|

Government’s role shouldn’t include controlling drug consumption

BY GUEST OPINION | JULY 12, 2011 7:20 AM

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared a California law banning the sale of violent videos unconstitutional. Although the rationale would be different, how about going further and declaring laws banning the possession and distribution of drugs by adults to be unconstitutional, too? After all, if we’re going to treat minors like adults, what would be wrong with treating adults like adults, too?

In fact, the drug war is the ultimate example of the paternalistic state. The government serves as everyone’s daddy, one who sets the rules on what his adult children are permitted to ingest and who sets the punishments for those who violate his rules.

Can drugs harm a person? Of course they can. So can lots of other things, such as fatty foods, sugar, and even such terribly damaging drugs as alcohol and tobacco.

But simply because a substance is harmful, a government is not sufficiently justified in wielding the power to punish a person for ingesting it. Is there any moral, legal, or constitutional justification for the government to serve as a daddy for American grownups, regulating what they choose to put into their mouths?

What about the concept of freedom? When the government wields the power to punish a person for ingesting an unapproved substance, that person can’t rationally be considered free. Doesn’t freedom entail the right to make one’s own choices in life, so long as they don’t involve the initiation of force or fraud against others?

Sure, the choices that people make may be considered irresponsible, dangerous, unhealthy, or immoral by others, but the right to make such choices is the essence of individual liberty. If a person is “free” to do only those things that the authorities consider are responsible, safe, healthy, and moral, then in what sense is he living in a free society? By that measure, aren’t people in China, North Korea, and Burma “free”?

Moreover, it’s his body, isn’t it? Let’s take a simple case — a person sitting all by himself in the privacy of his own living room smoking marijuana. Obviously, he’s not violating anyone else’s rights because he’s not initiating force or fraud against anyone. Yes, some would say that what he’s doing is harming himself and his family, but people do lots of things that harm themselves and their families that are not violent or even illegal, such as drinking, smoking, overeating, or even watching too much television.

While people can say that the marijuana smoker is ruining his life or even destroying it, freedom entails the right of the person to say, “Butt out and leave me alone.” Freedom entails his right to live his life the way he wants, so long as his conduct remains peaceful. What business is it of policemen, prosecutors, judges, and jailers to be breaking down his door, carting him away, prosecuting and convicting him, and sending him away to do time in jail? Nobody elected or appointed them to be the guy’s daddy.

The fact is that what people put into their mouths is no rightful business of government. It is not a legitimate role of government to be a busybody for the citizenry.

It is no more the business of government to control what people put into the mouths than it is to control the sale of video games to minors. Adults have a right to be adults. And that right encompasses the right to ingest whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

Jacob G. Hornberger is president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.


> Share your thoughts! Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.


comments powered by Disqus



 
Privacy Policy (8/15/07) | Terms of Use (4/28/08) | Content Submission Agreement (8/23/07) | Copyright Compliance Policy (8/25/07) | RSS Terms of Use

Copyright © The Daily Iowan, All Rights Reserved.