Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
James Delingpole has raised a useful question. Let me start by saying that we should take Ron Paul and the radical libertarians at their word on the question he recently posed: Why is it we can’t put into our bodies whatever we want?
The simple, straightforward answer is that some substances make one a danger to everyone else. Marijuana may or may not be such a substance. That is an empirical question. That some substances have this effect is, however, perfectly clear. Which ones they are deserves debate and rumination. The abstract question can, however, easily be answered.
There is another issue that deserves reflection as well. Some substances leave one incapable of performing one's duties as a citizen. I have meth especially in mind. One of those duties is that one take proper care of one's children, and meth produces in its users (as we see in rural Michigan all too often) a lassitude incompatible with the performance of that particular duty.
In general, let me say, libertarians could learn a lot from social conservatives -- and vice-versa. Liberty presupposes responsibility, and libertines who foster irresponsibility are paving the road that leads to serfdom.
- Comment (108)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Thanks, Bryan.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Misthiocracy
I dispute that statement. I believe most people who consume alcohol do become a danger to others at some point in their lives. Who among us canhonestlyclaim that they haveneverdriven while impaired?
OK, Misthio. I'll bite. I can honestly claim I have never driven while impaired by alcohol. (Impaired by other things, like sleep deprivation or back pain... that's another story...) I don't consider myself a very good driver. So if I've had a drink, I just don't drive. And if I have to drive, I just don't drink.
I think this is a different question. If you're drunk, but still sober enough to know that your judgment has been impaired, you can take responsibility for yourself by refraining from activities requiring acute judgment until you've sobered up more.
I love my wine and spirits, but I don't much dig the feeling of intoxication. I've had my judgment impaired by many things -- stress, fatigue, pain... Alcohol may have been the least of these.
Aug '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Randy Weivoda
Bryan G. Stephens
Anything smoked is addictive.
Especially sausages.
Amen to that. This gal's hubby is always teasing her about her fondness for sausage.
Margaret Ball
Bryan G. Stephens
Yes it is possible to measure addictiveness by looking at rates of addiction for various substances. Most people cannot just stop Heroin cold turkey with no treatment. By "most" I mean 99/100 if not more.
...Obviously large-scale studies are more useful than anecdotal evidence...
Not to be contrarian (of course not!), but the estimable scribbling doctor Anthony Daniels (pen name Theodore Dalrymple) has worked with many drug addicts and is of the opinion that detoxing from heroin isn't the medical drama that it's often made out to be, and that most people can go cold turkey with little more than the same kind of medical care required to get over a bad bout of 'flu (ample fluids, non-narcotic painkillers, and so forth to treat withdrawal symptoms).
He contrasts heroin withdrawal with alcohol withdrawal, where people can die from going cold turkey.
Here's a link to his book, Romancing Opiates, if anyone's interested.
May '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Oh yes, opiate withdrawal won't kill you. My point is more to the fact that most people do not quit and then stay clean. They quit and then relapse if they don't get treatment.
Even with treatment the recovery rates are poor.
Jun '10
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
As a corollary, why is it we can't refuse to put into our bodies whatever we do not want. How long will it be before Executive Order 13139 is extended to citizens instead of just the military.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
"Some substances leave one incapable of performing one's duties as a citizen."
I accept that access to certain substances/items have such a high potential for harm that society may consider preemptive action against their possession (crack, kiddie porn, suitcase nukes...). I agree that we have certain moral duties as citizens. However, I don't see how the notion of government compulsion towards virtue squares with God-given natural rights or the biblical doctrine of freewill.
If God himself grants us freewill to turn towards sin, by what right do our fellow mortals claim to violently compel us toward virtue?
Suppose I buy a few acres of land and live a secluded life where I farm, smoke weed and shoot cans with automatic weapons? I'm not harming anyone, but am I fulfilling my duties as a citizen? Who decides the nature and extent of those duties?
It's a free-rider problem. I'll tolerate a certain number of layabouts in exchange for liberty.
Heck, there are people whom I'd prefer contribute less. Wouldn't we be better off if Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi decided to leave us alone and live in an opium den?
Feb '12
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Cutlass said,
We're following God's word in the Law, where He commands Israel to violently compel people towards virtue. Punishments are provided for a variety of immoral behaviors.
A separate argument is that people should *want* to be protected from temptation. The recovered alcoholic would like to be compelled to drive 200 miles if he wants to buy a drink. I myself am happy not to be tempted by cocaine, which I am sure I would enjoy.
Apr '11
Re: Why Can't We Put Into Our Bodies Whatever We Want?
Eric Rasmusen: Cutlass said,
We're following God's word in the Law, where He commands Israel to violently compel people towards virtue. Punishments are provided for a variety of immoral behaviors.
Okay, I'll grant you the theological point, but the matter is more complicated in a nation that is specifically not a theocracy.
Yes, but is it really virtuous to punish others for your lack of willpower? This is the logic of the leftists who want to restrict fatty foods or tobacco.
Liberty is often inconvenient. I would say that self restraint and tolerance of others' liberty one of our duties as a citizen. Muslim societies cover their women to protect men from lust. There would be less cheating husbands, less rape and more general productivity if men were not constantly distracted by beautiful women in suggestive attire.