 |
|
|
|
|
 |
The Tyranny of Legislating Morality by David Nichols, Prisoner of War in AmericaThe mere use of presently illegal drugs causes little to no real criminal behavior. The use of the drug alcohol however, is related to approximately fifty percent of all murders and to over fifty percent of all rapes and robberies. Therefore, the argument that the government is banning drugs other than alcohol in order of protect society is both false and hypocritical. Furthermore, it doesn't even stand up to a loose examination of the US Constitution and the legitimate power of government, as such power was supposed to be used in America. All federal, state and local laws prohibiting the manufacture, sales, possession and use of any mind-altering and or addictive drugs are absolutely unconstitutional. There just is no such enumerated power. The Intestate Commerce Clause and the necessary and proper clause of the US Constitution does not save the federal government here. While the Constitution gives the federal government the power to "regulate" commerce, it does not give it the power to prohibit the manufacture, sales or use of certain substances or products, just because said substances or products may harm the user. Under such a rationale the government could (and probably will eventually) prohibit such potentially harmful things such as automobiles, knives, baseball bats, a plethora of household chemicals, people themselves, and of course alcohol and tobacco. While the federal government is given its powers via the US Constitution and cannot legitimately go beyond those powers, it is also true that state and local governments cannot legitimately pass unconstitutional laws. Think of the implications of what I am saying. All the morality laws of all the government entities in the United States are unconstitutional, regardless of how the US Supreme Court, a branch of the government, interprets such laws. The Declaration of Independence states that we have "unalienable rights" and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution state that there are other rights than those listed in the "Bill of Rights" and that those powers that the people did not expressly give to the government still belong to the people. The people retain their inalienable rights as they have not given the government the power to act as their moral dictator. Further, the principle of inalienable rights, one of the principles upon which this nation was founded, tells us by logic that property rights are the most important rights we have. If we do not have the inalienable right to own property then we ourselves are slaves to those who do. If we do have the right to own property than we have the right to use that property as we see fit, so long as we do not harm others by such use. If we do not have the right to use our property as we see fit, then the ownership of that property is a sham; it means nothing and we are in fact slaves. Our most basic property is ourselves, that is, our bodies and our minds. If we are not slaves to the government (or to those who control the government) then we have the inalienable right to use our bodies and our minds as we wish, even if it harms us, just so long as we do not harm others or their property. This fact, in a truly liberty-loving society, is not debatable, it is a given and cannot legitimately be taken from us, otherwise there is no true liberty, no free society, just a society of slaves or quasi-slaves. |
|
|
 |