Pubdate: Mon, 20 Oct 2003
Source: Cavalier Daily (VA Edu)
Copyright: 2003 The Cavalier Daily, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.cavalierdaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/550
Author:  Anthony Dick

THE NEW PROHIBITION

Anthony Dick Cavalier Daily Columnist ONE MORNING during Prohibition in the 
1920s, someone snapped a photo of H.L. Mencken sitting down at a table with 
a newspaper and an illegal pint of beer. Never bashful, Mencken signed the 
photograph, "breakfast in a free state!" and went on drinking his liquid 
cheer right up through the repeal of the short-lived ban on booze. He 
understood a not-so-subtle truth that the anti-alcohol prohibitionists 
didn't and that many modern-day moralists still fail to grasp. Despite all 
the social problems, side effects and surly saloons that follow from 
alcohol consumption, one thing is clear: No government has the right to 
tell a man he can't have a beer with his breakfast.

Although Prohibition is now long dead, the crusading spirit that moved it 
remains very much alive in our society. As made apparent by the recent 
activities of the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement Task Force, federal and 
state governments continue to interfere with the private lives of their 
citizens by pursuing and prosecuting thousands upon thousands of 
individuals who choose to buy, sell and use certain prohibited intoxicants.

Our prisons are crowded with droves of non-violent "drug offenders," whose 
offense consists of nothing other than pursuing a particular brand of 
happiness that legislators officially disfavor. As of 2001, 246,100 people 
were in state prisons and 52,782 in federal prisons for drug offenses. 
These prisoners endure horrible conditions in jail cells around the 
country, serving sentences that span decades. As they are abused by fellow 
inmates and abased by sadistic prison guards, their undeserved misery forms 
a stain upon the character of our country. Until we release these people 
from our prisons and end the government's scandalous war on drugs, none of 
us will have the right to boast of the elusive "free state" that Mencken 
toasted eighty years ago.

Modern-day prohibitionists argue for drug laws on the dual grounds that 
drug users harm both themselves and other members of society. Under close 
scrutiny, however, neither of these justifications holds water.

Of course, it is undeniable that drug use, like alcohol consumption, 
increases a person's likelihood of harming his fellow citizens. 
Statistically speaking, drug users disproportionately neglect their 
children, commit violent crimes and display a lack of both personal 
responsibility and basic productivity. But if these sorts of side effects 
are the truly harmful results of drug use, then these are the things that 
should be made illegal, independently of their connection to drugs. All 
sorts of activities make a person more likely to harm others -- from 
drinking alcohol, to watching violent movies, to driving an SUV -- but to 
ban these things outright would utterly destroy all semblances of 
individual freedom. If being an irresponsible or unproductive member of 
society is really so awful, it should be punished regardless of whether it 
is caused by drug use. Similarly, violent crimes and child neglect should 
be prosecuted irrespective of how or why they are committed. But if a 
person uses drugs without impinging on anyone else's life, there's 
absolutely no reason to break down his door and drag him to prison.

As a pathetic last-ditch effort, though, many people maintain the hackneyed 
argument that drug prohibition is necessary for the good of drug users 
themselves. By accepting this rationale and advocating the punishment of an 
adult "for his own good," they assert that legislators can know people's 
interests better than people themselves do. This is the basest form of 
paternalism. It reduces free human beings to the status of naughty children 
who cannot be trusted to manage their own lives. It takes one person's 
rigid conception of the good life and imposes it upon the whole of society, 
destroying the personal prerogative to self-determination.

Among truly diverse populations, subjective preferences vary so widely that 
no crude formula for universal happiness can possibly be derived. 
Individuals are best suited to pursue happiness on their own individual 
terms, with their own free choice as a guide. As long as they do not 
interfere with the life or liberty of anyone else, they should be left 
alone. This ensures both a flexible maximization of happiness and a respect 
for the dignity and autonomy of every person.

Grinning politicians routinely admit to having used drugs in the past, and 
people often joke about all the "youthful indiscretions" on the consciences 
of congressmen. Clinton's policy of non-inhalation became a running gag in 
political discourse for a few-year-long stretch. This humor should be 
sobered with the realization that thousands of young drug users are wasting 
their lives away in cold, gray jail cells right now. These people are no 
more criminal than many congressmen -- and probably a good deal less.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Perry Stripling