Chuck Norris writes, "I'm all for freedom, but when liberty turns into licentiousness, it's time to reconsider why we're doing what we're doing. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. And if that's the case, what other illicit passion is going to be next in the lineup of legalization?"
I fully agree with his analysis of liberty and license, and we should definitely consider why we choose to do what we do. However, the question he does not consider here is WHO should do the controlling of what we do. If he is arguing for greater individual self-control, I fully support him! But since he is discussing "legalization," I presume he is discussing greater government control. Therefore, I respectfully disagree.
Despite certain limited health claims, no one argues that alcohol is necessarily good for you, because of the inebriating side effects. To borrow his analogy, no one is saying that a diet of donuts is good for you either, regardless if they are glazed or not – but should all things "bad for us" be banned? That was tried with alcohol in the 1920s and was an abysmal failure. New York recently trying limiting the size of soft drinks, and public backlash was enormous. Examples abound of "planners" trying to tell us what we should and should not consume.
Advertisement - story continues below
When considering a ban the question is not, "Is this good for you?" but, "What authority justifies removing this freedom, and does the harm in not enforcing a ban justify the level of power required for enforcement?"
I don't see the potential of tax revenue as a key rationale for decriminalizing marijuana; I don't believe the government ever had a constitutional basis for regulating what a person ingests to begin with. Fighting the "Drug War" has led to numerous abuses that we all should be concerned about, whether we use drugs or not.
Tim L., former law-and-order conservative turned Christian libertarian Constitutionalist