Federal vs. state governments.
In the U.S., there is a difference between what the federal government and state governments are allowed to do. The limitations placed on the federal government have been steadily eroded since the U.S. Constitution was ratified.
This is particularly evident in the case of federal involvement with prohibiting certain drugs.
In order to authorize the prohibition of alcohol at the federal level, proponents recognized that they would need to amend the Constitution which they did with the 18th Amendment.
Other drugs were made illegal through passing a law that required all sellers to be licensed, then they stopped or never issued licenses. The Supreme Court then stretched the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to imply that the federal government could "regulate" or prohibit the use of drugs nationwide.
From a strict Constitutional perspective the federal government is not authorized to prohibit any drugs. If there is to be drug prohibition then the States should do it, or the Constitution should be amended as it was with the 18th amendment.
Difference between legal and moral.
Laws passed and enforced by man define what is legal.
Morality is based on eternal laws of the Creator.
The concepts overlap but are not equivalent.
A law could be moral, immoral or amoral. A law against murder is a reflection of divine law and is thus moral. A law requiring midwives to kill Jewish children (as occurred in ancient Egypt) is immoral as it is contrary to divine law. A law designating that people drive on the right side of the street is amoral (not directly moral or immoral).
All laws, of course, are passed based on someone's moral judgement. It has often been passed based on the idea that might makes right or whatever a particular ruler wants is right (or moral).
Should all immorality be made illegal? That is, should all immoral acts be made a matter of law that the government seeks to enforce?
The difficulty with this notion is a matter of practicality. Man violates God's laws too often, in thoughts, words, and deeds for it to be enforced practically. Man would do nothing but accuse and be accused in courts of law if that were to happen.
Additionally, application of morality in the various situations of life are difficult and requires wisdom and interpretation. Who gets to decide what interpretation is the "official" interpretation that gets enforced?
This has application in the issue of drugs.
Is it immoral for an individual to take a narcotic? Well, if it is as pain medication it seems permissible and morally defensible. Today many have taken legal narcotics (e.g., codeine) for the reduction of pain. Yet, other narcotics (e.g., marijuana) have been outlawed.
Who decides which drugs are legal? There is no clear cut universal and thus it is someone's (or a subset of the whole's) judgement replacing the judgement of each individual.
What is the proper role of government?
If not all laws are moral, and not all immorality can be made illegal then what is the proper role for government.
The best description I have heard is that outlined in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[74] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
Governments are then established to secure the unalienable rights of people. They are to protect life, liberty, and property.
Laws then should protect people from having their life, liberty, or property violated.
In the case of the "war on drugs", we are arguing that violating the liberty of people (to take a particular substance), is worth it because it endangers their life (which is impossible to prevent without severe restrictions of liberty -- like padded walls and 24-7 surveillance) or the life of others.
We are "censoring" people before they do anything immoral.
We already have laws to deter and punish the harming of other people regardless of what motivated it.
This line of thinking is a slippery slope as it could be extended to prohibit anything if someone can show some data to suggest (or simply argue that) that there is some increased chance of endangering themselves or others. This then becomes extremely subjective. Could words anger someone and thus increase the chance of hurting someone? Could living in a city increase the risk of harm? Could attending church and trying to evangelize increased someone's risk?
Given that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, what right do we have to threaten our neighbor with violence or imprisonment for freely choosing to take a particular drug?
Would you really put a gun to your neighbor's head and pull the trigger if they decided to take a particular drug?
Violence is what you are threatening when you advocate a law that must be enforced by someone. Even if the punishment is not death, you are threatening them with imprisonment, possible loss of a family and career, etc. What if they resist or seek to flee from what is an arbitrary law? The threat of force is real. Just think of those who have lost their lives in drug related raids (both police and citizens, guilty and not guilty).
It seems that all laws at a federal level should be tested against the following four criteria:
- Is is moral?
- Is it Constitutional?
- Is it feasible?
- Is it financially responsible?
To which, I would argue that:
- It is not morally authorized as explained above.
- It is not Constitutionally authorized at the federal level.
- It is not feasible to achieve a complete abolition of illegal drugs. As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. The harder the government fights against it, the higher the prices will rise which will drive more people into the business of supplying the demand.
- We are spending billions of dollars and many lives every year to try to prohibit certain drug use. It seems we have better ways to spend (or not spend) that money.
A Christian Perspective
God expects virtue.
Everything you have has been given to you.
He expects you to take care of your body and not be drunk or high.
He expects us to use herbs and drugs to help alleviate suffering (Timothy's stomach pain, those who are dying or are in anguish).
He has established governments for the purpose of punishing wrong doers and it is doubtful that has anything to do with stopping people from taking drugs.
Biblically, we don't find government prohibitions against what people can eat (or take) except as the church and state were merged in ancient Israel. These restrictions were fulfilled in the life and death of Christ.
Christ emphasized in Matthew 15, that it is not what goes into your body that defiles it but what comes out of it.
Christ was very outspoken against the traditions of man that violated the laws of God. Arbitrary laws or rules fits this category. God gave us life and made us free, and we should not violate this without good reason.
Everyone will give an account to God for the life he has been given and what he has done with it, both those that abuse drugs and those who vote for laws and politicians that abuse their authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment