« DEA storms the wrong house, traumatizes innocent couple | Main | Cannabis and post traumatic stress »
Morals vs. man’s interests
By Hempology | September 28, 2007
The Collegian, U of Tulsa, OK
25 Sep 2007
Kyle Klavetter
POT LACKS PURPOSE
It would be nice to hear the government admit that it over-regulates, that it needs to mellow out and give citizens a little more control over their own lives.
But must the first steps on the road to recovering freedoms from the fount of Constitutional federalism make legalizing marijuana a salient point?
The subject merits an open debate, particularly on economic grounds. In fact, a purely secular argument for the legalization of marijuana is entirely valid. But for much of America — especially red states – — the marijuana money trail isn’t the issue.
Arguments about unjustified societal intolerance of different lifestyles aren’t pertinent either. Economic or social progress mark fatuous successes if these are not attained in the pursuit of a greater purpose.
America is a purposed nation. America serves God. The practical consequence arising from this belief is that means are not justified by ends. Rights do not exist in a vacuum. Progress measures success only after the method by which it is attained is subjected to the scrutiny of an independent moral code.
In modern times this traditional view is regularly challenged. Secular scales measure the greatness of America’s identity — annual national growth, Dow Jones Index, national scholastic test scores, but at least the preceding markers indirectly measure morality: growth is largely a function of work ethic and disciplined minds.
Other markers give no indication of the state of morality. One such category is the “right to.” America prides itself on how many “right to’s” it can accumulate — right to self-expression, right to privacy, right to abortion, right to inhale mind-altering substances. The more “right to’s” there are, the better America supposedly is.
The problem lies in that these type of “rights” do not build up a foundation for the country. These “rights” aren’t meant to further a Godly end. Often these rights are beyond the judgments of good and evil. They are deemed “good” because they foster Man’s own ability to live as he pleases. Their ultimate purpose is the service of Man.
This is a dangerous credo, one that in its fullest meaning resounded ahead of Communist Russia as it marched to perdition in the past century.
Of course legalizing pot wouldn’t make America communist, but it would be one step toward a world where rights are justified not by their adherence to morality but because they further Man’s own ends. This political epistemology is antithetical to the American vision.
The fountainhead of constitutional federalism springs waters meant to strengthen this country’s citizens for a pursuit greater than any individual’s capricious desires.
Individual rights are given meaning by the purpose they enable man to strive for. It is by this meaning that these rights ought to be judged worthy.
The legalization of pot would, at best, be self-gratification. This right would not serve the interests of God. The legalization of pot would tempt this country to stray from its moral heritage. It would be a jumping point for a new era in American politics in which the ends justify the means.
The legalization of pot would be an immoral act, but America can at least handle those. However, to legalize pot would pose deeper troubles. It would signal to America a fundamental shift in politics: from service of morality to service of Man’s interests.
Topics: Articles | Comments Off
Comments are closed.