Drug Prohibition

Remember the 1920's with the gangster shootings, bathtub liquor, moonshiners, and such? Yeah, me neither. What I do remember is the crime, destroyed lives, and militarized cops resulting from the newest chapter of Prohibition. The so-called "drug war". In case you are under the mistaken impression that the first Prohibition was repealed, I am sorry to inform you it wasn't. The government got jealous of the freelance gangs and decided to take over. A piece of the action wasn't good enough; they wanted the whole ball-of-wax. So instead of liquor being "illegal" everywhere for everyone, we got saddled with liquor licenses, minimum drinking ages, and lots of money flowing into government coffers. Is drinking alcohol wrong or is it right? If it is wrong, does paying government for the "privilege" make it right? Sorry, that doesn't hold water. I think, that like most things, alcohol is morally neutral. It can fuzz up your thought processes, but you are still responsible for your actions, drinking or not.

I also believe the same thing about other drugs. Some are obviously more dangerous than others. Caffeine is less dangerous than opium. Marijuana is less dangerous than heroine. Does making a drug "legal" or "illegal" change its properties one iota? No. Do I think it is smart to smoke crack? Of course not. Is it your right to do so if you wish? Absolutely.

Safety is not the issue. We all do a lot of things that other people see as dangerous. Because of a bicycle wreck when I was 12, two wheeled things like motorcycles scare me to death. It took me over twenty years to really ride a bike again. I also can't understand why anyone would ride in a car without a seatbelt. On the other hand, I have grabbed full-grown, angry raccoons by hand in an animal rescue situation. It may have been stupid, but I knew the risks and was willing to take them. It is not the government's place to forbid me the freedom to take the risks I am willing to take. What about innocent bystanders? Eliminate the profit motive and drug related crime would dry up and go away. It did with alcohol without the prohibition even being totally lifted. What about people driving under the influence of drugs? Drowsiness, illness such as flu, depression, or even a bad day can cause poor driving. That is a poor excuse to destroy lives, families, and America. You should always stay aware of other drivers no matter whether you believe they are sober or not. I know from personal experience that marijuana is less debilitating than alcohol. I have also never observed marijuana causing anyone to go around picking fights. If any drug should be ignored by "law enforcement" it is pot. No honest cop would ever arrest a person for using drugs; "just doing their job" or not.

The drug war has been used as an excuse to militarize the local police, to kick in the wrong doors in the middle of the night, to set up illegal traffic stops, to violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and generally go against everything America is supposed to be. It spawns such evil as the DARE program which teaches children that it is good to betray their family to the government. There is no justification for this evil behavior. None of this even reduces drug use anyway. Even the government's own "numbers" show this. The lives supposedly destroyed by drugs, are actually destroyed by the drug warriors. Notice how few of the ill effects are really caused by the chemistry of the drugs, and how many are caused by the politics and "law".

One final warning: If you DO get so hooked on some substance that you end up in a gutter somewhere, don't come looking for government handouts. You make your choices; you live the consequences. I choose to use my drug of choice, caffeine in the form of Dr Pepper, regardless of the damage that it may do to my health because I understand the risks and am willing to take them. Everyone has the same right.

ZAP: The Zero Aggression Principle

"No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation."

Formulated by L. Neil Smith, this is generally (but not universally) agreed to be the core principle of libertarian philosophy. I DO think this is the basis of libertarianism. This has the same message as The Golden Rule and most other guides for dealing ethically with others. I have heard the argument that "initiating force" can be defined any way the person wishes to define it. I do not believe this. Someone calling you a nasty name has not initiated force; someone pointing a gun at you has. Someone making a threat against you, if it is a credible threat, has initiated force. I don't see that it is a difficult concept to grasp. Once force has been initiated, you have the right to counter that force with defensive actions, including force. You have a moral obligation to use an appropriate amount of force. In other words, if someone shoves you, you can't justify beating that person to death with a statuette of Gandhi. In most common situations, you would be smartest to simply walk away. This isn't always an option. You might need to point a gun at that person and warn them to leave or be shot. At that point, they have a choice to escalate the situation, or leave.

There is also The Coventant of Unanimous Consent which takes the ZAP and uses it as a basis for a system of dealing peacefully with other humans.