The Demonization of Comparing Things

I will start with a statement that largely has nothing to do with comparing things, but it will eventually get us there: In states which have now decriminalized such crimes, I believe that people convicted of selling and/or using cannabis should be expunged of their convictions, and released from incarceration if necessary.

Now, I understand I’m not alone in this contention. I’ve heard it discussed many times. At one point, I heard someone take the opposite approach, arguing that because cannabis was illegal at the time, the perpetrator should still be punished. But society evolves, and attitudes change. The states that have decriminalized it are basically making the legal statement that they no longer believe cannabis to be a threatening substance, and are essentially going back on the laws of a different time. When we make changes to what we believe a good society is, we must reflect these changes in the way we treat the people who engaged in this now-legal activity.

It’s time for this comparison I mentioned. You see, in my mind, holding a cannabis criminal to the laws of the past, claiming they should still be labeled a felon, is somewhat like saying a hero of the holocaust, who broke the law to save lives, should be held criminally liable for those “crimes” as well.

I want to be very clear: I am not saying that the brave, noble acts of these heroes are in any way similar to the actions of someone selling a bit of weed. I also understand that it’s more evident what the right thing to do is when people are being imprisoned for no crime at all. Holocaust victims were victims purely for who they were, not what they did, which made it even more plain to see to the heroes who helped them that this was a law that needed breaking. Cannabis, while it might have been illegalized for suspicious reasoning, isn’t quite so obviously an unjust law. Moreover, people arrested for weed at least had one thing holocaust victims didn’t: a choice. Even if that choice is borne out of desperation, it’s better than no choice at all.

With that being said, I’ll get back to my thoughts on comparison. I’m saying that from a legal perspective, these situations can be compared in order to provide perspective and simplicity. The incendiary person would shout from the rooftops that I’ve just committed some terrible transgression. Their first accusation may sound something like “This moron just compared petty weed dealers to holocaust heroes!” And they would be… exactly right.

I have just compared the two. The beauty of comparison is that it takes two seemingly unrelated things and finds commonality between them, often for the purpose of clarity. Why is comparison itself treated like such a sin?

It seems that many people are starting to treat comparison and equation as the same thing. To compare the two things I’ve just compared, I would argue, is perfectly fine. To equate them would be nonsensical and insulting.

My purpose in writing this today is to highlight the unfortunate belief that many now hold: comparing things is basically equating them, and thus should be limited. You’ve seen it on Fox News, CNN, etc. Someone attempts to simplify a complex situation with comparison, and the headline will read: Appalling! Senate staffer compares firefighters to toilet paper or something of the sort. You get the idea. An incendiary reduction of what was quite possibly a sensible comparison, and only to pit us against “the other.” But of course, that gets us into the whole “News networks just want to rile us up and get our attention” argument, which is a different beast entirely. While you and I can’t change the provocative nature of modern cable news, we can change the way we view reasonable comparison in our own minds, on our social media accounts, in conversation with coworkers, etc.

Comparing things is different from equating them.