Usually before each election Hyrum goes through the propositions and gives his two cents on each one. I really appreciate that because like most people I have a busy schedule and it's hard for me to find time to meaningfully research each issue, but I still feel that it's my duty to be an informed voter. My idea for this election is to assign propositions to different people so that they can research and summarize their findings for the rest of us. The end goal is to have a concise summary of each issue and to hopefully generate a discussion to help voters make a more informed decision.
PROP 19:
Right now this one is pretty close in the polls.
What it does:
1. Anyone over 21 may possess, process, share or transport one ounce of marijuana as long as a minor isn’t around and they aren't in public or near a school/kids.
a. 6 mo in jail for selling to minor
2. Cultivate it for themselves, but for personal consumption only
3. But it could also be sold or consumed in a “liscensed establishment”
a. Local government will regulate the location, size, hours of operation, signs and displays of these estblishments
4. State and local gov’ts can authorize the possession and cultivation of larger amounts
5. Employers can still do drug tests if it “impares the employee’s job performance”
6. Marijuana will be taxed @ the normal levels of other small buisnesses + aditional taxes for regulation
A big factor with this one is the federal gov’t. Since M is still illeagle @ the fedral level they still might prosecute Californians even if it’s leagle here.
The Good:
1. Save/make our state $ for these reasons:
a. Save 10s of millions because less people in jail and on probation/parol
b. More tax revenu
2. Dimish the need for violent drug cartels
Unknown/wash:
1. On one hand law enforcement and judicial system might have more resources because they aren’t chasing/prosecuting as many people. On the other hand crime could rise because M is leagalized.
Bad:
1. M use will likley increase, more people messed up on drugs = drain on our society = more welfare recipents and more people in state funded drug rehab programs.
2. People aren’t aloud to take M while driving, but they can right before driving because there is no test to see how high someone is while they drive.
3. It might be difficult to prove that M is imparing an employee’s job performance, so this might be tough for employers to enforce. They probably couldn’t remove the employee until after an accident occurs.
How I will vote:
After researching this topic I’m still undecided. On one hand I’m scared that if it’s leagalized it will become more accepted and then society will suffer. I’m also scared of not being unable to prosecute someone for driving while they’re high as a kite. On the other hand just because something is harmful for society doesn’t necessaraly give us the right to illeagalize it, and maybe the cost of illeagalizing M is greater than the bennifit? The biggest reason that I’m leaning towards yes is that it would really hurt the drug dealers. I also really like that it would make more resources available to go after dangerous crimials. Any of your suggestions are appreciated.
10 comments:
thanks for the post, Paul. You brought up a lot of angles that I had not yet considered.
I am still torn. On one hand it seems to me that the drug cartels may eventually be more harmful then the pot that they smuggle, and I don't know if there is any other way to curtail their business.
However, I am leaning towards voting "no" for one simple reason. Legal MJ means a crummy society. My moral compass so far is still pointing toward "no".
Interesting. This one seemed a rather obvious "no" to me, simply on the moral argument. Anything that legalizes this drug, or loosens the control of it, will make it one step closer to legal.
What's next? Legal prostitution? You could make the same arguments for it.
How would the Prophet vote on an item that legalizes a substance as volatile as this?
Is Cocaine next?
I voted No.
Dave H.
After further reflection I'll probably vote no. The thing that tipped the scales for me is that there is no penalty for driving while high, for me omitting this penalty is a huge flaw in this amendment. Otherwise I might vote yes.
@Dave
There are obviously things in our society that we generally deem bad for it that are illegal like Cocaine and prostitution as you mentioned. There are also things that harm society that are legal, because as Thoreau said:
"Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."
A few examples are booze, tobacco, and pornography. Since it is foolish to try to legislate away evil it's important to carefully consider what vices to legalize, therefore I believe that your argument we should not legalize M based on moral grounds, or because it might lead to the legalization of other things like Cocaine is fallacious.
Due to Blog requirements on space, I have to break this into 2 or 3 installments.
Part 1:
Paul said "...it's important to carefully consider what vices to legalize"
I disagree with this argument.
I believe we have been given the responsibility to vote in order to stop evil whenever and wherever we can. If everyone voted to uphold moral laws, we would be closer to stopping destructive laws from taking root.
If you think about it, were we, as a society, to vote based on the thought that we "must" allow certain evils into our society, it is entirely possible that good people would vote for wickedness to prevail.
If this type of reasoning had prevailed in the pre-existence, we might have voted for Satan's plan.
When voting for an office like President of the US, I have, at times, voted for neither Republican nor Democratic candidates...but for an independent instead...one I thought would do for the country what the sacred office of President SHOULD do. Did I think I would win? No.
Did I throw my vote away? Some would say "yes" but I say "no."
If everyone voted for what was actually "best," instead of electing the "lesser of two evils," we would actually be able to elect persons of high integrity who would choose -- and do -- righteously. The same holds true for laws. Prop 8 is the best example of this that I can think of.
If we do not actively fight against evil in government and in our law, then we are proponents of Satan's plan. That's how I see it.
It is not "foolish to try to legislate away evil." It is our responsibility to do so.
The following is from the Ensign, June 1976:
Part 2:
The following is from the Ensign, June 1976:
“Every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. …
“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” (D&C 101:78, 80.)
"Only if a citizen is allowed to make decisions of conscience and lifestyle free from state control or coercion can he be held totally accountable for his actions.
Some argue that since the world is presently engaged in the last tragic scenes of a drama which (as the Lord has revealed) must inevitably end in the destruction of all the kingdoms of men, it is hopeless to try to maintain (or restore) honesty, accountability, or effectiveness to one’s political system.
We must not assume that since the Constitution embodies a “divinely inspired” political system the machinery of checks and balances, separation of powers, and other constitutional limitations will automatically preserve political and moral freedom for the individual. The prophets have made clear that no constitution or set of laws, written or unwritten, can by themselves protect a nation from corrupt leaders. Brigham Young remarked, “No matter how good a government is, unless it is administered by righteous men, an evil government will be made of it.” (Journal of Discourses, 10:177.) Bitter experience has shown that the best way to keep corrupt individuals from subverting constitutional and legal processes is for committed citizens to maintain a constant, careful surveillance over governmental activities, opposing individuals motivated only by selfish ambition in seeking public office.
Part 3:
Although ancient and latter-day scriptures warn that increasing political violence and corruption will precede the millennium, Latter-day Saints must continue during this premillennial period to struggle to maintain the political freedoms essential to the spread and practice of the gospel.
If men and women of character fail to participate in the political decisions that shape their lives, others with more selfish motives will inevitably rush in to fill the void."
I think it is pretty clear that we have a responsibility to maintain/restore honesty, accountability, and effectiveness to our politial system. We must oppose individuals, and laws, that are motivated by selfish ambition and which increase corruption.
When we vote, we exercise our God-given responsibility to spread and practice the gospel...NOT decide "which vices we will allow." When good men and women vote to install evil into our daily lives, instead of fighting it at every possible moment, I believe we are promoting Satan and his plan, and hastening his insidious and calculated plans for the destruction of our society and our souls.
As a result, I completely reject your argument as false and misguided.
Dave Hernandez
Just found this article on the subject:
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/38531/Battling-drug-abuse.html
Pretty clear.
Dave.
If the use of M was strictly a personal decision and did not encroach on other's rights, I might be convinced to approve it. However I think it will have a significant effect on the innocent if it is approved. For one thing the initiative contains the following statement: “no person shall be … discriminated against or denied any right or privilege” for pot use, which might result in a lawsuit every time an employer tries to require a drug test (as McClintock points out). I fear that it would also invite wider use of the drug and make it more socially acceptable. It should definitely not be a national law, but I believe that it does have a place as a state or community issue.
Dave,
I thought that some of the things you quoted agreed with my point that we should not try to legislate away all evil but allow people the freedom to decide for themselves. I guess we all read things and apply our own biases to them. Here is one that I really liked:
“Only if a citizen is allowed to make decisions of conscience and lifestyle free from state control or coercion can he be held totally accountable for his actions.”
Since this is a political blog and not a church blog I think it should appeal to anyone regardless of their religious beliefs therefore I don’t think it makes sense to argue these political issues from a doctrinal perspective. Especially since the church has not taken an official stance on Prop 19.
Do you support the illegalization of everything that you and the your church believe to be wrong like homosexuality, extramarital sex, alcohol, and tobacco? Just because I don’t try to force my beliefs upon others does not mean that I condone corruption, evil acts, or the weakening of our society. Allowing people the freedom to make wrong decisions without trying to force them to do the right thing often strengthens society.
Dave said: “If you think about it, were we, as a society, to vote based on the thought that we "must" allow certain evils into our society, it is entirely possible that good people would vote for wickedness to prevail. If this type of reasoning had prevailed in the pre-existence, we might have voted for Satan's plan.”
By illegalizing something we try to use force to make them act a certain way. Isn’t trying to force everyone to do the right thing Satan’s plan? Of course we must allow certain evil if we want to allow personal freedom. Satan’s plan was to eliminate evil by forcing everyone to do the right thing, while Jesus was an advocate of the ones freedom to decide for themselves. The Iranian government coincidentally also believes in legislating away evil by declaring everything that is contrary to Islamic law illegal. Even if we know we are right it does not necessarily give us the right to force someone else to act accordingly, we must use long suffering love, reason, and logic to convince them of the error of their ways so that they can make the correct decision with their own free will. There is often greater evil in forcing someone to do the right thing than them doing the wrong thing.
Dave said: “I think it is pretty clear that we have a responsibility to maintain/restore honesty, accountability, and effectiveness to our politial system. We must oppose individuals, and laws, that are motivated by selfish ambition and which increase corruption.”
I agree that we need to restore honest, ect… to our political system. We should always take integrity into consideration when voting for anyone. But these things aren't always achieved by passing laws prohibiting people from doing the wrong thing, but from individual accountability which is often hampered by an abundance of laws which try to force people to do the right thing because individual conscience is less susceptible to corruption than the law.
I do think that generally the correct purpose of the law is to protect people from others, not to protect people from themselves with some exceptions.
Post a Comment