As the topic of marijuana becomes more mainstream in modern culture, it comes as little surprise that government efforts to limit one’s access to the plant is becoming more and more cumbersome. Some states have decided to give the people what they want, while others work tirelessly to stop any advancement in allowing people to have access to marijuana, whether for medical or recreational purposes.

As most realize, the laws prohibiting marijuana are not about public safety. Currently, laws that oppose the right to consume marijuana are kept on the books by lobbying funds from law enforcement unions, pharmaceutical companies, religious organizations, the lumber industry, and the alcohol manufacturing industry who purchase their influence from politicians in the form of campaign contributions.

In many states, the laws regarding marijuana are tougher than sexual crimes against children

With the recent shift in scientific studies showing that marijuana actually provides major health benefits and the modern acceptance that information provided by the government is not based on fact, the people are more open to society embracing marijuana usage as a personal choice.

Libertarian Party Position:

Per the 2018 party platform:

“….we favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as gambling, the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, and consensual transactions involving sexual services.”

The Libertarian Stance:

The libertarian stance on marijuana and other similar issues comes in a variety of opinions, but all lead to the same conclusion.

From the medical usage perspective, libertarians believe that under the principle of self-ownership no government has any right to dictate the medical care one chooses or restrict any options. The choice is solely between the medical advisor and the individual without being subject to any governing authority.

For recreational use, the same applies. Since libertarians believe in self-ownership, no other person has any right to dictate what another can consume under threat of force; however, the individual is responsible for what happens as a result of their decision.

From a criminality perspective, since there is no victim and any harm that comes is solely self-inflicted, there is no need for any force to be used to prevent the person from doing as they see fit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *