By: The Mystic | 19Jul1998
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. This is one of those essays that could -- in some respects -- write itself. I wanted to communicate a relatively simple thought, fully aware that the idea has already been uttered by many well-known, respected intellects of the past. This fact makes it both easy for me -- since I can quote them -- and difficult. It is troublesome because the majority of my fellow citizens just have not thought it out far enough to understand. Either that or most do 'get it' but do not feel like they are in a position to overrule those who make the rules. If the latter is true, it is an incredibly tragic situation for America, where government "[derives] their just powers from the consent of the governed." [Declaration of Independence] and "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." [Abraham Lincoln]. In order to put a face on this simple idea, it is easiest for me to use a specific example -- else it could read like dry, theoretical nonsense, unrelated to reality. The example I am going to use is marijuana. For the record, I have not smoked nor otherwise ingested grass. There is neither pride nor loss in my writing that; it is simply a fact. I do not say that I have not partaken of other psychoactive plants that are deemed illicit, for religious purposes of my own. I also do not say that I would never use marijuana. I may or may not at some future opportunity.
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. I am a libertarian with anarchist tendencies and a decidedly pagan bias. I do what is right in my own eyes, without much concern for the opinions of the majority. However I get along with most people in most circumstances -- and tend not to break their laws -- because my values dictate that I not step on their rights. Problems can occur in those areas when the majority -- by the power of the vote -- attempt to compel me to live their way, ingest only what they ingest, worship in the manner that they worship, etc. Coercion, whether by a single dictator, an oligarchy, or 50.01 percent of the voting cattle is just plain evil. Therefore, I am unable to acknowledge a moral or legal justification for stretching the concept of criminality to include personal behaviors that do not impinge on the rights of another. As the Sceptic pointed out in Concept of Crime, for a crime to occur, there must be a victim. Any use of force to control personal behavior, when there is no victim or potential victim, is immoral. Suppose I stopped people on the street, bought them a latte in exchange for five minutes of their time, and told them all of the above in that same straightforward manner. Chances are I could get most people to agree with me -- if they had any capacity for clear reasoning at all. (I try not to waste much time on the poor beasts that do not have the ability to think.) Nevertheless, my country continues to have absurd laws that prohibit certain victimless behaviors.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives is a dangerous man. Bear in mind that selling drugs is not an initiation of aggression. It is commerce -- even if what is being sold may not be particularly healthy for general use. Cigars, sugar-based breakfast cereals, deep-fried KFC chicken, fat-loaded Big Macs and caffeine may be unhealthy, but you don't hear congress-persons threatening the lives of those who sell them -- not yet, anyway. A death threat -- especially from someone at that level of power -- is the initiation of aggression and should be taken seriously. When government uses the term "war on drugs," they mean war in the literal sense. An anarchist might say that the most effective method of dealing with someone so dangerously hotheaded is to cool his fever down to room temperature, quickly, before they do any further damage. However, such is the nature of government. Once citizens allow the sons-of-bitches to get away with taking away one freedom, there is no stopping them.
It can be proved that driving while intoxicated is inherently dangerous to other people sharing the roadways. This makes innocent drivers potential victims, so by all means, it should be illegal. Fine them or take away their licenses to drive. When that does not stop them, take away their vehicles and/or lock them up. Smoking a joint, in and of itself, does not victimize anybody, any more than does ingesting a shot of Irish whiskey or popping a Valiumtm. The recreational use of ethanol and medical use of diazepam is legal. Why is the recreational or medical use of THC -- the active ingredient in marijuana -- so important that it can lead to fines, forfeiture of property (not necessarily of the person being charged), jail, prison, or even -- if Gingrich has his way -- the death penalty?
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. That question is not merely theoretical. I will answer it in Part 2. I will show that despite the fact that the criminalization of marijuana is not only patently absurd, anti-Bill of Rights, against the spirit of the American Revolution, and morally abhorrent, there are straightforward reasons for it -- for certain groups of people. These reasons do not in any way justify this clearly totalitarian subordination of citizens to the whims of the State, and its monomaniac "war on drugs", but it does explain it. Also see... | ||||||||||||
Although I am mostly indifferent about experiencing cannabis sativa, I am not dispassionate about what my government does to people that do use it. I would be equally concerned if people were molested and jailed for scarfing down jelly doughnuts or sucking down a six-pack of Coors or eating too many fried foods. Although I might personally not care for any of these things, confronting such ludicrous rules would be my moral imperative -- precisely because I believe in personal liberty.
