The stamp of moral authority

[Tom]

Sue Blackmore is right to complain about our politicians' new standard soundbite on youthful drug use: it was wrong; I have learnt my lesson; drugs are wrong; and I did not particularly enjoy smoking cannabis. Based on a focus group of government ministers, the drug must be so tedious that it's difficult to see how dope dealers stay in business - except that some people must quite enjoy cannabis, otherwise it wouldn't be a £5bn industry and we wouldn't have to worry about banning it. The feeling seems to be that if you smoke cannabis, but don't like it, then you're somehow morally untainted by the experience. Please - if you eat bacon, but don't like it, it doesn't make you any more of a vegetarian.

 

But the reason the soundbite is so regrettable is not simply, as Blackmore points out, that it's likely to be a lie - but instead because it betrays a hopelessly simplistic attitude towards law-making.

 

These ministers are arguing that cannabis is dangerous and unpleasant for everyone - including themselves, as students - and so that's why it has to be illegal for everyone. But the law doesn't work like that. An activity doesn't have to be bad for everyone, or even a majority, before we can ban it. After all, cannabis is not bad for everyone, it's bad for a small number of people: those of us predisposed to psychosis, or those of us who might become dependent on it, or those of us who have important responsibilities that we might neglect. When we ban cannabis, just as when we restrict guns or gambling, we reduce the freedom of the responsible majority to protect the irresponsible few, and that's a perfectly consistent and time-honoured way of running a society. I'm not going to argue here whether it's right or wrong - the point is, politicans shouldn't assume it's too subtle for us to cope with. The alternative, to accept the specious notion that something has to be bad for everyone before we can legislate, leaves us totally unable to protect the most vulnerable. The old-fashioned, pre-Clinton soundbite - "What I did at university is my business" - didn't presuppose this notion, and so was actually far less disengenuous.

 

As Blackmore says, if a government minister was going to tell the real truth, he or she might say something like this:

 

"I smoked cannabis sometimes like most of my Oxford friends. I enjoyed it a lot. I had fun, explored my mind, and learned things, but then grew out of it."

 

But, more importantly, he or she would then add something like this:

 

"I have no reason to regret it - it did me no lasting harm. In an ideal world, everyone would behave like me, and cannabis wouldn't have to be illegal. Unfortunately, not everyone does behave like me. In a nearly-ideal world, we could make certain activities legal for the responsible majority, and illegal only for the irresponsible few, as John Howard seems to believe he is doing with the Aborigines. Unfortunately, that's not practical. So we have to strike a difficult compromise - but, luckily, for the responsible majority, not being able to smoke cannabis is no great loss. (In fact, perhaps that's why they're so responsible.) To say that cannabis was all right for me, but isn't necessarily all right for everyone else, isn't hypocritical, it's just a fact.'

 

But that might end a career. So honesty is out of the question. That's a shame, because until the government gets rid of all these half-truths and political crudities, they won't have a splinter of moral authority - and you need a great deal of moral authority to tell 3 million regular cannabis users that they deserve to be locked up.

 

Author: Ned Beauman

Date: July 21, 2007

Source: Guardian Unlimited

Copyright: © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.

 

To say that cannabis was all right for me, but isn't necessarily all right for everyone else, isn't hypocritical, it's just a fact.'

 

But that might end a career. So honesty is out of the question. That's a shame, because until the government gets rid of all these half-truths and political crudities, they won't have a splinter of moral authority - and you need a great deal of moral authority to tell 3 million regular cannabis users that they deserve to be locked up.

A very true comment.

 

Comments are welcomed on this article at its source: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ned_be..._authority.html