To Be AND Not To Be.

Can you be for and against something?

Well, sort of... I'll give you an example first before I explain.

I am in favor of legalizing marijuana, but I am against the use of marijuana.

When I put my politics hat on, I consider myself to lean heavily to the libertarian mindset. For those of you unaware of what libertarianism is, it can be summed up with: Everything should be legal up to the point that it causes others harm. In the case of marijuana, or any drug for that matter, if it does me no harm, I don't think there should be a law against it. 

Now when I switch over and put my moral hat on (I am in no way suggesting that you can't wear both hats at the same time), I am extremely anti-drugs. I believe they are harmful for the body and they don't have any benefit to them (this is not always the case as there is much research on the benefits of cannabis in cancer patients and other medical conditions. I am more speaking in terms of recreational use).

So is this hypocrisy speaking? Can I say that I am against something, and vote opposite that belief?

I'll get even more controversial and bring religion into this:

I was raised with the notion (and many friends still believe this) that since this nation was founded on Christian principles that we are a Christian nation. Because of that, we should make laws against immoral things. Well, should we?

I direct your attention to the 1st amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I find it interesting that the amendment starts out with religion first. And why doesn't it establish one if it was founded on Christian principles? Wouldn't we be out of this dilemma if the founding fathers just said that we are a Christian nation and our laws will be based off of the Bible?

Think of how dangerous it is to have a government dictating what religion you must or mustn't be. In order for me to have the freedom to worship in the manner that I choose and I believe to be truth, I must afford that same right to others. 

So while I will politically argue for individual citizens to have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others, I will simultaneously encourage people not to exercise those freedoms for moral and religious reasons.

To state my argument much more eloquently, here's one of Ron Paul's best debate answers (in my opinion) about this:

I'm sure there's a lot of differing views on this, feel free to comment and I have no problem discussing it (In fact, I enjoy it).