Do What You Please

Individuals Should Have The Right to Ingest Any Substance They Choose To, Even If It Harms Them The Right to Inhale By David Holcberg (May 23, 2001)

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM] On May 14th, the US Supreme Court reached a verdict on the case of U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Cooperative. By unanimous decision the Court ruled that manufacturers and distributors of marijuana cannot claim the medical needs of their customers as defense against federal prosecution for violating the Controlled Substances Act. Even though a small group of sick people will be deprived of a particular choice of treatment for their illness, they were not the only victims of the Court’s decision; the victims are all who value freedom and the principle of individual rights, who think they have a right to their lives and to decide how to live them.

The fundamental issue involved is personal freedom from government coercion. As long as you don’t violate the rights of others, as a free individual you should have the right to do with your life—and your body—whatever you think is best, without government interference. This means, for example, that you should have the right to get drunk—as long as you pay for your beer; and the right to get drowsy—as long as you don’t drive out of control; and also the right to get stoned—as long as you don’t stone somebody else.

Many people who believe in personal freedom are nevertheless against decriminalizing drug use because they believe it would increase crime. To support their belief they point to a strong correlation between drug use and violent behavior.

While it is undeniable that such correlation exists, it does not by itself demonstrate that drug use causes crime. In fact, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey of prisons found that the opposite was true for half the inmates, who started their criminal careers before they had ever used a major drug. Moreover, if it were true that drug use caused crime, how would one account for the twelve million drug users who commit no crimes?

A much more likely explanation for the correlation observed is that criminals often act self-destructively. It should be no surprise that they abuse drugs and alcohol. It should also be no surprise that a great number of parents capable of neglect and violence against their children are also drug users. If they have no concern for themselves, is it any wonder that they have no concern for their children?

The fact we must face up to is that no causal connection between drug taking and violent behavior was ever identified. Certainly no such connection exists for marijuana. The theory that drugs cause crime basically misses the point that violence is an act of choice. Criminals use force against others because they think it is a valid and desirable means of gaining values. Drugs do not cause crime—criminals cause crime.

It makes no sense for government to punish all drug users because some of them are criminals. Government’s job should be to protect rights, not to trample on them.

Your right to your life is your most fundamental right. It means that your life and your body should be yours to command. No one, much less government, should have a say in your personal choices. Government should have no say in what drugs you may take for the same reason it should have no say in what food you may eat, or what books you may read: it is your life—it should be your choice, right or wrong. Your right to liberty also includes your right to make bad judgments and even to harm yourself by acting on them. Freedom demands personal responsibility. The fact that people may harm themselves by taking drugs is no justification for government to step in and outlaw their use—or their production and trade. If it were, then government would be justified in outlawing tobacco, junk food and alcohol as well. Every product or substance can be abused or misused. People do stupid things and harm themselves all the time; as long as they harm no one else, government should keep its distance. Government should always protect us from each other, like a policeman, but never protect us from ourselves, like a nanny.

The decriminalization of drugs would be a huge step in recognizing and protecting the individual rights and individual freedom of all in America. But only when Americans choose to re-assume personal responsibility for their lives instead of delegating this responsibility to government will we have a chance to achieve the full political freedom the Founding Fathers intended us to have.

Actually, this is a good place to post an article like this.

Here's the problem: Those of the Libertarian bent can't accept that constitutionally, a State, is the only government that can control substance use. They don't seem to be satsified with a hands-off approach by the fedgov, they demand federal legalization, which gives legitimacy, whereas decriminalization says it's the State's responsibility to permit or allow, as the citizens of those States decide. Those of the neo-conservative bent, can't let go of the big government agencies that pretend to protect them from the evil drugs (I guess they love wasting money). Then, of course, there's the Liberals who will let you do whatever you want, so long as it allows them to control you.

Personally, I would prefer to live in a State that didn't permit casual drug use. Others may have different preferences, and each should be able to exercize their preference.

I believe that what turns most people away from the Libertarian view is the incessant talk about drugs. Whenever that subject comes up, I turn off. Especially when they use the feminist argument for abortion on demand: "As long as you don’t violate the rights of others, as a free individual you should have the right to do with your life -- and your body -- whatever you think is best, without government interference."

My concern is that the perpetuation of our Western Culture is in serious doubt. I would like to see the restoration of a constitutional federal government. I am content to allow the States to determine their own way, within specific limits, as the Founders intended. Libertarians, who could be my allies in that struggle, destroy their own credibility with constitutionalists by constantly harping about drugs; Drugs and abortion; both contribute to the destruction of our culture. Morals and attitudes have to change, not by force, but by individuals understanding where continuing down this present path will lead and acting to preserve the future.

"Drugs and abortion; both contribute to the destruction of our culture."

Libertarians are aware of this. Culture is a secondary or tertiary consideration for libertarians, who are guided more by theory than by experience and tradition.

I am convinced that libertarians would like to see America remade in their own image and by the outworking of their own unproven theories rather than attempt to preserve the culture that has arisen out of a Judeo-Christian religious framework and a body of law that has stood the test of hundreds upon hundreds of years.

Thomas Jefferson advocated castrating homosexuals. He was not of a libertarian mindset. Neither were John Adams, George Washington or Benjamin Franklin, and anyone arguing otherwise is a nincompoop.

I personally think that castrating homosexuals is harsh, which puts me to the left of Jefferson on the issue...yet libertarians view me as a "right-wing Fascist" (a flawed term). The only conclusion I have been able to draw from such reasoning is that libertarians, if they knew Jefferson's stance on sodomy, would believe that Jefferson was a fascistic, moralistic zealot (who didn't realize it himself). But most of them don't know about it and idolize him anyway although he stands in direct opposition to their force-or-fraud argument.

Who says libertarianism doesn't make sense?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.