Today in class we veered from our original symposium and focused more on how the philosophies of Kelsin, Sandel, and Walzer translate in to the social issues of our society today. We discussed the most talked about social topics in the news: gun control, gay marriage, and the legalization of drugs (after the recent legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington state). We discussed theses because on each issue, there are two clear sides: ones who believe government should tolerate it, and the ones who do not.
But each issue is not the same as far as the need for government intervention in my opinion. This is because some are a direct threat to another's life, and others a direct threat to another's moral values. Now in politics, there is a wide spectrum of how much government intervention one believe's is appropriate, but I think most people can ultimately agree that government's main purpose is to protect our rights and to make laws ensuring the safety of the public. So if this is the foundation, how far should government go in regulating the morality of the public?
Like Walzer argues, the spheres of morality and the court systems should be mutually exclusive. The sphere of religious, moral values is trying to squeeze its way in dictating the ways of the court system. Out lawing things like gay marriage is an issue based on the idea of a group of people that argue that is goes against what they believe in to allow people of the same sex the right to marry. This is an obvious infringement on another citizen's rights, and Walzer would argue that it is necessary for these spheres to clearly be made separate in our society.
But my main question is when is it ok for government to regulate the rights of the governed? There obviously needs to be some government laws made to protect its citizens, but where do we draw the line? Many people argue that the Second Amendment is another right that should not be infringed upon by the government. This right is very different from the right to marry who we please. This right directly effects the safety of the others. Unlike gay marriage, guns have the ability to be used to take the lives of others in a split second decision, an obvious infringement on another's rights. This is why there is a need for government involvement and strict regulation on these weapons.
But what about things like marijuana? Is this an issue of safety or morality? This issue is not as easily put in a category as gay marriage or gun rights. Is regulation of this drug needed for the safety of the public, or is it an issue of morality and should not be included in sphere of the courts? Opinions please.
When dealing with things like marijuana, we are weighing people's opinions. Like with many drugs the mental state of the people using the drug does alter, causing them to do things that they probably would not ordinarily. This is true of weed, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. For some people these are used recreationally to be able to calm down after along day, or just to have fun in the most general sense. There is however also a dark side where, people get addicted to drugs and can't function without them. The question then becomes do the benefits of an agent of relaxation outweigh the cons.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe they do. I feel as though the lose of control when it comes to mental state is something I want to stay away from, but understand why others do not, and I also understand why others consider it a necessary part of life in the modern day, with all the modern stress. So I would not call this a moral issue, just a personal choice. Not being on either side of morality,
I do think it is a safety issue, but so is alcohol because of the impairments it can cause, if allow alcohol, should we not allow weed under the stipulation that it is used responsibly. Much like the slogan drink responsibly.
I agree that issues dealing with drugs are not as easily put into a specific category. I think that drugs are more of an issue of safety than morality, but the use of drugs can cause people to do things that would normally conflict with their typical morals. When people are under the influence of various drugs, their judgment becomes severely impaired.
ReplyDeleteI personally don’t think that weed should have been legalized, but perhaps this is a step toward regulation that would be beneficial. Perhaps the legalization of marijuana will create more problems for people who are accustomed to acquiring it illegally.
I must agree with Zain. The case for the legalization and control of marijuana is astounding; there are fewer health risk associated with smoking marijuana than smoking cigarettes (which are legally sold and regulated) and the effects are no more dangerous or inhibiting than consuming alcohol (another substance legally sold and regulated by the government). These logical fallacies in any case against legalization of marijuana in the US aside, the economic benefits of having government controlled use of marijuana could be a much needed boost in smaller farming community that are struggling (especially in the American South).
ReplyDelete