Well it didn’t take long to get some response, and further thoughts,
from yesterday’s blog story … The prohibition of cannabis … “is it worth it –
or can we do better by trying something else?”
Again these are just a sample of what came in, but it is a fair
representation of all comments that have been made …
 |
| Cigarettes are legal so why isn't pot? |
"You
can't legislate morality. Look at drugs. To stop the drug issue … stop buying
drugs. Keep it simple. The only person I can change is me."
A response was quick to arrive to that:
The notion that "you can't legislate morality" is philosophically untenable. All legislation is a reflection of a certain moral code.
The notion that "you can't legislate morality" is philosophically untenable. All legislation is a reflection of a certain moral code.
When we set special speed
limits in school zones, we do so based on some kind of moral presupposition
about the intrinsic value of children - a moral judgement. When we pass regulations to protect the
environment, there is an inherent sense that this is the "right"
thing to do ... and that sense of "right" is, at root, a "moral
judgement."
When we prohibit murder,
it's a reflection of a moral presupposition about the value of human life.
I could go on, but laws
are based in collective sociological "morality". The real question is
... "WHOSE morals are we going to legislate?"
