Stephen Kershnar
A Job for the New President: Raise Academic Standards
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
March 29, 2011
With the appointment of a new President to SUNY-Fredonia, Virginia Horvath, one of the most important jobs she will have is to promote academic excellence at Fredonia.
Over the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia has excelled in getting new buildings and expensive renovations. According to SUNY-Fredonia’s alumni magazine, Statement, Fredonia had the following built: Natatorium, University Commons, Rosch Recital Hall, University Stadium, Sound Recording Studio, Campus and Community Children’s Center, Technology Incubator, Robert and Marilyn Maytum Music Rehearsal Halls, and the Science Center. There have also been a number of major renovations on campus. The total construction spent on these and other capital construction projects has been at least $360 million. This construction boom is an outstanding accomplishment and has significantly benefitted the campus and community.
Let me also mention that many Fredonia students are unbelievably smart and talented. For example, I’ve had students attend an incredible array of elite law and graduate schools, including Penn, Duke, William & Mary, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Illinois, Ohio State, and Indiana. Many of these students are equally successful in their personal lives as in their professional ones. Many of these students were better than the Ivy League students who were my classmates.
Also, faculty that taught them includes many incredible people who excel at both research and teaching. The students were lucky to learn from such outstanding talent and I am lucky to work with them.
That said, in the last two decades, SUNY-Fredonia has lost ground in attracting better students relative to its competitors. In 1990, Fredonia was 3rd among SUNY colleges, behind only Geneseo and Oswego, in student ability. In 2011, it was tied for 6th with Cortland. Three schools passed it (New Paltz, Purchase, and Oneonta), one school tied it (Cortland), and two schools remain ahead (Geneseo and Oswego). My measure here is whether a school is higher than another in two or more of the following three categories: SAT scores for the middle 50%, ACT scores for the middle 50%, and high school grade point average.
Consider New Paltz and Purchase. In 1990, Fredonia’s average SAT scores for freshmen were 70 points higher than New Paltz’s freshmen and 50 points higher than Purchase’s. By 2011, Fredonia’s freshmen (1040-1200 SAT/22-26 ACT) scored much lower than New Paltz’s freshmen (1110-1300 SAT/24-29 ACT) and slightly lower than Purchase’s freshmen (1060-1210 SAT/24-29 ACT).
On a side note, Fredonia’s student body also has noticeably lower scores than SUNY’s major university centers and doctoral degree granting institutions, although this might be a long-standing difference. Here are the 2011 SAT ranges for the middle 50% of students at the university centers: Binghamton (1180-1340), Stony Brook (1170-1310), Buffalo (1120-1270), and Albany (1110-1250). Note that it is possible for a SUNY college to beat the university centers. Geneseo (1290-1370) beats all but Cornell’s public colleges and they’re a whole different animal.
It is unclear what accounts for changes in ranking. One college ranking reported that Fredonia admits a higher percentage of students. In a January 201l article in Kiplinger that rates the best values in public colleges, Fredonia’s admission rate (49%) is higher than several of its competitors, including: New Paltz (34%), Geneseo (35%), Oneonta (39%), Cortland (39%), and Brockport (48%). Perhaps these other schools have an advantage because they are closer to large populations or populations that are doing better economically.
It is also unclear what is going on with loans, aid, and income. Among the eleven schools (Binghamton, Geneseo, Stony Brook, New Paltz, Buffalo, Oneonta, Brockport, Plattsburgh, Cortland, and Albany) that Kiplinger ranks, Fredonia graduates have the third highest average debt at graduation and its students receive the third lowest amount of both need-based aid and non-need-based aid. Fredonia’s graduates have almost $8,000 more debt than New Paltz students, $8,000 more than Buffalo students, and $4,000 more than Geneseo students. I do not know what accounts for these differences.
Data compiled by The Wall Street Journal indicates that Fredonia students also make less money (mid-career median salary) than those at other SUNY university centers and colleges. Fredonia graduates make $66,000 (mid-career median salary). This is less than its elite SUNY competitors: Binghamton ($96,000), Stony Brook ($93,000), Albany ($92,000), Buffalo ($82,000), and Geneseo ($81,000). They also make less than students at other competitors: Oswego ($78,000), Oneonta ($77,000), Plattsburgh ($76,000), and Potsdam ($70,000). This might be due to the lower pay in the Buffalo area, the fields Fredonia emphasizes (for example, education and music), or the gender balance at Fredonia, but I’m guessing. Given these possible explanations, there is no obvious need for Fredonia to address this gap.
It is unclear whether the majors that Fredonia emphasizes affect the student body’s competitiveness and their average salary. According to one study by Wake Forest economist Kevin Rask, two of the majors that Fredonia emphasizes (education and music) are fields that give out some of the highest grades. In contrast, chemistry, math, and economics, give out the lowest. This pattern can be seen on Fredonia’s campus. In 2010, the two education departments at Fredonia gave out A’s or A-‘s to 55% and 76% of its students. Music gave these grades to 58% of its students. In general, the majors with some of the lowest grades seem to have students with the highest IQs (see blogger Steve Sailer’s estimates of actual college majors using GRE scores). I should disclose that I also give out lots of A’s.
Let me state the obvious here: there are many music and education students and professors who are incredibly smart and talented and significantly better thinkers and people than most other people (including one overly opinionated philosophy professor).
Consider drug and alcohol use. On The Daily Beast’s ranking of druggiest colleges, Fredonia was ranked 10th nationwide. I doubt that the rankings were scientific and don’t know what produced Fredonia’s impressive ranking. Given this, I doubt drugs affected Fredonia’s numbers. On a side note, because drug use like alcohol use is often harmless fun, I don’t think this is something to worry about.
The academic performance of the minority student population at Fredonia is an area of concern. The undergraduate graduation rate for minority freshmen is low for four years (average rate: 28%, 1999-2005) and low for six years (average rate: 43%, 1999-2004). It is unclear if this is due to students dropping or transferring out. With a push to admit more minority students, this area warrants discussion. I’d also like to make two quick points. First, I doubt this area of concern affects the above numbers. Second, many of the minority students in my class are superb students and a pleasure to have in my classes.
The new President might consider trying to increase student competitiveness in a manner similar to what was done by Geneseo and New Paltz in the last few decades. SUNY-Fredonia is a strong college with a lot to be proud of and its academic standards should reflect this.
05 April 2012
21 March 2012
Against Patiotism: No Love for an Abusive Nation
Stephen Kershnar
Patriotism and the Criminal Justice System
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
March 19, 2012
With Memorial Day, July 4th, and Major League Baseball approaching, we’ll soon see an outpouring of patriotism. The problem with the outpouring is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense when directed at a country that damages millions of people for no good reason.
Here’s the argument. If a country puts large numbers of its people under the control of the criminal-justice system and does so via demeaning dragnet searches, then it is not a free country. If a country is not free, then it is unworthy of its people’s love. The U.S. puts large numbers of its people under the control of the criminal justice system and does so via demeaning dragnet searches.
First, consider the criminal justice system. A 2011 Department of Justice study (using 2010 numbers) found that the U.S. has about 3% (more than 7 million people) under the control of the criminal justice system. This includes people who are locked up in federal or state prisons, or local jails and those who are on probation or parole. Roughly, a third of those under the control of the criminal-justice system are locked up. 3% is a staggering number. By analogy, this is equivalent to discovering that that 30 out of every 1,000 people at a Bills game are under the control of the criminal-justice system.
Being under the control of the criminal-justice is a major roadblock in life. Felons are not allowed to vote or serve on juries. They are locked out of mainstream society by being denied licenses to a wide range of professions and having to check the “felon box” on applications for employment. They are discriminated against by private landlords, ineligible for food stamps, banned from public housing, and subject to numerous restrictions on their travel and behavior. In her book, “The New Jim Crow,” Ohio State law professor Michelle Alexander points out these roadblocks make it unsurprising that in 2000, more than one-third of prison admissions were for parole violations.
Consider next incarceration. Writing in the New York Times in 2008, Adam Liptak points out that the U.S. locks up roughly 1 in 100 adults (about 2.3 million people). Liptak further notes that the United States clearly loves incarcerating its people. The United States has less than 5% of the world’s population but about 25% of its prisoners. We have 700,000 more people imprisoned than China despite its having four times more people. We incarcerate people at roughly 5 times the rate of Great Britain, 8 ½ times the rate of Germany, and 12 times the rate of Japan. In fact, the U.S. imprisons people nearly 6 times more often than do other nations. Even with all this incarceration, the U.S. still has higher rates of murder and assault.
This policy wreaks havoc on blacks. Alexander points out that nearly one-third of black men are likely to spend time in prison at some point in their lives. Consider what that number means to black women.
Alexander argues that the problem is the drug war. She points out that more people are incarcerated today for drugs than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980. Between 1985 and 2000, she notes, two-thirds of the increase in federal prisoners and more than half of the increase in state prisoners were due to drug offenses. Nor are drug offenders violent. Since the drug war began, she observes, more than 31 million people have been arrested and most arrests were for nonviolent possession. Most people in state prisons for drug offenses have no history of violence or even significant selling history.
Many arrests come about through demeaning and blatantly unconstitutional searches. The courts have in effect ruled that drug searches are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. Police regularly request to search citizens knowing that they feel coerced to consent and without informing them that they have the right to say no. One officer stated that when searching bags at bus and train stops, he had searched nearly 3,000 bags without being refused consent. One estimate of a Drug Enforcement Agency’s traffic-stop program found that 98% of the searches were based only on drivers’ verbal consent and had no other legal authorization. In 95% of these stops, no drugs were found. These are dragnet searches.
Stop-and-frisk searches are widespread and repeatedly upheld by the courts even when merely based on such a loose standard as a police officer’s “judgment and experience.” Pretext-stops allow police to stop and look over cars based on the pretext of a traffic-code infringement, even when they openly admit the traffic violation is a pretext. As Georgetown University law professor David Cole points out, because virtually everyone violates a traffic violation, police can use these stops to search whomever they want. These searches are often combined with aggressive requests to search the driver’s car. The courts have even held that the use of drug-sniffing dogs around cars or luggage doesn’t even count as a search.
One objection to my argument is that people can remain free if they merely avoid activities that society’s schoolmarms have prohibited (drugs, prostitution, gambling, open containers, and so on). Alexander cites one government study that found that 2-5% of prisoners are innocent, so the objection is problematic. Even if this were not the case, criminalizing the lives of millions of people when we know they will engage in recreational activities that victimize no one is hardly the mark of a free society.
A second objection is that the U.S. has other benefits that make up for its outrageous criminal-justice system. This is doubtful. The fact that government at all levels takes more than one out of every three dollars earned suggests that the government’s doesn’t respect economic liberty. Free countries simply don’t take away a third of what you make.
A third objection is that the U.S. is still better than other countries. This sort of argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Consider this analogy. A weakling prisoner lives on C-Block and is occasionally victimized by prison rapists. When he reports what’s going on to the warden, the warden tells him that he should love C-Block given the far worse treatment that weaklings get in the A- and B-Blocks. Even if other countries treat you worse, that is no reason to love your abusive country.
A fourth objection is that patriotism is aimed at the U.S. as a country and not its government. The problem is that it is unclear what is left when you subtract the government from the country. Perhaps what is left is love for the people who do not work for the government. It is unclear why our love should be directed at them rather than focused on a smaller group, such as one’s family, neighborhood, or town. In any case, it’s likely impossible to love hundreds of millions of people whom one does not know.
Patriotism toward an abusive country makes no sense. Despite the flag-waving, speeches, and salutes, the U.S. criminalizes oceans of people and is unworthy of such an outpouring of emotion.
Patriotism and the Criminal Justice System
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
March 19, 2012
With Memorial Day, July 4th, and Major League Baseball approaching, we’ll soon see an outpouring of patriotism. The problem with the outpouring is that it doesn’t make a lot of sense when directed at a country that damages millions of people for no good reason.
Here’s the argument. If a country puts large numbers of its people under the control of the criminal-justice system and does so via demeaning dragnet searches, then it is not a free country. If a country is not free, then it is unworthy of its people’s love. The U.S. puts large numbers of its people under the control of the criminal justice system and does so via demeaning dragnet searches.
First, consider the criminal justice system. A 2011 Department of Justice study (using 2010 numbers) found that the U.S. has about 3% (more than 7 million people) under the control of the criminal justice system. This includes people who are locked up in federal or state prisons, or local jails and those who are on probation or parole. Roughly, a third of those under the control of the criminal-justice system are locked up. 3% is a staggering number. By analogy, this is equivalent to discovering that that 30 out of every 1,000 people at a Bills game are under the control of the criminal-justice system.
Being under the control of the criminal-justice is a major roadblock in life. Felons are not allowed to vote or serve on juries. They are locked out of mainstream society by being denied licenses to a wide range of professions and having to check the “felon box” on applications for employment. They are discriminated against by private landlords, ineligible for food stamps, banned from public housing, and subject to numerous restrictions on their travel and behavior. In her book, “The New Jim Crow,” Ohio State law professor Michelle Alexander points out these roadblocks make it unsurprising that in 2000, more than one-third of prison admissions were for parole violations.
Consider next incarceration. Writing in the New York Times in 2008, Adam Liptak points out that the U.S. locks up roughly 1 in 100 adults (about 2.3 million people). Liptak further notes that the United States clearly loves incarcerating its people. The United States has less than 5% of the world’s population but about 25% of its prisoners. We have 700,000 more people imprisoned than China despite its having four times more people. We incarcerate people at roughly 5 times the rate of Great Britain, 8 ½ times the rate of Germany, and 12 times the rate of Japan. In fact, the U.S. imprisons people nearly 6 times more often than do other nations. Even with all this incarceration, the U.S. still has higher rates of murder and assault.
This policy wreaks havoc on blacks. Alexander points out that nearly one-third of black men are likely to spend time in prison at some point in their lives. Consider what that number means to black women.
Alexander argues that the problem is the drug war. She points out that more people are incarcerated today for drugs than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980. Between 1985 and 2000, she notes, two-thirds of the increase in federal prisoners and more than half of the increase in state prisoners were due to drug offenses. Nor are drug offenders violent. Since the drug war began, she observes, more than 31 million people have been arrested and most arrests were for nonviolent possession. Most people in state prisons for drug offenses have no history of violence or even significant selling history.
Many arrests come about through demeaning and blatantly unconstitutional searches. The courts have in effect ruled that drug searches are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. Police regularly request to search citizens knowing that they feel coerced to consent and without informing them that they have the right to say no. One officer stated that when searching bags at bus and train stops, he had searched nearly 3,000 bags without being refused consent. One estimate of a Drug Enforcement Agency’s traffic-stop program found that 98% of the searches were based only on drivers’ verbal consent and had no other legal authorization. In 95% of these stops, no drugs were found. These are dragnet searches.
Stop-and-frisk searches are widespread and repeatedly upheld by the courts even when merely based on such a loose standard as a police officer’s “judgment and experience.” Pretext-stops allow police to stop and look over cars based on the pretext of a traffic-code infringement, even when they openly admit the traffic violation is a pretext. As Georgetown University law professor David Cole points out, because virtually everyone violates a traffic violation, police can use these stops to search whomever they want. These searches are often combined with aggressive requests to search the driver’s car. The courts have even held that the use of drug-sniffing dogs around cars or luggage doesn’t even count as a search.
One objection to my argument is that people can remain free if they merely avoid activities that society’s schoolmarms have prohibited (drugs, prostitution, gambling, open containers, and so on). Alexander cites one government study that found that 2-5% of prisoners are innocent, so the objection is problematic. Even if this were not the case, criminalizing the lives of millions of people when we know they will engage in recreational activities that victimize no one is hardly the mark of a free society.
A second objection is that the U.S. has other benefits that make up for its outrageous criminal-justice system. This is doubtful. The fact that government at all levels takes more than one out of every three dollars earned suggests that the government’s doesn’t respect economic liberty. Free countries simply don’t take away a third of what you make.
A third objection is that the U.S. is still better than other countries. This sort of argument is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Consider this analogy. A weakling prisoner lives on C-Block and is occasionally victimized by prison rapists. When he reports what’s going on to the warden, the warden tells him that he should love C-Block given the far worse treatment that weaklings get in the A- and B-Blocks. Even if other countries treat you worse, that is no reason to love your abusive country.
A fourth objection is that patriotism is aimed at the U.S. as a country and not its government. The problem is that it is unclear what is left when you subtract the government from the country. Perhaps what is left is love for the people who do not work for the government. It is unclear why our love should be directed at them rather than focused on a smaller group, such as one’s family, neighborhood, or town. In any case, it’s likely impossible to love hundreds of millions of people whom one does not know.
Patriotism toward an abusive country makes no sense. Despite the flag-waving, speeches, and salutes, the U.S. criminalizes oceans of people and is unworthy of such an outpouring of emotion.
08 February 2012
Pot Prohibition and Liberty
Stephen Kershnar
Marijuana Prohibition: The Liberty- and Better-World Arguments
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
February 6, 2012
Every week in The Leader, the SUNY-Fredonia student newspaper, the police blotter lists crimes for which students were arrested. Common among them are marijuana-related arrests. Also, SUNY-Fredonia had the distinct honor of being named 10th druggiest college in the U.S. by The Daily Beast, although the study’s methodology is flawed. Given the large number of marijuana-related fines, probationary sentences, and prison sentences, there is surprisingly little discussion of whether these laws are justified. The crass-and-shallow politicians dominating the Presidential race (Obama, Romney, and Gingrich) are predictably silent on the topic.
There are two convincing arguments for legalizing marijuana (pot): the liberty argument and the better-world argument. Consider the former. First, people own their own bodies. This explains, for example, why it is wrong to enslave them, forcibly take their organs, or control what they think. Second, if they own their bodies, then they have a moral right to put what they want into them, unless what they wish to put into them is owned by another or will directly harm another. This explains why people have a right to eat unhealthy foods, engage in a wide range of sexual practices (that put a variety of things in their orifices), or mark up their body with unsightly tattoos and piercings. Smoking (or eating) marijuana involves people putting things into their bodies. Hence, people have a moral right to do it.
The objections here are fairly standard and not in the least convincing. One objection is that it is illegal to smoke pot and therefore wrong to do. The obvious problem is that the fact that something is illegal does not make it wrong. For example, owning slaves used to be legal and was still morally wrong. Also, interracial marriage used to be illegal and was still morally permissible. Law doesn’t always track morality because the facts that make an action wrong (right-infringement, direct harm, exploitation, and so on) need not track the facts that make it illegal (for example, approval by the legislative and executive branches).
A related objection is that people have consented to the laws because they have chosen to live in states or a country where pot is criminalized. Somehow the very same people who put this silly argument don’t think that it also justifies the criminalization of sodomy, the legalization of marital rape, or the legalization of forced sterilization of people’s retarded children. Apparently, the they-chose-to-live-there argument is just another rhetorical device to be mindlessly flung about.
A second objection is that marijuana is harmful to the user’s health or, at least, endangers it. This objection fails for the reason that it is false. The studies do not show that moderate recreational use of marijuana is always harmful. It’s less dangerous than other widely used substances such as alcohol and cigarettes. If booze and cigarettes are not dangerous enough to ban, then neither is pot.
Were marijuana always harmful, this still doesn’t warrant trampling on people’s rights. A right is a claim on others that they allow an individual to use his body and property as he sees fit, so long as he is not directly harming others. It is the hallmark of a free society to recognize people’s body- and property-rights. This is what explains the other celebrated rights we have, specifically, right to free speech, religion, assembly, and privacy. For example, the right of free speech is simply the right that one has that others not touch his body or stuff (for example, his printing press or paper). To the degree that a government controls what a person does with his body, it tramples on his rights (that is, his liberty). Because liberty is the most important political value, and the one that has been most celebrated throughout American history, the harm-to-self argument should repel us.
A third objection is that criminalizing marijuana and hunting down people who sell or use it makes the world a better place. The objector further argues that the government should do what it can to make the world a better place, even when this is done by trampling on liberty. This objection is ugly. For example, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Judith Jarvis Thomson, notes that ignoring rights would make it permissible for a physician to kill a healthy patient when his healthy organs can be used to save five people who would otherwise die from organ failure. Anyone who thinks that it would be wrong for an altruistic physician (paging Dr. Obama) to start redistributing organs along these lines must also think it is wrong for a government to do so. That is, liberty limits the ways in which we can make the world a better place.
Even the notion that banning marijuana would make the world a better place is shaky. Consider the better-world argument. In the absence of force, fraud, or theft, what makes people’s lives go better makes the world a better place. In the absence of ignorance about the relevant facts, people tend to want to do what makes their lives go better. Tens of millions of people want to do pot and there is little evidence that they don’t know the relevant facts about pot usage. Thus, pot usage likely makes the world and SUNY-Fredonia better places. It does so because it makes people happier and so makes their lives go better. For the same reason, good pizza makes the world better.
The fourth objection, and one that signals desperation for pot-nannies, is that locking up pot smokers and their suppliers is necessary to protect the children. This is the sort of objection that prissy Congressmen and their effeminate political allies have used to ban steroids, pornography, online gambling, alcohol advertising, and mixed martial arts tournaments. The obvious problem with this argument is that it has no stopping point. Criminalizing alcohol, cigarettes, and swearing will reduce the frequency with which children try them. If liberty can be trampled whenever it protects children, our liberty will shrink to the size of a postage stamp. In addition, given the numbers, the goodness of adults’ enjoying the high life vastly outweighs the badness of a few more children trying pot.
Marijuana should be legal because of the liberty and better-world arguments. An interesting issue and one I won’t explore here is whether law-enforcement personnel enforcing laws against pot should feel compromised. If there is no part of the Constitution that allows the federal or state government to control how people use their bodies, and there isn’t (see Article I Section 8), then one wonders how those pledged to uphold the law can ignore the centerpiece of our legal system and still take pride in what they do.
Marijuana Prohibition: The Liberty- and Better-World Arguments
Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
February 6, 2012
Every week in The Leader, the SUNY-Fredonia student newspaper, the police blotter lists crimes for which students were arrested. Common among them are marijuana-related arrests. Also, SUNY-Fredonia had the distinct honor of being named 10th druggiest college in the U.S. by The Daily Beast, although the study’s methodology is flawed. Given the large number of marijuana-related fines, probationary sentences, and prison sentences, there is surprisingly little discussion of whether these laws are justified. The crass-and-shallow politicians dominating the Presidential race (Obama, Romney, and Gingrich) are predictably silent on the topic.
There are two convincing arguments for legalizing marijuana (pot): the liberty argument and the better-world argument. Consider the former. First, people own their own bodies. This explains, for example, why it is wrong to enslave them, forcibly take their organs, or control what they think. Second, if they own their bodies, then they have a moral right to put what they want into them, unless what they wish to put into them is owned by another or will directly harm another. This explains why people have a right to eat unhealthy foods, engage in a wide range of sexual practices (that put a variety of things in their orifices), or mark up their body with unsightly tattoos and piercings. Smoking (or eating) marijuana involves people putting things into their bodies. Hence, people have a moral right to do it.
The objections here are fairly standard and not in the least convincing. One objection is that it is illegal to smoke pot and therefore wrong to do. The obvious problem is that the fact that something is illegal does not make it wrong. For example, owning slaves used to be legal and was still morally wrong. Also, interracial marriage used to be illegal and was still morally permissible. Law doesn’t always track morality because the facts that make an action wrong (right-infringement, direct harm, exploitation, and so on) need not track the facts that make it illegal (for example, approval by the legislative and executive branches).
A related objection is that people have consented to the laws because they have chosen to live in states or a country where pot is criminalized. Somehow the very same people who put this silly argument don’t think that it also justifies the criminalization of sodomy, the legalization of marital rape, or the legalization of forced sterilization of people’s retarded children. Apparently, the they-chose-to-live-there argument is just another rhetorical device to be mindlessly flung about.
A second objection is that marijuana is harmful to the user’s health or, at least, endangers it. This objection fails for the reason that it is false. The studies do not show that moderate recreational use of marijuana is always harmful. It’s less dangerous than other widely used substances such as alcohol and cigarettes. If booze and cigarettes are not dangerous enough to ban, then neither is pot.
Were marijuana always harmful, this still doesn’t warrant trampling on people’s rights. A right is a claim on others that they allow an individual to use his body and property as he sees fit, so long as he is not directly harming others. It is the hallmark of a free society to recognize people’s body- and property-rights. This is what explains the other celebrated rights we have, specifically, right to free speech, religion, assembly, and privacy. For example, the right of free speech is simply the right that one has that others not touch his body or stuff (for example, his printing press or paper). To the degree that a government controls what a person does with his body, it tramples on his rights (that is, his liberty). Because liberty is the most important political value, and the one that has been most celebrated throughout American history, the harm-to-self argument should repel us.
A third objection is that criminalizing marijuana and hunting down people who sell or use it makes the world a better place. The objector further argues that the government should do what it can to make the world a better place, even when this is done by trampling on liberty. This objection is ugly. For example, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Judith Jarvis Thomson, notes that ignoring rights would make it permissible for a physician to kill a healthy patient when his healthy organs can be used to save five people who would otherwise die from organ failure. Anyone who thinks that it would be wrong for an altruistic physician (paging Dr. Obama) to start redistributing organs along these lines must also think it is wrong for a government to do so. That is, liberty limits the ways in which we can make the world a better place.
Even the notion that banning marijuana would make the world a better place is shaky. Consider the better-world argument. In the absence of force, fraud, or theft, what makes people’s lives go better makes the world a better place. In the absence of ignorance about the relevant facts, people tend to want to do what makes their lives go better. Tens of millions of people want to do pot and there is little evidence that they don’t know the relevant facts about pot usage. Thus, pot usage likely makes the world and SUNY-Fredonia better places. It does so because it makes people happier and so makes their lives go better. For the same reason, good pizza makes the world better.
The fourth objection, and one that signals desperation for pot-nannies, is that locking up pot smokers and their suppliers is necessary to protect the children. This is the sort of objection that prissy Congressmen and their effeminate political allies have used to ban steroids, pornography, online gambling, alcohol advertising, and mixed martial arts tournaments. The obvious problem with this argument is that it has no stopping point. Criminalizing alcohol, cigarettes, and swearing will reduce the frequency with which children try them. If liberty can be trampled whenever it protects children, our liberty will shrink to the size of a postage stamp. In addition, given the numbers, the goodness of adults’ enjoying the high life vastly outweighs the badness of a few more children trying pot.
Marijuana should be legal because of the liberty and better-world arguments. An interesting issue and one I won’t explore here is whether law-enforcement personnel enforcing laws against pot should feel compromised. If there is no part of the Constitution that allows the federal or state government to control how people use their bodies, and there isn’t (see Article I Section 8), then one wonders how those pledged to uphold the law can ignore the centerpiece of our legal system and still take pride in what they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
