State and federal marijuana legalization: justice frameworks and competing perspectives

Justice

In a pluralistic society there are many different groups of people whose interests often conflict, and as a result justice can be viewed very differently. When laws are created to satisfy the needs of one group, it can have a detrimental effect on other groups. Therefore, justice as a concept, as well as a reality, does not always effect the whole of society universally. Recently there has been a number of states which have created laws regarding the growing, distribution, and use of marijuana. But while these states may have legalized it in some form, national law still restricts the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana. This has created a situation in which the differing groups of society, with their differing views on marijuana, have come into conflict in regard to the laws that have been created. In other words, it has created a situation where one can discuss the varying views of justice from the varying positions within society.

Justice, as a concept, can be categorized in one of three ways: a moral concept, a legal concept, and a religious concept. Within these three viewpoints justice can be applied in a variety of ways including the traditions of the society, applying logic and reason, using cultural differences found in a pluralistic society, and personal experience of individuals. And when individuals view justice in their society, they usually see it from the perspective of the traditions learned within the family, the standards of society in general, or from one of the demographic subgroups within that society. (Dreisbach, 2013, Chapter 1) Therefore, because of the variety of ideas, concepts, traditions, personal experiences, and standards that arise in a pluralistic society, how an individual views justice can be extremely subjective. Each individual within a society comes to view justice through the prism of their own lives, viewed from their position within that society.

In the case where a state has legalized the growing, possessing, selling and distributing of limited amounts of marijuana through state-regulated dispensaries there are a variety of differing points-of-view regarding the justice of such a law. For instance, a recreational pot smoker may view the law as a moral concept. For such a person, smoking pot for recreational purposes may be considered to be perfectly moral, and therefore, anything they must do, including lying, or using unethical doctors to provide the necessary approval would be considered moral and right. They may also use their personal experience as the basis of their belief that they are acting justly, particularly if they have not had previous legal problems, or simply believe that their action is relatively moral because of the particular culture or times they are living in. (Dreisbach, 2013, Chapter 1)

But on the other hand a parent with a 12-year-old child may look at the justice of legalizing marijuana a bit differently. Concerned that the new law will increase the risks of drug addiction, a parent is also viewing the law from a moral perspective; but with opposite results. Morally a parent wants to protect their child from danger and this new law substantially increases the risk of drug use. And while they may not have any personal experience with drug use, the parents are using reason to come to the conclusion that increased drug availability may lead to increased drug addiction. They are also viewing the concept of justice from the perspective of their family, and how best to protect their family from the dangers posed by drug addiction.

Another individual viewpoint may be from a HIV patient who's doctor advises their marijuana use for medicinal purposes. The patient can view the legalization of marijuana from both a moral and a legal view. Morally, the use of marijuana is a medicinal necessity for the continued existence of normal life. But the pot was also legalized for the purpose of medicinal use, and the HIV patient is the reason the law was created. From this point-of-view the use of marijuana is both morally and legally acceptable, despite the federal laws currently in place.

But the Chief of Police cannot view the law from a personal point-of-view, their position dictates how they must view justice and they are limited to a legalistic point-of-view. And as a policeman, they have taken an oath to uphold the law. But in the United States, federal law has been determined to override state law, and in the case of the Chief of Police making it almost impossible for dispensaries to operate, they are simply invoking the traditions found in the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. In this case the legal concept of justice overrides any other considerations such as reason, cultural differences, demographics, or society's values. However, all these things can be taken into account at the federal level as the Constitution is a living document that can be interpreted according to the times. (Dreisbach, 2013, Chapter 2) With this in mind, the federal law could be amended and then the legalistic opposition to medicinal marijuana laws would dissipate.

This legalistic view would be different from those who would be appointed to the state's Medical Marijuana Board. These people are bound, not by an oath to uphold the law in general, but to regulate one particular state law. With this in mind, the legalistic argument seems to be based on society's standards, and its acceptance of marijuana as a form of medicine. For the members of the board, traditions, reason, cultural differences, demographics, can all be taken into account when considering the justice of their actions. But the overarching consideration for the members of the board is what Robert Frank called the government's obligation to respond "…to the demands for public goods and services." (Frank, 2011, p.56) In this case the public, through their representatives, have demanded the medicinal use of marijuana and the board has an obligation to provide it.