I recently read I oppose marijuana legalization — on libertarian grounds by Jim Grey, and it has truly been living rent free in my head ever since. Not only do I disagree with Mr. Grey’s stance, I believe his reasoning is deeply flawed. I take so much exception to his stance that I just had to write this post so that I can hopefully move on.

Uh-oh, Stinky!

The crux of Mr. Grey’s opinion is that weed stinks. Okay, that’s fair I suppose. Personally I don’t mind the smell, and I think some kinds even smell pretty good. Smells like good time and laughing with friends if you ask me, but to each their own. But a smell by itself is far from a just cause for making something illegal. Save for Surströmming, of course.

The part of his argument that I truly take exception to is as follows:

Let me be clear that I’m utterly uninterested in policing what adults do in their own homes.

Quite frankly, Mr. Grey, you clearly are interested in doing that! If you think that I or anyone else should not be allowed to smoke in their own homes, then plain-as-day you are in fact interested in policing what people do in their own homes. What I want to say to you is this. Say it with your chest! It’s fine if you want to be authoritarian, I’d say we all are in our own right, but don’t try to hide behind tepid language to try and make yourself seem smaller. You want to vote for policies that dictate what adults can and cannot do in their homes. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, per se. I don’t think people should be allowed to kill someone else in their own home even if it’s consensual.

You are a libertarian, by your own claims, and yet you would stand against the liberty for others to enjoy a substance in their private life. I would say that’s why you try to distance yourself from the aim of policing others. Even though you are trying to police others, it goes against the label you’ve given yourself, so why not try to disclaim that that’s not really your intent.

“De facto Decriminalization”

Another shady portion of Mr. Grey’s belief comes in the second paragraph.

We already live this to some extent in Indianapolis, where since 2019 the county won’t prosecute possession of an ounce or less. It’s de facto decriminalization.

Here “decriminalization” is used as a pejorative. That fact that cannabis has been “de facto decriminalized” is a bad thing that shouldn’t have happened.

Here in the good ol’ U S of A, cannabis has historically been criminalized for racist and economic purposes. It was a phony prohibition made up to make white people more afraid of people of color, as well as to give police a “justified cause” to harass them. Is that a hint of the ol’ reefer I smell on you? Well I say it is, so you’re under arrest!

Even the name “marijuana”, that you use exclusively in your article, was only brought into the American lexicon as a means of promoting hate. Harry Anslinger, acting as the director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics used “marijuana” as the name for cannabis to help Americans associate the plant with people of color, and testified in front of congress saying,

Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind… Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage.

Does a prohibition in support of racism align with the libertarian values, Mr. Grey? I would wager that they don’t.

The Nuisance Argument

Mr. Grey’s argument that he does (not) want to police adults in their homes continues,

Let me be clear that I’m utterly uninterested in policing what adults do in their own homes. This isn’t a public health argument, and it’s not a moral argument. It’s a nuisance argument.

Okay, now arguing about it from the perspective of a public nuisance is better. I’d still disagree that it’s a nuisance, but at least then we’re arguing about the right thing. Ultimately, nuisance laws are a necessary thing. An argument could be made that they are still antithetical to Libertarianism, but some things simply can’t be allowed. Hell, I’ve even called the cops to make a nuisance complaint before.

The problem is, though, that by opposing cannabis legalization because its continued prohibition supports your nose, means that you are supporting and benefitting from a century-old propaganda machine designed to oppress people. Does that align with your libertarian values? By all means you can petition for and vote for cannabis to be restricted in your town on the grounds of it being a nuisance, but do so knowing that it being legalized should be the default. That it being criminalized serves no one except those in power.

Ultimately, you live in a society. Shocking, I know. You are surrounded by people, and you cannot control everyone. There are going to be things that other people do that you don’t like. Sometimes those things may affect you. I personally agree with the libertarian notion that you should try to affect those around as little as possible, but ultimately there’s only so much you can impose on others before you stop being a libertarian and instead become a tyrant.