Dear all, 

Tim Hsiao's argument against marijuana legalization, scheduled for tomorrow, is straightforward
and short. For this reason, I will give a brief account below, which you can review when you
have time. This will enable you to sleep in and rest in the morning! It is important, as you know,
at this point in the semester! I hope you enjoy it!

Hsiao’s Case Against Marijuana Legalization

During the past couple of semesters, I have incorporated Hsiao’s drug argument in the class and
thought something was right about it, but, sadly, many students do not think so. Well, take a look
at it and see what you think.

Conclusion: Marijuana ought to be prohibited and criminalized.

How do we get to this conclusion, Hsiao style?

The Traditional Argument

Most people think that marijuana, like alcohol, does not have bad consequences, and, if so, the
consequences harm the user, in most cases, and no one else. For this reason, many conclude we
should make both alcohol and marijuana legal. The general view is, “Alcohol is worse than
weed, and it is legal; thus,…!”

The Difference between Weed and Alcohol?

Hsiao, however, thinks there is a difference between weed and alcohol. Nevertheless, let’s take a
look at his core claims to see this.

The Interest of the State

Do you believe the following statement?

1. A state should promote autonomy.

Well, probably you gave a mental “yes!” “Good!” “You are swallowing the pill!” lol. You
believe a state should let people choose for themselves. This seems right!

Now, consider the following:

2. The state should promote/protect the conditions for autonomy.

It seems that if free choice is important the to the state, the conditions for liberty should also be
important. Now, what is important for Hsiao is:

3. An important condition for autonomy/liberty is the proper functioning of one’s cognitive

faculties.
Think about it! One who does not have impaired faculties can freely reflect over different
possibilities and make a choice. On the other hand, one with diminished/imparied faculties, we
could say, is less free and has less of an ability to give due consideration.

Based on this, if we link 2. and 3. we get that a state has an interest in protecting one’s use of
one’s cognitive faculties. Better put:

4. The state has an interest in protecting one from diminishing one’s cognitive faculties, and
the best way of achieving this is by banning or limiting one’s access to such substances.

Serious Drugs

Well, you now see where this argument is going:

5. Regular use of “serious” drugs—crack, cocaine, meth, heroin, etc.—result in

diminished cognitive faculties.

It seems one can diminish one’s faculties by regular use of serious drugs in two senses. First,
when one is high, he or she cannot effectively use his or her faculties; i.e. one cannot freely
choose and effectively deliberate over possibilities (or one less freely deliberates…etc.). Second,
sustained use over a long period of time diminishes one’s capacities. The “drug head,” we could
say, is less free, for she has a less of an ability to give due consideration of possibilities.

This seems to give us Hsiao’s desired conclusion. If a state has an interest in protecting
autonomy, as well as the conditions for autonomy, then they should be able to ban or limit one’s
access to serious drugs. Thus, for Hsiao, we should be able to ban serious drugs. Poof—Magic!

Don’t Take My Weed!

The above argument seems simple enough: freedom requires functioning minds and serious
drugs lessen the effectiveness of a functioning mind.
What does this have to do with marijuana?
We all know that marijuana is not a serious drug. At the worst, it is a gateway drug to a more
serious one. Nevertheless, Hsiao tries to extend the argument to marijuana in two ways.
First, we can restrict it because it makes us high, and, while high, we have deterred faculties. I
take it that one thinks with her eyes crossed. Consider the following:
6. One has diminished faculties when one his high.
This seems true. Further, a state has an interest in protecting one’s faculties; thus, a state has an
interest, given the premises above, to restrict or ban marijuana, for it deters or frustrates one’s
capacities, diminishing one’s autonomy.
Well, this version of the argument seems to be a restriction on getting high, which may be
intrinsic to marijuana use. If so, for Hsiao, marijuana should not be legalized.
Second, we could argue a more controversial case:
7. Long term marijuana use diminishes one’s faculties.
This is an empirical claim—the so-called “pot-head syndrome”—but there are few that would
adopt it, ro so I have found. Nevertheless, I think Hsiao has some ground for holding it and,
perhaps, you ought to too. Consider the following:
8. There is strong empirical evidence that regular marijuana use causes severe mental
disorders (e.g.
schizophrenia, paranoia, etc.) in adolescents.
Imagine we adopt 8. as true. Well, this does not seem to be a serious problem. We can simply
make marijuana illegal for one under a certain age to use the substance. The problem with this
response is we know that the legalization of marijuana will result in increased use in adolescents.
If we hold that a state has an interest in protecting the foundation for autonomy, this would be
true of underage citizens as well as adult citizens. Further, those in high school, those that could
seriously impair their faculties, will be the majority in a few generations. Based on this, it seems,
for Hsiao, that a state has an interest in banning or restricting marijuana in order to protect
autonomy.

Boom! Marijuana Banning Hsiao Style!