The Future is Local: Principles vs. Positions, Ganja Edition
Arguing over positions is a smokescreen, if you know what I mean
I’ve held for years now that the rescheduling and/or decriminalization of weed was only likely to ever happen as a political stunt in the run-up to a hot election. Duopoly careerists have too much to gain from keeping the issue unresolved, so I’ve believed that the only way any action would ever get taken on it is if one side or the other felt hard-pressed at election time and needed a splashy headline to boost them over the finish line. Lo and behold, President Biden has announced a pardon for federal-level weed convictions, has instructed pieces of the executive branch to “look at” changing the schedule of marijuana at the federal level, and “encourages” state governments to do the same.
My opinion has not changed. This is the babiest of baby steps, as it promises a bunch of things that sound great but will be delivered at some mysterious future time (if at all–remember student loan forgiveness from last month?). It's a brazen political stunt, but Biden can get a smidge of credit for doing A right thing (as opposed to THE right thing) even though it's being done entirely for political gain and not out of any sense of principle. And that's what needs to be emphasized here: this is one more action taken by the duopoly clown-show that focuses on a policy position instead of a principle, to the detriment of the whole American experiment.
Almost nobody argues about principles any more. Everything in our political discourse has come to swirl around issue positions and policies. Nothing is grounded in principle. Weed is one of the best examples. The argument within government regarding weed has nothing to do with any sort of principle-based rights. It’s all about permissions and profit and who stands to gain power from whichever “solution” is being proposed at the moment. But the “problem” of marijuana can be solved with a pretty simple test of principle, to wit:
Principle A: You have the absolute right of ownership of your body, and you alone get to decide what goes in it.
Principle B: You have the absolute right to own property, and you alone get to decide what you do with it.
If you have a right to do with your body as you wish (even if I think it’s weird), and you have a right to own property and use it as you wish (even if I think it’s weird), then you get to grow weed, own weed, sell weed, smoke weed, bake it into brownies, weave it into shirts, or whatever the heck else you decide enriches your life (even if I think it’s weird). That’s the principled stance.
The policy positions wander into a labyrinth of “whatabout” objections. What about the health effects (good or bad depending on your perception) of weed? What about if a kid eats the tasty brownie? What about if people who grow a ton of it use a lot of water and power? What about if dealers get in fights over it? What about if a crazy person puts it in kids’ Halloween bags? What about the smell?
Making those considerations the focus takes you away from principled consideration into the realm of policy argument and position debate. “I think it’s good so it should be legal” and “I think it’s bad so it should be banned” are not ideas grounded in any real principle. They are entirely subjective, involving a group of people pretending they know better how other groups of people should live and what they should own. These arguments aren’t about ensuring rights or reinforcing principles. They’re about winning an argument at the expense of your policy foes.
Worse, arguing over policy positions is the path to the weaponization of government. The future is local, and part of that means that you must abandon the idea of using government to force your neighbors to live your way. You can have long, earnest conversations with your neighbors about how weed smells, how much water and power it takes to grow, what kind of traffic ends up milling around sales points, and so on. You may take the position that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits so you would like your neighbor to dial it back a little. You may take the position that your neighbor is overreacting and you would like him to dial it back a little. You may (and probably will) both realize that you’re both right about something, and you both need to dial it back a little. Mutual neighborly respect (even if you think your neighbor is either a weirdo or a square, depending) is the future.
You cannot in good faith use government to force your neighbor to live your way. If fundamental principles are in place and agreed upon (you each have the right to use your bodies and your property as you see fit, even if it’s weird), then you can talk about how to balance one person’s property rights against another’s. But that conversation must happen face to face, neighbor to neighbor.
Principles must always trump policy positions. And if this American experiment is ever going to work, that’s how it has to be.