Cannabis Scenarios

The smoking of marijuana carries historically incendiary implications of excess and disorder. After the War on Drugs institutionalized by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 directed $1.7 billion towards anti-narcotic justice efforts, drug-related arrests and minimum sentencing took their due toll on the justice system (Romero, 2013, p. 88). Such policies represented a multi-lateral effort between Republicans and Democrats as President Clinton signed off on the Higher Education Act in 1998, which disqualified federal financial aid for students who had been convicted of a singular drug offense (Romero, 2013, p. 89). As marijuana becomes legalized in certain states under the waning auspices of these policies, a brief consideration of retributive, commutative and distributive justice remains in order. In this case, we will explore implications for the recreational pot smoker, a parent working to protect their child from drug abuse, and the President of the United States in tandem with the Attorney General. Each party brings their own slant to the varying facets of justice, and it is here that we will examine their positions.

Commutative justice carries little implication for these three parties. Effectively, this concept concerns the obligation of a physician to supply the highest possible standard to their patient (Smith, 2008, p. 19). Such a term would more appropriately apply to a patient who required marijuana for medical purposes. In the case of retributive justice, dual parties are involved as this matter invokes a form of social justice for damaging past actions (Smith, 2008, p. 19). In the case of the President and the Attorney General, the level of retributive justice required will likely depend on how far they are willing to go to support the liberal caucus. Certainly, with powerful lobbies like the ACLU generating documents calling for change to the drug enforcement system, there exists a precedent for applying this degree of justice. In spite of roughly equal marijuana usage figures between Whites and Blacks, the disparity in arrest rates between the two groups continues to grow apart (Smith, 2008, p. 21). The Executive office could act to implement retributive justice by working to remove the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). As recreational marijuana users, especially those with drug-related arrest records may applaud this act, parents with children would in all likelihood feel threatened by such legal shifts, preferring to call on their own form of retributive justice against the perceived wave of inclusive policies that single out the family unit.

Finally, in the case of distributive justice, private citizens may lay a claim in their own interests with politicians caught in the middle. The term itself comes from the theories of Plato and Aristotle, viewing distributive justice as "a principle of moral conduct between and among those within human societies" (Smith, 2008, p. 21). Today, scholars consider it an effort "to supply to individuals or groups their due proportion of goods, services or opportunities" (Smith, 2008, p. 21). No doubt, in a truly libertarian fashion, recreational users of the drug will quickly point out their right to act as they please with their own bodies, especially as their actions do not cause harm to others. Parents may call into question the moral validity of pot smoking as it affects the broader fabric of society. The Executive office, effectively in charge of controlling these regulations, will have a definitive word on the matter as they endeavor to decipher what constitutes a citizen's due proportion of marijuana consumption. Perhaps here more than in any other form of justice, all three parties have a strong argument to play in defending their interests.

Recreational marijuana smokers who live in a state that recently legalized growing, possessing, selling, and distributing, through state-regulated dispensaries, limited amounts of marijuana for medical use must deal with the contentious ramifications of conflicting tenets of state and federal law. Jacquette (2010) sees the issue as a question of mature adults having the right to experiment with "psychoactive" substances provided that they do so in a socially responsible manner (p. 24). No matter the stakes involved, the smoker must take discreet action to exercise his state rights until the national law catches up with state policies or face retributive legal action.

In the case of a parent living in the same state, concerned that her 12-year-old will be exposed to new and significant risks of addiction to pot that will be readily available in their community, recent studies may help support their cause. Given the previously inflated price of marijuana due to its illegal classification, a presumed lowering of fees will result in higher usage rates, which will increase the known harms associated with the drug as 35.6% of individuals who use the substance may be classified as dependent on the drug (Pacula, 2009, p. 2). As a portion of the parent's tax money will almost certainly be allocated towards such rehabilitation programs, a strong form of protest seems all too certain.

In the case of the President and Attorney General of the United States, responsible for enforcing the CSA and upholding the nation’s obligations to implement anti-drug treaties that it has ratified, the issue remains quite simple. The 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland remains relevant today because it pitted state enforcement policies directly against the powers of the federal government. In a sweeping declaration that the American people "did not design to make their government dependent on the States," Chief Justice John Marshall answered the question once and for all—federal power took precedence as the law of the land (Gold, 2008, p. 9). In the context of other international agreements against drug use, there remains little question that marijuana should remain illegal.

In order to achieve the most just resolution to issues involving the availability of marijuana in American society, a quick reference into history dating back to the implementation of Prohibition-era policies sheds quick light on future trends. The substance must become legal consumption for people that can prove their capability to act in a socially responsible manner.

References

Dreisbach, C. (2013). Social and criminal justice in moral perspective. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Gold, S. D. (2008). McCulloch v. Maryland: state v. federal power. Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.

Jacquette, D. (2010). Cannabis: philosophy for everyone: what were we just talking about?. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Pacula, R. L. (2009, October 28). Legalizing marijuana: Issues to consider before reforming California state law. RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/ pubs/testimonies/2009/RAND_CT334.pdf

Romero, A. (2013, June 4). The war on marijuana in black and white. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf

Smith, G. P. (2008). Distributive justice and the new medicine. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.