“It is an established fact that alcoholism, cocainism, and morphinism are deadly enemies of life, of health, and of the capacity for work and enjoyment: and a utilitarian therefore must consider them as vices. But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions..... a Pandora’s box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism.” Ludwig Von Mises, “Liberalism,” 1927 (From Wall Street Journal of April 28, 2006)
Yeah, I know the reversal of drug legislation is a dead horse, especially when the argument is carried on in economic terms. But that’s the wrong battlefield. A battlefield where we are outgunned by complex economics, usually based on the assumption that we taxpayers cover the care of wounded drug users. Instead, the discussion should be on ethical and pragmatic terms as Von Mises suggests above.
How can the citizens of a democratic country governed by a constitution such as ours tolerate amputation of our rights? There hasn’t been a tyranny in the history books that has mandated state control of the human body: “Made in the image of G-d,” I remind our pious readers. A rabid Nazi would have laughed at this incredible extension of this state’s authority over the human body. Goebbels couldn could never have sold it.
Even Lenin, who abolished private property, drew the line at proletarian bodies. And if Stalin’s production goals faltered with drunken workers, well, even the Marxist bible doesn’t discuss what a man puts in his body. T politburo, in it’s headiest day, didn’t criminalize Vodka lovers.
The damage to law enforcement, our judicial load, and the national treasury is obvious — studied and extensively reported by scholars, not kibitzers like me, of public policy. But the damage goes deeper. Morally, the State is on the wrong side of the ethical line. Just as the Trotsky’s Red Army, who robbed land owners. Such action may have benefited the State — may even have been salutory to the society as a whole. But that’s not the issue. Nor is it the correct algorithm for public policy. We don’t prohibit and punish theft because the cost/benefit analysis tells that it benefits the greater number of citizens. Stealing violates those ten epic rules of morality! And historically, morality, given time, has a way of winning the race.
The power of the State is as feeble as the earthworm compared to the creator of the human body and its inherent freedoms. It is immoral to invade this realm. Forget the economics. And forget the temptation to users. Let them manage it. They’ll do a better job than the government’s attempts to shield them with prohibitive legislation.
And you can blow away the favorite argument of the advocate who defends the current scheme. “It’s economically cogent to protect the addict from himself because we taxpayers gotta pay his medical bills.” By that knotted logic, if big brother can dictate what I put in my mouth because he pays my medical bill — then why not dictate my cholesterol level and a hundred other physiological indices of my well being. What do you want? Government mandated menus, issued daily? My answer to the medical bill argument is: Don’t pay the addict’s medical bill. Let him pay for it — could that be a deterrent? It’s the same catch 22 argument loved by the seat belt defenders. We gotta make this unconstitutional law about belts because we already made an unconstitutional law socializing medical care. “Those wacky unbelted bozos will cost us a fortune!” Like the song says; “ain’t nobody’s business but my own.”
