Legalization of Marijuana:

Analyzing a Contemporary Question

Through Classical Perspectives

By Keenan Weatherford

GOVT 1615

April 21, 2009

Murmurs of legalizing marijuana have been circulating since the social revolution era of the

1960s, but with the international financial crisis as well as a failed War on Drugs, the call for

marijuana legislation has grown louder in certain political circles. There are myriad reasons

presented by both sides of the debate, many of which stem from basic political theories from

the likes of Plato and John Locke. Both philosophers would have distinct opinions about

marijuana; Plato would advocate to strictly prohibit its use among the upper two tiers of society

(philosopher-kings and auxiliaries) and to turn the occasional blind eye to pot use in the lower

class (producers). Locke would have some reservations about marijuana use, but would

ultimately prefer a hands-off approach and lobby for legalization.

Aside from the practical problems Plato would identify, legalizing marijuana use would first

and foremost violate Plato's notion of morality. For Plato, a moral human is a human whose

three "sections" — self-discipline, courage and wisdom — are all in order. “Where each of the

constituent parts of an individual does its own job, the individual will be moral and do his own

job” (pg 153). The altered state of mind brought on by marijuana use is likely a result of an

unbalanced psyche where the three sections are not operating in sync. One symptom is extreme

feelings of hunger and thirst, an indication that cannabis use brings out the role of the self-

discipline/appetite aspect of the psyche more than usual. Legalization of marijuana would also

be a traditionally sophist piece of legislation, something which Plato was very opposed to. One

of his major criticisms of Greek democracy was that it opened the door to sophists, who

encourage the desires of the masses rather than showing them the truth. Marijuana use would

throw the three components of human psyche out of order and create an immoral being who is

then incapable of performing his or her job in society.

One of the points Plato stressed in The Republic was the need to develop and maintain pure,

incorrigible philosopher-kings to rule society. These philosopher-kings needed to be able to see

the truth of all things and make the best decisions for society, and marijuana would likely

hinder execution of both of these duties. Some common symptoms prescribed to frequent

marijuana use are short-term memory loss, loss of motivation and impaired thinking — all

symptoms that should be avoided by a philosopher-king. Plato also warned against rewarding

philosopher-kings with physical goods for fear that they would grow corrupt and stop acting in

the best interest of society. If philosopher-kings smoked marijuana, they might lose sight of the

ultimate goal: prosperity of the society they rule over.

Similarly, the second-class guardians of society should also avoid marijuana use, which

inhibits response time and physical activity. This way they would best be able to maintain their

ability to defend the society from attack — having an army of "stoned" soldiers does not seem

like a prudent way to protect a city from outside forces.

Plato would oppose marijuana use among the lowest class on the grounds that it produces

immoral individuals, but he would recognize that use among the lower class is not as

detrimental to society as use among the top two classes. In the producer or "bronze" class,

marijuana use would still create an immoral person who is less capable of performing his or her

duties, but the duties of a member of the lower class are inherently less crucial to the

functioning of society than are the duties of a member of the higher classes. Producers who

smoke marijuana are likely to be less efficient at performing their duties, but it may be worth

conceding that efficiency to preserve the complacency of the producer class. If the producers

want to use marijuana, it might be more beneficial to society to let them use it and sacrifice

efficiency rather than risk upsetting the producer class and causing an uprising.

The most critical function of a society, according to Plato, is to ensure that everyone performs

the job associated with the class in which they belong. Marijuana use among the lower class

could actually be beneficial to this end, as it might quash ambitions that the "bronze" class may

have of moving up to the "silver" or "gold" classes. Even with this significant benefit to

marijuana use, Plato would not argue for legalization because such an action would send the

message that the government essentially supports immorality. Rather than legalizing marijuana

use, Plato might be content to let it remain generally unpunished in the lower class, but heavily

restricted in the upper two classes.

In a way, this actually resembles the system in place in the US today. Marijuana use is illegal,

but not heavily enforced. It is decriminalized in many cities and states, meaning that relatively

minor pot offenders face only a fine rather than criminal charges. There is a recent initiative in

several cities and counties to make marijuana enforcement the absolute lowest priority of local

law enforcement. The gesture is largely symbolic in these regions, as law enforcement often

looks the other way when presented with pot smokers. The usual strategy of the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) and various other drug-fighting organs of the government

is to get at the root of the drug problem and concentrate efforts on seeking out and arresting

marijuana dealers. This is likely the most efficient use of the DEA's resources, but it allows

most users to avoid detection and prosecution.

While legal consequences do not always result from marijuana use, other forces in society

often impose their own will regarding drug use. High-level officials in the public and private

sectors are (presumably) drug tested regularly as a result of the prevailing impression that drug

use makes such officials less competent in carrying out their duties. The influence that these

officials have on their community makes them the modern-day equivalent of Plato's notion of

philosopher-kings. Soldiers and members of the armed forces are also drug tested regularly, as

being under the influence of drugs would compromise their ability to do their job and defend

their country.

One potential cause for Plato to change his stance and support legalization is if the

philosopher-kings determine that it will benefit their society. Philosopher-kings are able to see

a deeper truth and should utilize that vision to guide their communities to prosperity, according

to Plato. Although difficult to imagine, there may be situations where the philosopher-kings

use their superior powers of perception to determine that the benefits of legalization outweigh

the drawbacks. The current conflict with warring drug cartels in Mexico and violence spilling

into the US might be one of these situations. By making marijuana illegal, the US government

forces marijuana users to purchase from violent drug gangs based in Mexico. If the government

legalized marijuana, the number of immoral users would increase, but the revenue would go to

honest marijuana farmers rather than funding wars between illicit drug cartels. The argument

can also be made that legalizing marijuana would help offset the growing federal budget

deficit. Again, there would be a higher number of immoral marijuana users if it was legalized,

but growth and sale of marijuana plants could, if taxed, be a crucial source of revenue that the

philosopher-kings might decide is necessary. In this situation, Plato would still be concerned

about the immoral nature of marijuana use, but would trust the judgment of the philosopher-

kings and might be swayed to advocate for legalization.

Locke would also have many concerns and hesitations about legalizing marijuana use, but he

would ultimately decide that it should be legalized due to his liberal negative notion of

freedom. Despite concerns about marijuana's effect on society, Locke's would conclude that his

ideal limited government would not authorize the outlaw of marijuana use. One reservation

Locke might have about marijuana use is his wariness of passion and bias in humans. While

rational humans can coexist peacefully in a state of nature, that tranquility ends when personal

bias or passion comes into play and causes one human to disrespect a natural right, often

personal property, of another human. It is unclear if marijuana use creates "passion and bias"

but most would agree that it alters the state of mind, and anti-drug campaigns often point out

bad decisions made while under the influence of marijuana. It seems logical that the altered

state of mind and poor decision-making accounted to marijuana use might increase the number

of altercations between people.

While Locke is a firm advocate of private property, he also believes that personal wealth

should not accumulate beyond the point at which it can't even be used up before it is spoiled:

"The exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession,

but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it." (Pg 257). If Locke viewed marijuana use as an

extraneous expense or luxury, he would hesitate to legalize it on the grounds that resources

used for marijuana consumption could be better applied elsewhere in society. If a person has

enough free time to sit around smoking pot, Locke might argue, then he or she should find

something more productive to do that benefits the society as a whole.

Probably the biggest challenge to achieving Locke's ideal of limited government comes from

the government itself and Locke's democratic notion of political power. One of Locke's

essential ideas about government is that the citizens who decide to form a common-wealth

have the power to determine laws for themselves ("the common-wealth comes by a power to

set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy

of it, committed amongst the members of that society") through a majority consensus ("And

therefore we see, that in assemblies ... the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole,

and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason, the power of the whole")

(Pg 258, 260). This would not clash with the ideal limited government if the members of the

common-wealth decided to legalize marijuana use. But if a majority of a society opposed

marijuana use and voted to outlaw it, Locke's ideal limited government would be at odds with

his ideal of democratic power. On the one hand, a government has no power if the will of the

majority is not executed, so it would be subversive to undermine a majority vote to outlaw

marijuana use. On the other hand, the government should never, even with the majority's

consent, be allowed to infringe on a person's natural rights. Ultimately, it would seem to be a

matter of logic: the barest, most pure purpose of government is, Locke would maintain, to

preserve its citizens' natural rights. Even if a democratic vote outlawed marijuana use, the issue

would be irrelevant in Locke's eyes because the government has no business regulating such

issues. The government's authority comes from the peoples' desire to protect their natural rights

and private property, and its power comes with the caveat that "the supreme power cannot take

from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of

property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily

supposes and requires, that the people should have property..." (pg 266).

This reverence for private property and natural rights is what would ultimately compel Locke

to advocate for marijuana legalization. According to Locke, private property is the product of a

person's labor. Locke was a follower of the Protestant notion that hard work is rewarded, and

he saw private property as that reward. It is a concept that is essential to society, because

protection of private property is what compels humans to form a society. "Private property," as

Locke states, does not refer solely to the physical possessions of a person. It represents the

right to have a life — complete with habits, vices and values — outside the scope of the public

eye. Negative freedom, Locke argues, is the true kind of freedom that a government can offer

to its citizens — the freedom to do anything that is not expressly prohibited. Marijuana use,

which is the use of one's personal property, is just one of many decisions made in life, and

Locke would argue that government has no authority to make those decisions for its citizens.

Religion is another example of a decision that Locke believes government should avoid

interfering with. Government authority should be called into play only when an act is

committed that is injurious to others. It would be difficult even for harsh critics to argue that

issues such as religion and marijuana use are injurious to others. Especially in the context of

today's largely unsuccessful war on drugs, Locke would strongly oppose government spending

on regulating harmless drug use and would recommend that those resources be put to use

fighting injustices and crimes that have real victims, a call echoed by many contemporary

marijuana legalization advocates.

The philosophies of Plato and Locke have both shaped contemporary viewpoints and

discussion about legalization of marijuana. Evidence of Plato’s distaste for the immoral as well

as Locke’s respect for private property are found in the arguments presented by both sides of

the modern debate. Were they alive today, Plato and Locke would have differing opinions

about legalization of marijuana, but both could be swayed by a decision arrived at by their

ideal decision-makers: philosopher-kings in Plato’s case and the democratic majority in

Locke’s case. Plato would argue against legalization because he would see marijuana use as

immoral and, except for a few special cases to be recognized by philosopher-kings, detrimental

to society. However, Plato would recognize the utility of unofficially allowing some marijuana

use in the bottom (producer) class of society. Locke would also have moral concerns about

marijuana use, but would ultimately support a government that legalized marijuana use and

provided the greatest amount of “negative freedom” to its citizens.