by Jacob G. Hornberger
The U.S. Supreme Court has declared a California law banning the sale of violent videos unconstitutional. That?s fine, but how about going further and declaring laws banning the possession and distribution of illicit 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 as adults too?
Don?t drug laws treat American adults as little children? ?Don?t put that into your mouth or I?ll send you to your room.? In this case, the person issuing the order is some 35 year-old government bureaucrat, the person to whom he?s issuing his order is 45 years old, the substance is marijuana or cocaine or some other illegal drug, and the room is located in some federal penitentiary.
In fact, the drug war is the ultimate 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, is that sufficient justification for the government?s 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 grown-ups, 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 a non-approved substance, how in the world can anyone rationally consider that person to be 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 might be considered irresponsible, dangerous, unhealthy, or immoral by others, but isn?t the right to make such choices 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 how is that a free society? By that measure, aren?t people in China, North Korea, and Burma ?free??
- Why the Left Fears Libertarianism
- When Should You Shoot A Cop
- The King's Censors
- How Whitey Bulger Bought Boston
- Idolizing Absolute Power: The Pro-Assassination Crowd
- How Can Anyone Not Realize the War on (Some) Drugs Is Racist?
- No Good Guys in the War on Drugs
- The Costs of Compulsory Education
"If we're going to treat minors like adults, what would be wrong with treating adults as adults too?". Well, then, why does the article also speak of "the possession and distribution of illicit drugs by adults" rather than, "the possession and distribution of illicit drugs by ANYONE", adult or minor? On another note, why are minors held responsible for what they do criminally, but not what they do sexually?
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill