Liberty

As I've mentioned before, there is a good reason why I rarely link to things linked by Instapundit, but this one is simply too good and too important to me to pass up.  It's one of those things that lights the fuse in my libertarian firecracker.  Besides, Nashville holds a special place for me as an adopted, "second" hometown.

Roger Abramson has written a cover story in The Nashville Scene on "why prosecuting victimless crimes is a colossal waste of time."

Whenever I think of marijuana, I think about vomit, specifically, the vomit of one Peter McWilliams, noted author of breezy self-help books such as Life 101: Everything We Wish We Had Learned About Life in School But Didn't and Do It! Let's Get Off Our Buts.

It's been five years since McWilliams died in the bathroom of his California home. He was a victim of both AIDS and cancer, but neither of those ultimately did the man in. No, on June 14, 2000, McWilliams simply choked on his own vomit.

...The really disturbing thing, though, is that McWilliams' death was completely preventable. McWilliams suffered from chronic nausea brought on by the medications he had been taking for his illnesses, and he discovered that smoking marijuana kept his food and meds down. Fortunately for McWilliams, he lived in the state of California, where a referendum legalized marijuana use for medicinal purposes in 1996. Unfortunately, though, he also lived in the United States of America, and our federal government does not recognize such an exception.

So it happened that in 1997 federal agents raided McWilliams' home and charged him with violating federal drug laws. Adding insult to injury, the judge in the case barred McWilliams from testifying to the reasons for his marijuana use, compelling McWilliams, at this point a man without any options, to cop a guilty plea. It was while he was awaiting his ultimate sentence that he suffered yet another wave of nausea and then choked to death. One of the conditions of his bail, you see, was that he abstain from smoking marijuana. So he did. And so he died. Another victory in the war on drugs.

I suppose a little "collateral damage" would be acceptable if I really believed that said War had redeeming characteristics that were overridingly important or beneficial.  Trouble is that, as far as I can see, it doesn't.  It only makes us--rather, some of us--feel better about ourselves.  We're "doing something" about a Terrible Thing like (some) Drugs.  At least, that's what we rationalize to ourselves.

[H]is death made him an instant martyr to libertarians everywhere and an ideal example of the price people pay when we use the government to force them to live their lives the way we want them to.

The phrase "use the government" is key. I do not put the onus of McWilliams' death on the shoulders of the government, as many do. It's certainly true to say that the government denied McWilliams the very thing that may have saved his life. But it misses the point. We don't live under a monarchy or a dictatorship. We live in a representative democracy: when the government does something, it does so with the endorsement of a significant portion of the public. The federal government may have pulled the trigger on Peter McWilliams, but we—me, you, everyone—gave it the gun, the bullets and the ultimate order to shoot. All because we get our knickers in a wad over marijuana.

He's right.  I'm guilty of accusing "The Government" of doing a lot of things, but unlike those who live under a dictatorship, we--I--have exactly the government we deserve.

The story isn't about drug laws, though--it's about all kinds of laws.  Laws concerning

alcohol, gambling and—everyone's favorite—sex. And we urge our elected officials to pass laws to police these activities. And they, in turn, knowing a worthwhile political move, and getting little to no resistance from anyone on the other side (the "let-us-smoke-drink-bet-and-screw coalition" is not what you'd call the most cohesive political force), give police agencies the power to do just that. So they do. Some people don't like alcohol? They'll raise the drinking age to 21. Do some folks think gambling is a sin? Consider it banned. Does the thought of men ogling naked women in strip clubs give people the creeps? They'll be happy to police that too.

...The time has long passed for us to get our policy priorities straight by getting our government officials out of the business of policing victimless crimes.

This is hardly a new issue, but we dare not let it become a cold one.  Read the whole thing;  if I quoted all the salient points Abramson makes, even just the "good" ones, this would be way too long.

It's all too easy to say "there oughta be a law!" when faced with a situation we don't like, and we seem to be all too ready to pass them to solve real or perceived problems.  I'd like legislators to take a much more phlegmatic attitude when it comes to legislation, but passing laws is, well, their job.  We hired them to do it, and we frankly do nothing to give them the impression that we wish they would just slow down.  Likely few of us do, and we libertarians aren't exactly in the center of the mainstream of political thought in America.  After all, we have problems, and problems require action, right?

I'm not arguing the point with Abramson, but calling the pursuit of victimless crimes merely "a waste of time" trivializes the issue, I think.  This is far more than just a matter of expending resources unnecessarily--it's an assault on our liberty, our dignity, a fundamental part of who we are as human beings.  "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't just a memorable phrase in a history textbook (well, those textbooks where it still exists).

Robert Heinlein said that "the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."  Unfortunately, most of those who favor control do so for the most noble of reasons, making opposing them all the more difficult. 

Libertarians' motives are often misrepresented as being "libertine" or otherwise opposed to simple, basic morality.  But, for me at least, liberty is the most simple, basic morality.  Without it, little else matters.

Comments

[DaveG]

I'm with ya on this one!!