Keep Your Laws Off My Body

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,170
18,806
146
A seldom seen commentary about what real freedom is.

It was a view I used to hold in common with the left, until I started noticing many on the left favored as many restrictions on freedom as the right.

Keep Your Laws Off My Body
By John Stossel


In a free country, we consenting adults should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies as long as we don't hurt anyone else.

"It's a free country."

That's a popular saying -- and true in many ways. But for a free country, America does ban a lot of things that are perfectly peaceful and consensual. Why is that?

Here are some things you can't do in most states of the union: rent your body to someone for sex, sell your kidney, take recreational drugs. The list goes on. I'll discuss American prohibitions tomorrow night at 8 and 11 p.m. Eastern time (and again on Friday at 10) on my Fox Business Network program.

The prohibitionists say their rules are necessary for either the public's or a particular individual's own good. I'm skeptical. I think of what Albert Camus said: "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Prohibition is force. I prefer persuasion. Government force has nasty unintended consequences.

I would think that our experience with alcohol prohibition would have taught America a lesson. Nearly everyone agrees it was a disaster. It didn't stop people from drinking, but it created new and vicious strains of organized crime. Drug prohibition does that now.

The prohibitionists claim that today's drugs are far more dangerous than alcohol.

But is that true? Or is much of what you think you know ...wrong?

I believed the Drug Enforcement Administration's claim that drugs like crack and meth routinely addict people on first use.

But Jacob Sullum, who wrote "Saying Yes", says, "If you look at the government's own data about patterns of drug use, it clearly is not true."

The data is remarkable: 8.5 million Americans have tried crack, but there are only 359,000 regular users. (The government defines "regular use" as using a drug at least once in the past 30 days.) More than 12 million tried meth, but only 314,000 still take it. The story is similar for heroin. Most people who try these "instantly additive drugs" do not get "hopelessly addicted." They give them up on their own.

As Sullum puts it: "The vast majority of people who use illegal drugs do not become heavy users, do not become addicts; it does not disrupt their lives. In fact, I would argue it enhances their lives. How do we know that? Because they use it."

But on the news, we constantly see people whose lives have been destroyed by drugs. Sullum says: "When you have prohibition, the most visible users are the ones who are most anti-social, most screwed up. They're the ones who come to the attention of the police. ... People who present themselves as experts on drug use, because they come into contact with all these addicts, have a very skewed perspective because they are seeing a biased sample. The people who are well adjusted, responsible users are invisible."

My prohibition show will also touch on prostitution. I want ratings -- I admit it. Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy says prostitution is "sexual slavery."

I think calling it slavery is an insult to those who've suffered real slavery. Slavery is force. Prostitution is consensual. On my show, I'll let a former "sex worker" and the prosecutor fight it out.

The prohibitionists also ban the sale of human organs. You aren't allowed to sell a kidney to someone who will die without one. Sally Satel, a physician who is the recipient of a kidney and the author of "When Altruism Isn't Enough" (http://tinyurl.com/yzjnksw), says, "Altruism ... is a beautiful virtue, but tomorrow at this time 13 people will be dead because they didn't get a kidney."

In a free country, we consenting adults should be able to do whatever we want with our bodies as long as we don't hurt anyone else.

People who don't like what we do have every right to complain about our behavior, to boycott, to picket, to embarrass us. Bless the critics. They make us better people by getting us to think about what's moral. Let them mock and shame. But shaming is one thing -- government force is another.

Prohibition means we empower the state to send out people with guns to force people to do what the majority says is moral. That's not right.

And it doesn't even work.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
So how would society deal with the "legal" meth or crack addict? Does he get government meth? If so, for how long? If not, he is still going to break into my house to steal stuff to support his habit.

Nevada has shown us that legal prostitution can be safe... but I don't see how legalizing a whole slew of drugs will suddenly make crime go away. And maybe people are not regular users of heroin because it is difficult to get. Include oxycontin users in the number of regular users and I bet it will be a lot higher.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I don't see how legalizing a whole slew of drugs will suddenly make crime go away. And maybe people are not regular users of heroin because it is difficult to get. Include oxycontin users in the number of regular users and I bet it will be a lot higher.

If the drugs became something that could be legally sold then the crime level drops because the profit is no longer there for dealers. For it to work though you would have to do it not only for currently illegal drugs but all drugs including pain killers, drop prescription requirements and allow adults to be adults and not have the government deciding what is best for them. Once anyone who wants it can buy it , like alcohol, the need for crack houses and dealers disappears.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
If drugs and prostitution were legal, we'd all be Charlie Sheen.




(DP from drug flashback)

--
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
So how would society deal with the "legal" meth or crack addict? Does he get government meth? If so, for how long? If not, he is still going to break into my house to steal stuff to support his habit.

Nevada has shown us that legal prostitution can be safe... but I don't see how legalizing a whole slew of drugs will suddenly make crime go away. And maybe people are not regular users of heroin because it is difficult to get. Include oxycontin users in the number of regular users and I bet it will be a lot higher.

What's wrong with being a heroin user? Do you know anything about the drug?

Less people would probably use methamphetamine if all drugs were legal, since other less damaging stimulents would be available.

And people already commit crimes to get alcohol and illegal drugs, why would legalizing drugs cause an uptick in this?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,621
136
I doubt there is a country in the world where selling your organs is legal, even Red China.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
A seldom seen commentary about what real freedom is.

It was a view I used to hold in common with the left, until I started noticing many on the left favored as many restrictions on freedom as the right.

I also don't know how this makes any sense. I am "left" and I support legalization of prostitution, illicit substances, and even organ sale. Most of my "left" friends feel the same way (except on the organ sale thing, I'm pretty much the only person I know of that feels that way).

I imagine someone on the "right" would be much less likely to support legalized prostitution and drugs.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Fun Fact: Progressives were in large part to blame for alcohol prohibition.

According to some people around here, progressives are the only thing that will save America. Connect the dots.
 
Last edited:

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
Fun Fact: Progressives were in large part to blame for alcohol prohibition.

According to some people around here, progressives are the only thing that will save American. Connect the dots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Methodists
Northern Baptists
Southern Baptists
Presbyterians
Disciples of Christ
Congregationalists
Quakers
Scandinavian Lutherans

Yeah, sounds like a barrel full of progressives to me. :rolleyes:
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
I wonder this guy's opinion on abortion.

What is the relevance of those views since the whole argument comes down to whether or not you believe the unborn are persons? If anything the whole abortion discussion points out the essential hypocrisy of people that will argue "my body, my choice" when it comes to abortion and also support restrictions regarding what you can do with and to your body when it comes to drugs or prostitution.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

Methodists
Northern Baptists
Southern Baptists
Presbyterians
Disciples of Christ
Congregationalists
Quakers
Scandinavian Lutherans

Yeah, sounds like a barrel full of progressives to me. :rolleyes:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Prohibition

Nationwide prohibition

Nationwide prohibition was accomplished by means of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified January 29, 1919) and the Volstead Act (passed October 28, 1919). Prohibition began on January 16, 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect. Federal Prohibition agents (police) were given the task of enforcing the law. The principal actors in the enactment of Prohibition were members of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Prohibition Party. It was truly a cooperative effort with "progressives" making up a substantial portion of both major political parties. The main force were pietistic Protestants, who comprised majorities in the Republican party in the North, and the Democratic party in the South. Catholics and Germans were the main opponents; however, World War I swayed public opinion away from Germans and their protests were largely ignored.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
What is the relevance of those views since the whole argument comes down to whether or not you believe the unborn are persons? If anything the whole abortion discussion points out the essential hypocrisy of people that will argue "my body, my choice" when it comes to abortion and also support restrictions regarding what you can do with and to your body when it comes to drugs or prostitution.

The relevance is if government can legislate not harming a fetus through abortion, it opens the door to legislating anything and everything that may harm the fetus, a lot of those being the very things the article talks about.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Prohibition

Nationwide prohibition

Nationwide prohibition was accomplished by means of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified January 29, 1919) and the Volstead Act (passed October 28, 1919). Prohibition began on January 16, 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect. Federal Prohibition agents (police) were given the task of enforcing the law. The principal actors in the enactment of Prohibition were members of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the Prohibition Party. It was truly a cooperative effort with "progressives" making up a substantial portion of both major political parties. The main force were pietistic Protestants, who comprised majorities in the Republican party in the North, and the Democratic party in the South. Catholics and Germans were the main opponents; however, World War I swayed public opinion away from Germans and their protests were largely ignored.

There you go. You're welcome.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
If the drugs became something that could be legally sold then the crime level drops because the profit is no longer there for dealers. For it to work though you would have to do it not only for currently illegal drugs but all drugs including pain killers, drop prescription requirements and allow adults to be adults and not have the government deciding what is best for them. Once anyone who wants it can buy it , like alcohol, the need for crack houses and dealers disappears.

What's wrong with being a heroin user? Do you know anything about the drug?

Less people would probably use methamphetamine if all drugs were legal, since other less damaging stimulents would be available.

And people already commit crimes to get alcohol and illegal drugs, why would legalizing drugs cause an uptick in this?

That would depend on how much prices would drop... one would think they would... but then you have to think of all the government regulations that would kick the price back up. Then a black market would crop up and crack houses would reappear. People will still need to pony up the $$$ for their fixes. I've seen a lot of people get easily addicted to painkillers... it would not take long for it to be epidemic.

There is still a burgeoning illegal whiskey market. You know why? Whiskey tax. Make your own whiskey, sell it without having to pay the feds and you can make a lot of money. Moonshine is some good stuff...you can buy it in some stores... but it is taxed. So a lot of people make it up in the hills. Do you think hard core drugs would be any different?

Blackjack.. some good points.. but I am of the opinion that heroin is addicting and and your body gets used to the drug requiring larger doses (more $$$). Does the government subsidize this?
 
Last edited:

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
The relevance is if government can legislate not harming a fetus through abortion, it opens the door to legislating anything and everything that may harm the fetus, a lot of those being the very things the article talks about.

If that legislation were to take place with a libertarian view though it would only affect persons whom are pregnant and only during the term of pregnancy. I am not advocating this or even saying it is practical but it would be possible to support a libertarian point of view regarding drugs when it only affects your body while exempting the special circumstance of pregnancy when what you do has an effect on a person other than yourself.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
8,169
9,458
136
So how would society deal with the "legal" meth or crack addict? Does he get government meth? If so, for how long? If not, he is still going to break into my house to steal stuff to support his habit.

-Well, you'd have the full right and use of the 2nd amendment, so when they break in just blow em away and we all get to be one car length up in traffic the next day...
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
There is still a burgeoning illegal whiskey market. You know why? Whiskey tax. Make your own whiskey, sell it without having to pay the feds and you can make a lot of money. Moonshine is some good stuff...you can buy it in some stores... but it is taxed. So a lot of people make it up in the hills. Do you think hard core drugs would be any different?

But what % of the market is made up of bathtub juice? I can't imagine it's much.

Blackjack.. some good points.. but I am of the opinion that heroin is addicting and and your body gets used to the drug requiring larger doses (more $$$). Does the government subsidize this?

You don't need to have an opinion on that. Heroin is addicting, although demonstrably less so than tobacco (nicotene), and not much more (if at all more) than alcohol. Nevertheless, you can safely use Heroin (assuming it's clean stuff) by carefully dosing and spacing out your usage so you don't become dependant.