned personal decisions.
For example, most health problems in the west, from obesity to diabetes and cancer, are caused by our diet and lifestyle. It's pretty clear that quality of life can be improved by adopting a more healthy lifestyle. It is not the government's place to force us to eat healthy. The government might help, however, by making sure that the proper information conduits are in place so that people are aware of the details of the issue and its solution.
I think my friend in the above quote has expressed part of the issue very well -- the part about not messing with people's personal business. I'm incline to expound further, however, and move us out of the political arena and more into the personal.
In a classroom or work environment, pressure from "big brother" is extremely important. Students are forced to complete homework assignments they may or may not see the point of (And in fact a lot of students are quite pineful about it), and bosses hold employees to standards that always feel just out of reach. A large part of what we pay for as college students is nothing more than to have someone to hold us accountable to study hard. We work much harder under pressure, and thereby learn much more and get much more done. The self-edification process is accelerated by being forced into something that we either didn't have the motivation to actively pursue ourselves, or that we downright didn't think was worth our while at first.
It is with this in mind that I am sympathetic to, if confused about, the continued prohibition of marijuana in the U.S. Okay, maybe that's too controversial an example. What about coke? Heroin? LSD? We outlaw them for a reason, no?
I suppose it all comes down to just how debatable the destructiveness of a certain behavior is. Many people hold that eating whatever they want contributes more joy to their life than does a healthy lifestyle, and that's hard to argue with on objective terms (Though I doubt you'll hear a CHIP graduate say such a thing). I've also heard video game addicts say that they really enjoy wasting away their youth in a virtual reality -- and who am I to argue, just because I personally feel more fulfilled having broken out of such sensual endeavors? The same goes for alcohol, strip-clubs, and marijuana -- the issues become gray and diluted by debate and rationalizations.
Where is the line? How much power do we want to give big brother to watch over us? He already does his best to protect us from destroying our lives with anything from methamphetamine to Methadone, but should he inhibit us from enjoying a little weed? Or should he just offer advice, leaving the actual decision up to the individual?
--
Eric Scott is a Computer Science and Mathematics student at Andrews University
Search
- Elaine Nelson on The Unchurched
- Julius on What's So Funny About Community Organizing?
- bevin on The Unchurched
- blakelaing on The Unchurched
- Nic Samojluk on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Harlen Miller on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
- Alexander Carpenter on What's So Funny About Community Organizing?
- Don Rhoads on What's So Funny About Community Organizing?
- rc on Desmond Ford on the Atonement
- frank7 on A Review of "For the Sake of the Gospel" by Des Ford
User login
© Copyright 2008 Adventist Forums 
Comments
Ah, Eric, you're bound to get many responses as this touches many debatable topics.
It's always been a little ironic to see the conservative political party argue for less government, while at the same time wanting government intrusion into one's personal, even bedroom space!
Thomas Jefferson made a cogent statement some 200 years ago that "Whether my neighbor has 9 gods or no gods, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." That seems to be quite a good motto we should consider when evaluating legislation that would encroach on very personal matters.
Smoking? It should be controlled to the extent of permitted in designated places because there is more than enough scientific evidence that "second hand smoke" is very deleterious to others in close proximity.
Marijuana? Legalization would instantenousy remove the criminal element and the very expensive law enforcement that has done nothing to stop its use. The supply will always equal the demand. It is less habituating and harmful than cigarettes, and if it were taxed and sold, legally, as cigarettes, millions could be used much better in education and healthcare.
Abortion? Most of never know whether someone has had an abortion. It is none of our business what choice individuals and their physicians make in this most personal area.
Gay marriage? No one has yet shown how this threatens, let alone damages, heterosexual marriage. If marriage is that fragile, a wind can blow it away. With regard to the Massachusetts and recent California decision allowing gay marriages, one might ask: Did the institution of marriage collapse when the right to marry outside one's race was declared in the U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia? Was it degraded? The Court then went against the "will of the people of Virginia." The Supreme Court has gone against the will of the majority in other instances: slavery was practiced by much of the U.S. before the Civil War; women's suffrage went against the majority when it was finally passed. "Tradition" can be a heavy burden to bear when that is the only reason given in support of or against legislation. The majority may decide in elections, but the courts defend the minorities' rights.
This question is complex because it all depends on how one sees the immediate and far reaching results of such choices.
Even now, the modern care and costs of heart attacks, obesity related illnesses, smoking related lung cancers, is passed onto the rest of society through higher insurance premiums for everyone else or taxes if Medicare/Medicaid is the secondary insurance. So, unfortunately what my neighbor chooses to do with his health - picks my pocket and may affect the care of my broken leg.
Economics affects all of us, and health care in any form requires an understanding of economics. So should government, as the representative of the people impose stronger legal inducements on the body of people to limit the costs of such behaviors to itself? It already does with safety belts, airbags, child seats, anti-lock brakes, enviromentally limited emissions, mandated crash tests...to name one industry affected.
How far should it go? However far it wants- if supported by enough votes. How else can we decide this question fairly?
Elaine,
Could you please direct me to your research sources that show marijuana is less habituating and harmful than cigarettes? Or is what you are claiming simply reflecting the general 'buzz' out there...(no pun intended)?
Frank
"How far should it go? However far it wants- if supported by enough votes. How else can we decide this question fairly?"
Arlyn, as mentioned earlier, it is not the majority that always decides questions fairly; if it did, then the Supreme Court would not need to decide on divisive issues. Minority rights need protection from the majority. Their are too many examples that could illustrate that position. We all belong to one or more minority groups and are we willing to give up our rights and privileges to the majority?
Yes, we have many laws to encourage safety and protection, but in the event they are not used, or ineffective, we do take care of smoking-related illnesses; accidents when seat belts are not worn, and many other related conditions.
We should actively encourage better eating habits and living habits, but we still care for those who have not always lived by the best rules. Who among us is exempt? None of us is immune from conditions we either cause, or even aid. If we are a caring nation, we do not turn away those who haven't lived as they should.
Eric,
You are the new generation asking the same old questions that go back as far as recorded time. Freedom means; doing what you please, when you please, within the powers available to you. The real debate beings when the question is raised; who should take responsibility for the choices you make?
Once a group of free men get together they set up procedural rules concerning how decisions will be made. The American Constitution is the best document on the planet laying out these rules. It is a document defining the freedoms of the individual verses the group. Take time to read through it, especially the Bill of Rights; after that begin reading books on each one of the rights and principles in the Constitution. Happy trails, when you are an old man with great grandchildren you will still be reading.
Oh, and by the way, don’t try to kill people who disagree you when you feel you finally have it all figured out, because just over the hill, you will find out things are not as clear as you thought they were, and the guy you thought about killing just might be right.
Addiction
Here is how two U.S. drug experts rated various drugs according to the individual factors that the U.N. World Health Organization (WHO) considers when determining addictive qualities [1].
Both researchers were asked to rate six of the most common recreational drugs according to risk factors, from 1 being the most risky and 6 being the least risky of the six. This is how they ranked marijuana against caffeine and four other drugs:
Ratings by Dr. Jack Henningfield
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Intoxication
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 5
Heroin 2 2 1 2 2
Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3
Alcohol 1 3 3 4 1
Caffeine 5 6 5 5 6
Marijuana 6 5 6 6 4
1 = Most Serious Least Serious = 6
According to these ratings, marijuana is about as addictive a drug as coffee while alcohol, nicotine, cocaine and heroin are more risky, some considerably so. Alcohol is rated the most dangerous on withdrawal, as sudden abstinence can have life-threatening effects for an alcoholic.
Alcohol is rated the most intoxicating of all the drugs listed while nicotine dependence is rated even ahead of heroin.
This is in answer to the question asked by Frank.
"Oh, and by the way, don’t try to kill people who disagree you when you feel you finally have it all figured out, because just over the hill, you will find out things are not as clear as you thought they were, and the guy you thought about killing just might be right." -- JB
Heh, has been duly noted. I came across a relevant article on the Britannica blog today, in which we find the the the quote of "caution born of the experience that at least some of what one believes in the course of one’s life turns out to be wrong" (It's a good read: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/06/2654/).
Elaine: Very informative statistics -- you've given me, for one, a substantial quantitative vista on the issue. As a side note, since the footnote link didn't copy, the table seems to have come from http://www.taima.org/en/risks.htm, the footnote linking to http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax.htm.
Eric,
A present example of the issues you raised is going on right now over the issue of the interrogation of Yazmany Arboleda concerning his “art” show of the assassination of Hillary/Obama. Check out the comments on the New York Times web page. This is why they say, “your rights end where my nose begins,” and they know.
Eric, there was an abundance of sources and in an effort not to spend too much time researching this subject, I furnished that one. However, several comments maintained that caffeine was the most addictive of all the usual drugs. Oh, no! don't take away my morning iced cappuccino!
It is an old adage that: "Your freedom ends where my nose begins!" That is the funamental rational for limiting public smoking areas. It is also the primary reason for laws regarding controlled substances. Regardless of the habituating properties of "Grass" the behavior of the user during and following a session may and has seriously damaged others and their property.
Therefore, just as we erect fences to limit access to property so we devise laws to protect society from abuse and abusers.
Furthermore, if society is their brothers keeper then society has the right to limit the liability from the irresponsible.
Such as driving under the influence,snake handling as an act of worship, human sacrifice.
The number of premature deaths from smoking in the United States each day is the equivelant of two fully loaded 747's crashing each day. (Surgeon General 1991) What do you think the FAA would do to Boing if that were to happen? Tom
Learning about how the gov't treats alcohol, cigarettes, and grass was an eye-opening lesson in politics as a young person. How the facts about harmfulness play only a part compared to big money and influence.
The other big myth-buster for me was finding out that our country doesn't gladly welcome all of "the poor and huddled masses" to our shores. That was a serious downer :) Is it true that cynics started out more idealistic than your average person?
Frank,
Your concerns are well founded. One study of addiction is nothing very useful since there are MANY more health related concerns than that, and after all, no one ever died from "addiction" they die from heart disease, lung cancer ect.
Health issues
Health issues and the effects of cannabis
A recent study by the Canadian government found cannabis contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke. The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrous oxides than tobacco smoke.
A study published in the January 2008 edition of the journal Respirology found that "regular" cannabis smokers who developed bullous lung disease did so on average 24 years sooner than tobacco smoking counterparts. Researchers attributed this to the inhalation of a larger volume of smoke, and typically holding it for four times longer than tobacco smokers.
More recently, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study published research showing an increased risk of psychosis for cannabis users with a certain genetic predisposition, held by 25% of the population. Studies have also shown links between heavy long-term use (over five joints daily over several years) and incidence of heart attacks, strokes, as well as abnormalities in the amygdala and hippocampus regions of the brain.
In July 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users.
Currently I am undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer. I have been approached by several good friends and acquaintances who have also "been there" and who say that the herbal remedy under discussion here was the most effective drug for reducing their nausea and discomfort.
It is a leading cash crop in today's economy. Cannabis should be legal, regulated and taxed. True, it can be habituating but it is not as addicting as commonly believed. (see above). It is a "gateway" drug only in the sense that it is through illegal sources that it is obtained. People who use pot regularly are not, nor do they become, hard core drug addicts.
Were cannabis to be legalized too many people who now profit from it would be affected. The drug dealers do not want it legalized obviously. Much of our penal institutions are sustained by drug inmates. Law enforcement gets good press from drug busts and do politicians who are tough on drugs.
I never learned to inhale. Do not care to learn at this late date. Proscribed medication is keeping my nausea under control for now. As with Elaine, my drug of choice is caffeine.
Donna,
It is my view that it is simply another "prescribed" drug to be used with the careful consideration of the patients needs in mind. All drugs can be abused and have potential side effects.
PS. I am not for general non controlled use in society.
pat
I live in a state where marijuana growing is a regular cash crop and at least weekly there's a "big bust" up in the foothills where the narcs have destroyed an estimated hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the weed. This is said to be one of the largest crops grown in the U.S. Making it legal, just as tobacco, would not induce more to smoke, especially with public health advertising about the harmful effects of its use.
Between the federal and state laws we have a suit pending because the state legalized growers for medicinal use are being prosecuted. Certain northern California counties where it is regularly grown, are "off-limits" to the authorities who value their lives--much like the moonshiners during Prohibition.
Legalization would immediately end the profitability and taxpayers' expense of hunting and destroying this plant. It is the drug dealers who don't want it legalized--there goes their income.
Marijuana is far less addicting than cigarette smoking and most of the other common drugs used.
Today, we have a much more potent situation with the use of prescription medicines that are sold on the street: Oxycontin is much, much worse and is said to be the drug of choice in much of Appalachia. We should exercise a little commonsense in our attitutde toward drugs. It is almost certain that the majority of people after the age of 50 will be taking some form of medication to counteract pain; reduce or control hypertension, high cholesterol, and all the infirmities we are prone to. Medicating against our common human problems, whether mental or physical, has prevented many from a shortened life and aided in enjoying it better and longer.
Those who use illegal drugs do so for the identical same reason as we use the prescribed meds: to feel better and enjoy life more. The only difference: some are illegal, some are not. Not medical reasoning, but civil and criminal laws control the branding of legal or illegal. How many know that morphine, opium, and similar drugs were once legal and sold over the counter? Even for babies?
As has been shown, caffeine is the most addictive of all, and yet millions use it daily, and it not only has health benefits, when used in moderation, but depending on the individual, is only harmful when overused or if the person has demonstrated harmful effects from its use. Just as wine, in moderation, has been shown to be beneficial for many. We should be wary of blanket prohibitions on such substances. I well remember the ineffeciveness of Prohibition--having lived in Kentucky then where the moonshiners were always over the hill and down in the "hollers." The local law enforcers knew even then to let them alone.
Elaine,
You quoted a study to support your view that cannibis is not as addictive as nicotine. However, in pushing your argument, you blithely ignore research citaions that Michael has posted, that address a far greater range of marijuana's dangers. Could you respond to what he cited and possibly incorporate this into your thinking?
Frank
Michael wrote:
"The Lancet published a study that indicates that cannabis users have, on average, a 41% greater risk of developing psychosis than non-users. The risk was most pronounced in cases with an existing risk of psychotic disorder, and was said to grow up to 200% for the most-frequent users."
This study showed and another one mentioned showed: "an increased risk of psychosis for cannabis users with a certain genetic predisposition, held by 25% of the population."
These two separate studies were biased, because they revealed existing risks (genetic) predisposition toward psychosis. So, they were not reporting on the general population, but those already having some predispositions (genetic or otherwise) for psychoses.
Which came first: the chicken or the egg? Did the genetic predisposition lead them toward cannabis, or did the cannabis induce psychosis?
It is clear, that as reported, they had a "predisposition."
As for habitual cannabis smokers, it was their lengthier inhalation time that caused the difference, NOT the differences in ingredients between cannabis and tobacco. Again--flawed studies equals flawed results.
It is not the addictive effect that drives the issue of controlling substances. It is the unpredicable behavior it causes one under the influence and the societal impact of such behavior as well as the costs in both the work place and in the health care and institutionalzation of those beyond self help.
Pat may have a point, if other addictive substances are used medically, why not the controlled use of cannabis? However, the argument that other substances are worse doesn't make much of a case for a dangerous product.
Tom
Government involvement in controlling substance abuse, be it alchol, or weed, usually has to do with who picks up the tab when no one can pick up the tab, due to incompetence, or say drug impact that makes it impossible to earn to pay the hospital bill if hospitalization or physician care is needed. To see marijuana in only simple terms of freedom, usually is naive.
Elaine,
The whole point of cannabis smoking, is to inhale and hold it for as long as one can, because it increases the high. But maybe that is something you've never experienced. The nature of the way it is largely indulged, contributes to its danger, thus having relevance to the study of its effects.
The goal of gay marriage is more than the union but the benefits, "picking my pocket", that the gays are attempting to have given to them. There is a dollar impact.
Like African American that feel righting slavery involves "reparations", there is a dollar impact.
“Your freedom ends where my nose begins.” If only people would respect he first rule of freedom: You must take responsibility for the choices you make. Instead the first rule of Tyranny begins with; I can expand my freedom by flattening your nose.
Good Points Tom.
"pot" needs to be controlled but I believe as a written script for things such as Donna has said may have validity for patient comfort in certain instances. My understanding is that it does.
A story...
Years ago I was teaching a SS class and made the point that for some people it MAY be better to have a glass or two of wine than to be on Rx Valium etc. for "nerves/anxiety." (sorry grammar nerd)
I thought that I had commited the unpardonable sin. I obviously touched a hot spot (no quotes) on this person.
The point...drugs are comprised of chemicals. The proper use of "chemicals"(sorry grammar nerd) with an understanding of their use and side effects is the issue. "Fair Enough."
pat
Post new comment