With the recent trend toward legalization of marijuana in many areas, the question has been raised, ”Should those imprisoned on marijuana-related drug charges be released?” I’d like to briefly consider the available options on the most fundamental level, as the question speaks to a much larger issue.
Release
Legalization is not to be equated with an admission of wrongdoing on the part of past lawmakers. There is no aspect of this proposed legal action that would include apologies, redress of wrongs, etc. There are no reparations suggested for released prisoners. What’s being indicated by their release is that they were rightfully imprisoned at the time, but that it would no longer be right to keep them imprisoned, since the action they were incarcerated for is no longer a crime.
To believe that it is just for a person to lose their freedom, and be removed from their lives and every person they have ever known, one must also believe that it was unjust to perform the action in question. One cannot reasonably and simultaneously believe that an action is just, but harsh punishment of that action is also just. Therefore, if it was just to imprison the person in the first place, the action must have been unjust at that time; and if it is now thought just to release them, the action must now be thought just as well.
This implies that not only can morality change, but that man’s law has the power to determine the nature of that change – that it literally defines morality. This, of course, is not explicitly stated, nor is it typically thought of in these terms, but it is the only logical conclusion when examined critically.
Do Not Release
To keep these prisoners incarcerated despite the relevant action being legalized is to say that it is not the action in question that is justifiably punishable, but the act of disobeying the law itself. This obviates all other considerations regarding any action, and asserts that man's law is justly absolute in all matters.
The necessary implication is that the law answers to no other standard than its own. It has no obligation to any notion of morality whatsoever, be it natural, religious, or social. It has no obligation to practicality, or service to society. It is wholly rooted in the caprice of lawmakers.
The law may prohibit action by the most absurd reasoning - or no reasoning at all - and remains wholly valid. This is the very definition of totalitarianism, and creates an unquestionable master class – Gods among men - who may rule with absolute authority, as they see fit.
Conclusion
Any thinking person can see that neither option points to an acceptable conclusion. Who among us would assert that law and morality are one and the same in all cases, or that unquestioned totalitarian rule is just and valid? And yet, this issue is being discussed with no acknowledgement of the unavoidable logical implications.
It is said that ”We shall know them by their fruits”, and so what can be said about the law which offers only invalid, immoral, unacceptable outcomes? It comes as no surprise that - when examined thoroughly - we find the fruits of man’s law to be rotten, as the tree itself is provably so itself.
This issue is but one small example, but it should clue us in to a much larger problem. The very notion of authoritarian law is rooted in error, and so all that springs forth from that root will be invariably unsound. It cannot be otherwise. If we were to expand this investigation, we will see that wherever man’s law deviates from natural, moral law, it will produce such unacceptable outcomes.
In the cases where such a diversion occurs, man’s law can be seen to be invalid, immoral, and thus irrelevant, not being worthy of obedience. Where diversions do not occur, man’s law is wholly redundant, and again irrelevant, as it contributes nothing of its own - the individual was already obliged by the higher standard upon which that law is based.
Expand this line of inquiry to other matters and you will see an insidious picture emerge. You will find that in thousands of cases, man’s law will fail to meet even the most meager standard of rationality, morality, or practicality. As so much public discourse surrounds the application of law, it behooves us to make this mental effort.
What we condone and support, we are doing ourselves by proxy, and when we vote for lawmakers to make immoral law, it is us who are immoral, despite our best intentions. We cannot place blame on those who we endowed with power, nor can we lament the world’s seeming inability to change if we do not accept the responsibility to be that change ourselves.
To see a world of peace and prosperity, we must offer support in accordance with valid reason and principle-based morality. The world does not change on its own, but as a reflection of the change within ourselves.
Thanks for checking in!
Brian Blackwell
Relevant articles supporting a deeper understanding of the ideas presented above may be found here:
Amazing post Brian, very thought provoking.
Summed up by your one paragraph;
Let us now correlate this information, not only as you've suggested with other laws, but with the concept of government as whole... goverment means mind-control in Latin.
Much obliged, Jay! Control the mind and the body will follow. Luckily, we're still at the point where our natural defense - critical thinking - is yet viable. A hundred years from now, they'll probably put an implant into infants the moment they're born - ya know, just to quell those nasty tendencies toward violence (i.e. resistance) - and man will have no means by which to regain his natural freedom, save John Connor-style underground movements. The time is at hand, people! Let us not speak falsely now, the hour is getting late.
Awesome article! I have never thought about this. Yes, I believe making marijuana against the law is unjust from the get-go. But the damage has been done and the fact is there's a whole lot of people incarcerated right now for having in their possession that very plant. To answer the question directly, I say let'em go. Sadly, I don't see that happening in the near future. This enlightened culture just won't allow it.
Thanks, bub. It probably ruffles less feathers to just leave them there. Releasing prisoners on a large scale - as a general concept, regardless of the rationale - makes your average citizen nervous. Let the vocal minority protest and get nowhere. I mean, it's not like justice is a thing; just do whatever meets your ends.
That being said, I never presume to guess at precisely what those ends may be, or what power-mongers will do in the specific. There are too many variables, too many ways to skin a cat, and they're thinking from a vastly different perspective. The one thing we do know, is that whatever they come up with, it will be motivated solely by personal interest, not lofty notions of philosophy, morality or serving the public interest.
The rule of law is the same as medicine and technology. People rely on the law because they want to use it to their advantage. Where damage occurs, there should be liability. That is the general view and that is the law.
One would have to distance oneself from this principle and ask oneself: does this really have to be the case without exception? If I have damage to my body or to my material goods, is it necessary in this very special event, which occurs especially at this time, to have it replaced or compensated?
If I think that the third pillar of a democracy is the rule of law, i.e. jurisdiction, then I have to accept that in some cases this is to my advantage and in other cases to my disadvantage.
I cannot then take one aspect of the legislation, regard it as absurd and have it immediately changed. If I was pro mariuana and it has so far been illegal to take it, then I may consider it wrong. Nevertheless, I would be liable to prosecution if I were to trade or consume it. Only because many people thought this legislation was wrong over time, made themselves liable to prosecution, took a risk, made public statements, etc. has the view of marijuana slowly changed.
Without the sacrifice of those who have gone into illegality and violated it despite the law in force, those who have to decide on the legislation recognise that it is time to change.
How else are the laws supposed to change?
... One may thank those who violated the law and were arrested for drawing attention to a problem. Happy are those who violated it and were not caught. Taken together, they all make a difference.
In my view, there is nothing wrong with the rule of law itself; it is changing according to its society and habits.
However, it would have to be seen whether a convicted person would not otherwise have to be rehabilitated and not also everything would have to be reset to zero with the serving of a sentence or compensation for damages by money.
So why is a person considered convicted if he wants to get back into public life? Shouldn't everything be neutralized again with the end of the punishment?
That raises another difficult question, doesn't it?
I think that thinking about law and order is a very complex matter and usually there are no easy answers either.
Very thoughtful, as usual, Erika. I deem it indicative of respect for both the topic and the writer, and so I thank you!
I actually think the matter of law is quite simple - nature (or God, as you prefer) makes valid law; man does not. Morality exists as a natural cause-and-effect phenomenon. Man’s law is logically irrelevant in all cases, as described above.
That being said, the fallacious belief in man’s law is quite prevalent and must be dealt with. I agree with the process you’ve described (of the heroic lawbreaker), though not with the stated goal. Changing the law is just shuffling around the furniture on the Titanic; however, when applied more broadly (with the goal of abolishing man’s law) it becomes quite heroic indeed.
Legalization, like all political action, is made to serve lawmakers and their cronies, just as criminalization was. Every cry of the public will be met with such poison pills embedded within the pretense of service. We must understand external authority as inherently immoral, and recognize that lawmakers are self-serving gangsters, in order to keep these issues in sharp focus.
Thank you, Brian. You raise interesting questions and people do talk about what you write.
It is an extremely ambitious undertaking to abolish legislation. I do not think that this could be something that will happen both during our own lifetime and to future generations. Abolition is in itself something that is being fought against. Rather, I could go along with it if it is a moderate development, in which the world view is subject to change, which is not based on fighting, but very much on a critical view. I am absolutely not in favour of passivity. When someone faces an enemy, a conflict automatically arises. People's negative attitude towards their governments will not help them. I believe that the poor media coverage is driving politics and legislation even further in the wrong direction. If I emulate the broadcast media and continue to denigrate the pillars of democracy, I put water on the mills of those who are not interested in my well-being and discourage those who want to speak for me.
If you think that man-made laws should not apply to you, how do you compensate for theft or if your neighbour permanently disturbs your peace at night? I had such a neighbour who regularly turned up his music system when drunk and robbed me of my sleep. It was almost unbearable and no ringing at the door or talking to him helped. Especially since as a woman I wasn't always sure if it would be wise to tell a drunk to behave. Calling the police was the best thing I could have done. Once he went so far that the cops took him away for the night. That must have disillusioned him so much that there was no disturbance afterwards. He apologized to me afterwards and asked politely if I could refrain from calling the police in the future. I told him: You have that in your hand. If you overdo it, I'll keep asking for help."
He was disrespectful to me and all the flatmates of the house and since he did not build one in front of me personally, I had to resort to the legally available means. I think that's right. After all, we all no longer live in clans that can defend us because of their membership and cohesion.
There are people who stalk others or commit defamation. They can only be stopped by the fact that the arm of the law forbids them to do so. An official court order often works wonders.
I am equally convinced, however, that the little man on the street is very much involved in new laws for the masses and above all, superfluous. People scream for "security" and "strong arms" and people in parliaments hear this.
In fact, I think that you and I are in a minority. I know exactly what you're talking about. If people were all to abide by the laws that have existed for thousands of years and that set out clear ethics, many man-made laws would be unnecessary. To this end, it is important not to look at others and tell them to fight, but to live clearly according to these rules that have been found to be right. I asked you once before if you had ever done the experiment of not lying for a few days. This one commandment alone is a challenge. Everyone should put their own house in order, don't you think?
Absolutely. I can remember the last time I proactively lied, it was 2 years ago. I've made great progress in living authentically - at least on that front - but I still have a long way to go, since my views are generally deemed unacceptably outrageous, even by those closest to me. This means that I often omit the truth by simply not speaking what I truly feel. I will, however, answer any question posed without actively lying.
Lying is primarily indicative of a lack of self-respect, and secondly, an act of disrespect for the other person. Lying is the act of a coward, and this I could not abide, so I no longer tell lies actively; though omission is in the same vein, and no person can claim full authenticity until they address this issue as well. The truly authentic person will no doubt be institutionalized (or at least socially ostracized) in short order. The culture simply does not permit this level of honesty without punishment.
Governments claim a monopoly on large-scale protection. You called the police because you were denied other viable options under threat of violent punishment. He did not desist because what he respected the lofty notion of man's "law", he desisted because men came with guns and used force to make him afraid. This does not require law. Any private protection service could do this, or you could do it yourself if properly armed and skilled.
The protective aspect of law is but a minuscule aspect of its role in society, though it is often thought of as representing the entirety of its function. Its actual function is to rob and oppress the people. Protection is just the cream cheese that makes the poison pill palatable. Every government function contains these two aspects - the treacherous reality, and the agreeable facade.
I agree that our focus should be on solutions, though I deem it reasonable to be angry with a terrorist organization enslaving the whole of humanity. The average man on the street is absolutely complicit in these moral crimes because he loves his enslavement, and loves to see others enslaved. His highest aspiration is to have the devil's ear, and to have his bidding done by its power. This is what democracy is.
The government is a manifestation of mass immorality. Mass immorality is a manifestation of the fear that lies within the hearts of men. Evil is the tool of cowards. Evil is, by definition, a lie - the misrepresentation of truth. So we have come full circle - the coward's outward lies are a reflection of his inward lie - fear. And he fears nothing more than going within and addressing his weakness. He would rather die than do this, and often does.
Maybe you get negative reactions because your honesty is not seen as exemplary but as an attack or arrogance? Authenticity alone does not make you a respectable person. If you feel that someone cannot yet cope with an honest statement or answer, or you already suspect that speaking it will cause a conflict between you and that person, how wise of you to do it anyway?
I have experienced that authenticity is not perceived as such by my family members but is interpreted as intransigence and self-glorification. Which actually pointed to a blind spot on my part and I suspected that there was something to it. Whenever I was enraptured to presume judgements or frustratedly criticize the decisions and statements of my fellow human beings, my honesty was no longer worth much.
Your environment will only recognize you as a role model when you are free from any misconduct. And even then the likelihood of being misunderstood and suspiciously eyed is because you have not been a wise person all your life. Give people time to know for sure that who you want to be is real.
If you are convinced of a mass immorality, why are you wondering why you experience a kind of exclusion or punishment when you criticize people of immorality?
Immorality is and always will remain a fact. So is morality. Tell me spontaneously an event in which you have observed your friends or your family members in a moral act. Where you've seen them so you've taken an example from them. Where they omitted or did something that you felt was a moral enrichment. If you can't think of anything so ad hoc, it's probably because you're just as infected with the common habit of focusing on the unpleasant aspects of others. I don't blame you, I feel the same way.
I find it extremely difficult to give examples of integrity and sovereignty and to sharpen my powers of observation in this respect.
With my example of family history I wanted to express that people can retain their dignity despite subjugation and that the immorality of others does not make them bitter. My grandfather and also my mother gave these examples - among others - for me. Who is it with you?
Moral action is a rather quiet affair, which may explain why it seems difficult to cite specific circumstances. In reality, they are so obvious, they escape our notice.
Moral acts are innumerable - they include everything that is not an immoral act, of which there are relatively few. Immoral acts are those which do not duly acknowledge the free-will choice of the individual. They are an act of theft, whereby such choice is withheld; consent is not respected.
Everything else is moral - building a canoe, watching TV, painting your bedroom, making a sandwich. These are not as noteworthy as defending the life of a would-be victim, but they are moral actions nonetheless, and carry the integrity and sovereignty of that perspective. I do not see need of more impressive examples than merely refraining from the immoral.
It is the responsibility of every person to value truth. The majority of people are not meeting this responsibility. You question the wisdom of insisting upon truth in a world where it is not respected, but what is the alternative? Would it be wisdom to instead deny truth, or omit it? Certainly not. Would it be wisdom to portray it with sugar and spice, and everything nice? Perhaps it would, as this is more agreeable, though some truths are difficult to frame thusly, and such coddling is certainly not deserved.
It may very well be a personal flaw to resent the insistence upon this hand-holding appeasement of irrationality and willful ignorance; but as one committed to truth, I recognize that the message and the messenger have no valid correlation, nor does the message and its method of delivery. If a person is unwilling to make this distinction, they do not value truth highly enough, and it is not the responsibility of the truthful to descend into the grave to meet these unduly-contented zombies on their own level.
I admit that there is a part of me that would rather see the world die in flames than to appease infantile miscreants who whine "Carry me" while writhing in the muck, rather than simply standing of their own volition. That being said, a stubborn benevolence and sense of connectivity with all living beings nags me to work toward averting this unnecessary disaster. So I live upon the fence, wavering between helping them, and allowing them the justice of drowning in 6 inches of water due to their pathetic unwillingness to simply raise their head.
Why not? In the eye of what you observe and perceive as immoral - and which seems to be very strong - I see a certain need for the stronger examples to act as a polarity to balance it out?
As you cannot reach ever the majority isn't it wise to reach the minority which are the people near you (family, friends, working place, groceries etc.)?
I ask you for alternatives which do not point so much to an "either, or" position. You can encourage wisdom in others when you put some trust in them that they are not totally unattainable. It's an art to practice that as we have to teach ourselves to act in this way.
If that is so then you could as well be ignorant towards those you don't want to be responsible for. Couldn't it be the case that the person you are dealing with and which appears to you zombie-like that this person doesn't know about this distinction resp. is not used and educated in thinking that way?
Have you had an experience where you were able to overcome this distance between you and another one and finally, after thinking, it is useless, came to a positive outcome? ... maybe not all at once but in the course of time?
It should be clear that doing this work is not easy at all. The temptation to send everything to hell is exactly the challenge you give to yourself. Every lost battle, every separation from the willingness to see the flaws of others as well in oneself points to an itching spot which says: there is work to be done.
Why smearing someone with sugar when you actually could also be just friendly? In the meaning of befriending yourself with the idea that your interlocutor may be surprised by an attitude of you which you haven't shown before? This may lead to a similar surprise for yourself and you may receive the unexpected. Without guarantee, though. People are smart, even the dumb ones, once they sense that your intention is not to put them down or to win an argument.
I would like to ask you if this is a challenge you can take up the next time you meet someone you attribute to be a zombie or a whining creature. You can be still direct but respectful, no?
HaHa! Greatly said! I hope your "stubborn benevolence and sense of connectivity with all living beings" will nag further on you.
Thank you for engaging, Brian.
I see only one side. RELEASE if holding Mother Earth's natural herb is what they are imprisoned for. No one hurt no crime done.
You will find in the criminal prison system only the worst offenders are released such as murders and rapist. Then it will be publicized in the public.
It was explained to me by a common law lawyer that it is in the money making prisons system to let the worst go. Publicity can be sited, we need more prisons, more cops, more this, more that. Fear is released. I did google and pulled up the first thing, forgive me for not reading it. It had the title I sought. https://www.ranker.com/list/serial-killers-who-are-free/ranker-crime
Wow, that's just sad. Fear-mongering assholes! Just another reason to scare Americans, and unfortunately they buy into it.
Excellent post, thanks!
Thanks Jason! Great quote. Call it what you will, but we are answerable to a higher power than cigar-smoking white guys wearing Masonic nooses.
Congratulations @bbblackwell! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
SteemitBoard World Cup Contest - The results, the winners and the prizes
if we follow the money, releasing cannabis offenders could send cracks into the private prison system which operates for profits. Prisons would have less slave labor to offer...
I am happy you are getting more noticed, you deserve it... :)
Thank you so much!