Pages: 1 2 |
|
 Print This Post
|
Why then does Calvin point to crime adjacent to consumption, rather than consumption itself? Consumption of marijuana is either direct harm against unwilling actors – unto itself – or not. What consumption might lead to matters not. We do not rightly prosecute what people may do. Attempts to prevent crime by criminalizing non-harmful behavior are fundamentally statist and contrary to libertarian government.
Coulter’s argument, that harm is inflicted upon taxpayers by marijuana users receiving welfare, shows how far prohibitionists must stretch to contrive harm. Welfare is an entirely separate issue. Legalization need not restrict states from setting conditions for welfare recipients. Indeed, if I must endure a welfare state, I would prefer its hangers-on remain sober.
The simple fact is that social conservatives want to impose their morality upon others. They want to moderate society, like their temperance forebearers. The problem is, if we embrace social engineering to affect an outcome we desire, we cannot credibly argue against others doing the same. Bring on cap-and-trade, junk food bans, exercise mandates, gun confiscation, and any other benevolent dictate Big Brother can conjure. (No, Ms. Coulter. That is not a purely rhetorical “slippery-slope” scare. Each of these impositions are currently developing, justified in precisely the same way as marijuana prohibition. Consistency matters.)
To that effect, Calvin’s interpretation of Locke would turn liberty on its head:
If human beings don’t have the right to enslave themselves to other people, it stands to reason that they can’t enslave themselves to other things, either, providing a philosophical justification for prohibiting addictive substances in a free society.
Setting aside slavery’s definition as a relationship between people, let’s assume Locke’s argument has this esoteric application to the minutiae of daily life. In an ostensibly free society, how do we prevent people from destroying themselves? How do we prevent people from destroying their families? Are we to monitor every choice affecting health? Are we to write the lessons Dad passes on to Junior? It’s impossible, to say nothing of statist. Individuals must be allowed leeway to make unhealthy decisions, for themselves and their families, or we pay only lip service to liberty.
Marijuana consumption does not relieve users of the need to moderate their behavior. On the contrary, the choice to dull senses increases that burden. Alcohol’s role in our society models this well. No substance causes anyone to do anything. If it did, we could not hold them responsible.
