The Right to Legalize Marijuana

Government! You can't live with it! You can't live without it! This is a common phrase everyone knows. The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition defines government as, "The exercise of authority in a political unit in order to control and administer public policy." Webster's Desk Dictionary of the English Language defines government as, "The political direction and control exercised over a nation, state, community, etc." The common individual might define government as the root of all evil. The thing about government is, some of their decisions or laws are not justified. This brings us to the philosophical view of government laws and regulations such as marijuana use, gay marriage and consenting adults.

The right to legalize marijuana has been around for a long time, but the government has and still holds the overall right to make the final decision. Even though I tend to disagree with some government decisions, I do believe the government should have the overall decision of legalizing marijuana. I say this because of its physical effects, financial problems, and government issues that marijuana causes. The use of marijuana affects the person by causing "impairment of short-term memory, logical thinking, hallucinations, energy loss, toxic effect on brain nerve cells, risk of chronic bronchitis, impaired immune system, and etc" (NIDA). Because of these of effects many people should know why they shouldn't smoke marijuana. By smoking marijuana many people would end up buying marijuana instead of their needs. For example, people would rather buy marijuana instead of buying food for their family. If marijuana is legalized the government would not make any money since the people wont be buying cigarettes any more. And if cigarettes are not sold, the government will have financial problems because the government depends on that tobacco and taxes. But the underlying point of marijuana use is that it is overall harmful for the world as a whole, and government involvement only helps regulate these effects.

The next question is; should the government be involved when it comes to gay marriage? There have been multitudes of arguments made for both sides of the same-sex marriage debate.

One of the more common positions on the side of religion is the claim that same-sex marriage defies the will of God. "This is, as much, backed up by the philosophical finding that humans, in general, do not like change, especially if they are in the minority in opposing that change. In humans, there is an underlying desire for the status quo. By throwing that balance off, a problem is created." (GayLife) Philosophically speaking, this argument is supported on the grounds that humans have free-will to believe and do what they think is right. This is natural; it is not wrong or right. When these beliefs, what many hold to be an absolute truth in this case, are questioned, a culture shock and accompanying ripple effect. "The argument of religion's position is that, if a contradiction to a value held to be absolute - marriage - is upheld by law, they must now doubt the absoluteness of every other view hey hold and seek to reinforce with that prophet or text." (Bidstrup) This culture shock, however, is only theoretical, and can not be proven as a potential harm. Some facts can be shown in how denial and anger flow from both sides on the subject that is questioned by each other or outside sources. However, as nothing is an absolute, the same philosophy that supports the religious side of the debate also under minds it. If nothing is absolute, that means the values of religion are open to challenge and interpretation, and are flawed, as all human laws are. If this debate continues on to any kind of solution, the absolutism