I have a personal theory about how legislation should be directed and why. I call it, ‘The Gray Zone’. The idea is, that we should make illegal something which is relativly benign and not enforce the law much or at all, in order to be able to enforce it harshly past the ‘gray zone when needs be.
Marijuana should be illegal. Not because it is necessarily that bad for you, although I think it is deleterious for a culture for a few reasons, but lets say its of no consequence at all. But the next drug, cocaine, crack, heroin etc. these have few redeeming features and when abused (heroin can be very beneficial for cancer patients I am told) ruin a persons life and bear a heavy cost to society. So why should marijuana be illegal? Because you need a wide line. Marijuana is that line. You need to be able to say, well, that person is dealing/taking/giving to children this noxious substance many many times worse than substance X which is illegal but we dont enforce.
Why? Because once we legalize marijuana we will legalize, or not enforce the next thing. The gray zone exists not because I think we need to consider it, but because it simply does. The fashion in legislation for decades now has moved towards liberalization of certain important practices to the extent that now, we can’t seem to find the line to draw in what has to be seen as, and punished as, criminal behavior. It is in that spirit that I post the video below. Not that it deals with an issue I wish this site to take on for its own sake.
I just feel it is an excellent example of a grotesque breach of the gray zone in legislation and a clear example of the consequences.