Choosing Your Social Problems Is Easier Than Solving Them

The issue of marijuana legalization in New Jersey or any other state will be fought over questions that will excite and evoke the loud vocal groups that will be for or against it. Their positions will represent any number of perspectives, including but not limited to: it’s no worse than smoking or alcohol, it’s a gateway drug to more serious drugs, legalization will reduce crime, legalized use will raise revenues, it will reduce abusive disproportionate punishment under the law, law enforcement efforts can be applied more effectively to more serious crimes, and it will lead to the corruption of our youth.

These are stances from which politicians or anyone can base their arguments and defend their decisions, but these are not the reasons to be for or against legalization; at least not reasons worthy of an informed and one would hope intelligent society. Now I have to concede that starting with the proposition that ours is an intelligent society is pressing the limits if credibility but what else can one do but hope. The question on the table for our society and our form of government is how to efficiently and effectively manage the social issue of drug use be it marijuana, alcohol or tobacco. The situation with each of these drugs is currently that we are failing in our responsibilities to ourselves, our children and each other. As a consequence we are failing with respect to other more destructive drugs and behaviors in even more serious ways.

So what is the issue regarding marijuana and its legalization that the politicians, the media, the religious factions, our capitalistic business elite, social advocates, and the public at large should be determining? The issue is how to best manage and deal with the implications of marijuana (and we should apply equally to alcohol and tobacco) in our society given that it is nothing more or less than one of the realities of the world we live in; and the simplistic view that allowing its use or making it illegal is the smart, sane, rational and prudent solution is unworthy of us as a society. Simple solutions usually don’t work for a simple reason; if the problem is overly complex and many faceted the simple is quite literally out gunned and inadequate.

With this issue in the hands of politicians and special interests the best we can expect is that marijuana should be relegated to the comparable status of alcohol and tobacco. It should evolve to a regulated and managed substance. This will not be easy or with its dependence upon political influences accomplished well, but it may be the only solution that avoids the abysmal failures that treating it as if it can be decided by the powers that be once and therefore forever as a forbidden substance when the society has neither the will nor the means to abolish it from our culture.

Along with this approach will be a societal requirement to set responsibilities and accountabilities for those who choose to use, produce, oversee and regulate it. The fact that this will not be easy does not alter the inescapable obligation that we have to our society to do far better than we have done to this point. You can choose to bury your head in the visions of what you want to be real but the ‘laws of physics’ of the world we live in do not bow to your visions.

Juggling the Protection of All Freedoms

This issue about religious freedom and the opinion that the ACA infringes upon it is only presented in the context of the religious side versus the government's side. I don't think I have heard anyone in government, from the religious groups that feel so threatened by it, from the media, from the political parties that use this issue as just another fund raising trinket to attract the attention of their core groups, or from the public at large about the "third party" involved in this issue. If you don't instantly recognize who the third party is then I would contend that that exemplifies that this issue is not being discussed or examined in the proper and necessary context that it not just deserves but that is required if the public's constitutional rights are to be adequately addressed and protected.

After all, while there is a desire to make and keep politically sensitive issues as a one-facet issue that cleanly and clearly divides people onto one side or the other; there is almost never only one dimension to such issues and in the case of the ACA versus religious freedoms example it is not and never was a one-dimensional issue. This is true even if no one involved seems to have comprehended that the complaint about the ACA forcing religious groups to violate their personal religious views and beliefs involves more than those religious groups' First Amendment rights. I am sure that as you read this comment you yourself immediately recognize the other important third party, so given that how do you see their Constitutional rights and interests playing into this issue?

As is often the case when there are points of contention between Constitutional rights and freedoms or rights versus governmental authority the decision that the Supreme Court is to render must of necessity include a determination of precedence of one right relative to another, or of a proper balance between the two if one doesn’t have an absolute priority over the other. Now if by some chance Justice Sonia Sotomayor (or any of the other Justices) doesn’t or hasn’t recognized the importance of the third party to this issue then how will this factor be properly accounted for and included in the decision making and judgment of the Court?

Will the rights’ of the people of the United States be served if the rights of all the people aren’t considered? Will my freedom be protected if my interests are not considered? Will your’s?

We should be more demanding of those in politics, the media, the courts and well the public when these issues are being dealt with. Maybe we should just be more aware that when these issues surface in our political environment today that the public’s interest and need to know is not just under-served but that the information that is presented is likely being provided without any competency from our elected officials and media outlets.