the social contract

  I asked yesterday about a proposal by the current administration to legalize marijuana. That is something that comes up time and again. I think it is a forgone conclusion that one day it will happen. A society that can justify on demand abortions will have no issue with justifying the use of marijuana. The latest article I read promoting its' use was claiming it intensified and enhanced sexual pleasure. It was the first time I had heard that argument used as justification, the getting "high" part of marijuana use that is. In the past I heard about all the potential health benefits of the plant or using the plant fibers in making a wide variety of products. I read where George Washington himself grew "hemp "and smoked it on the porch at Mount Vernon. I've heard the argument that it isn't any worse than, an argument that always amuses me as it is my belief, we should all be striving to be better than. But whatever your feelings are the bottom line will be, it will be taxed and regulated by the government. Morality, ethics, indeed no form of vice will stand in the way of profits. It is just a matter of time. 

 Included in that proposal however is the provision that if you were arrested, charged and prosecuted for the illegal use or possession of pot prior to that legalization your conviction would be expunged from the record. The past will be legally erased as though it never happened. I questioned whether that should be included or not. I did receive a few responses. There wasn't much discussion however, just a statement of opinions. My opinion is that a law broken was still broken even after that law has been repealed, rewritten, or modified in any way. You don't get to erase that history. The issue is what compels you to obey the law. Do you obey the law for fear of reprisal and punishment? Or do you obey the law as a matter of social conscience. It's similar to asking whether you do the right thing even when no one is looking?

 Perhaps I didn't word the question correctly. What I'm really asking is this, are you obligated to obey the law, even when you feel the law is unjust? I'm in the camp of yes, I should obey that law until it has been changed in some fashion. It's an obligation to society. That isn't to say I shouldn't advocate for that change, support a change, be an "activist" as they say today. At what point is it permissible for an activist to disobey the law? I'd say it would have to be an extreme condition or circumstance. The desire to use a substance for recreation is hardly a pressing need, a dire emergency or circumstance. If I were speeding on the highway simply because I wanted to go fast and received a ticket I should be punished for that. If I were speeding down the highway because of a genuine emergency the court would consider that circumstance. 

 What I believe in is the social contract. It's a real theory discussed by scholars. Is the social contract the only reason for obeying the laws of the land? Yes, I believe it should be anyway. The social contract is like a handshake, it rests on honor and integrity. The social contract is based on mutual consent rather than the power of government. That's the great experiment that is America and her republic. The Romans famously were a republic but power rested in the Emperor as the senate failed to maintain control. Greed, corruption, social status, political power and ambition all played roles in the demise of that empire. The social contract became null and void and the empire collapsed. 

 In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence the law of nature is cited. Those law(s) dictate the social contract. To live productive lives is to obey the social contract. Contradict natural law and bad things happen to good people. All religions, all governments endeavor to enforce the social contract. It is only the method of enforcement that is different. Whether you believe you will go to hell or prison, live or die. Those are the parameters. To live in compliance or contradiction? 

 So you see my question really had nothing to do with marijuana and whether it should or should not be legalized. I didn't address that at all. Yet the responses I did receive talked about that. I call that rationalization. If I want to do that I will find a rational reason I should be allowed to do so. It's what mankind has been doing for thousands of years. The modification of the social contract to suit our own wants and needs. Still we can't rewrite or erase the past, only modify our reaction to it. What's old is new again and vice-versa.