The recent nullification of federal marijuana prohibition in Colorado is setting the groundwork for new social arrangements in an otherwise inconspicuous state. Last November, a ballot measure for legalization passed through the tumultuous process of citizen voting. Less than a year later, the Obama Administration announced it would not challenge the initiative to legalize, but will instead focus law enforcement on “serious” trafficking and keeping the narcotic out of the hands of children. For the midnight tokers in Colorado, this is a terrific victory in the name of common sense. For the more puritan-minded, this, as the old adage goes, is more apocalyptic proof that someone, somewhere is out there is happy.
These two forces always seem at ends with one another, each predicting the demise of their opposite. Often times, the free-spirited overestimate the prevalence of the counterculture in middle class living. Likewise the morally stern will underestimate the tendency of youthful exuberance to wear thin as age and wisdom work their magic. Either way, these two lifestyles manage to coincide with each other peacefully, if only for the benefit of stability.
As much as traditionalists hate to admit it, the demise of marijuana prohibition is an increasing reality in the United States. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s medical correspondent, recently apologized for his opposition to the medical use of cannabis. In his words, “we’ve been terribly and systematically misled in this country for some time…I did part of that misleading.” Lest a celebrity doctor do all the convincing, some more conservative voices have also heard the call of changing mass opinion. Last year, televangelist Pat Robertson came out in favor of pot legalization and the elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing for its possession. Former Alaska Governor and Queen of right-wing sensibility Sarah Palin believes the police would be better off following up on real crime rather than crashing in the door of someone lighting a spliff in their home.
Whichever way you roll it (pardon the pun), public sentiment towards marijuana is relaxing. It’s not inconceivable that within a decade’s time, the drug will be regarded as no more harmful than alcohol. Some fret this will bring hordes of stoned and lackadaisical young folks into the workforce. They don’t seem to realize the average twenty-something already has the initiative of a wallflower – perfectly happy to spend their free hours watching marathons of television shows.
To each his own is a perfectly fine ethos to go by in the course of societal interaction, but there is an understandable fear of a culture drifting toward selfish indulgence. In Colorado where state authorities are working to establish a legal framework for the buying and selling of marijuana, there are two emerging approaches to the oncoming future. Some towns are taking full advantage of the nascent economy while others are not hesitant to get on the wagon, but are actively avoiding the ride.
According to The American Conservative, more than 100 counties and towns “have either already banned the commercial sale of marijuana or have set moratoriums on the process.” There are reports that more localities have reinstated prohibition than not. Some of these communities are still allowing pot to be dispensed for medical purposes only.
A town’s approach to the burgeoning casual use of marijuana will be determined by its citizens’ resolve to their own moral compass. Either pot can be embraced for the hope of the almighty dollar, or it can be shunned to keep a grip on a more traditional way of life. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. The City Council of Colorado Springs, the second-largest city in the state, has opted to ban recreational shops. On the other side, officials in Pueblo County are busily working to take advantage of the demand for now-legal mary jane, and are expecting a windfall in tax revenue.
There is a finely packed (pun again, I apologize) lesson in all this marijuana business. In a free network of societies, there would be options for individuals of different virtues. The state attempts to create a homogeneous set of edicts for all to live by. Many times, these orders are an affront to a substantial minority within the government’s boundaries. A fine example was the recent ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court that found a wedding photographer should be forced to take pictures of a gay marriage ceremony against her spiritual beliefs. This was a clear violation of property rights and a sizeable victory for egalitarians who wish to aggressively overthrow traditional culture. But at least the victim has the option of moving to a new state in the American union – for now.
Federalism is a nifty concept for esoteric debates on the American form of government. Based off of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it is a good starting point for understanding how the Constitution is supposed to be enforced. But just as Lysander Spooner’s affirmed over a century ago, current events have disproved the theory that a piece of paper can keep the national government’s hands tied. Today the “free and independent States” are lucky to be spending their own money with Uncle Sam playing the despotic back-seat driver. Still, pockets of hierarchical rule continue to bubble up, challenging leviathan’s propensity to lord over all within its borders. It bears a similarity to the spontaneous arrangement of free communities, but the overarching lack of sovereignty remains a hefty blow to personal liberty.
In an actual free society, the choice to come and go would be much more personalized due to localization. Central planning makes for cumbersome barriers to movement. If communities had the option of total self-government, the upholding of social mores would be made all the easier. A friend of mine once described the arrangement as having a neighborhood of traditional values with Gomorrah – the vice-ridden town – somewhere in the vicinity. Both are inhabited by residents who adhere to a certain moral code. Neither imposes virtue on the other by means of aggression. Inhabitants are free to look down upon one another with disdain, but that’s as far as ill feelings are justified in going.
Towns of people living quietly, living rambunctiously, living for God, living for self, living in health, or living in squalor – these are a few of the choices individuals should be able to make. Having to conform to the dictates of a higher, man-made authority strips a person of his humanity. It creates tension where there need not be any. The dogma of multiculturalism sounds nice, but it withers in the practice of compulsion. If folks are unable to get along by their own standards, force is no substitute for agreeableness.
In Colorado, we are about to witness a grand experiment in the crossroads of commerce, ethics, and subsidiarity. Each party has a different goal in mind that guides their actions. As the French say, vivre et laisser vivre, and happy smoking.