The Last Tyranny Of Man

This is a classic debate demonstrating the problem of a poorly founded argument. A false premise debated brilliantly is still a lost cause. In this case you accept the existence of angels when you accept the argument.

In the case of the drug war we accept it as a legitimate function of our government. We accept the drug war itself and the legal right of the government to regulate our bodies. When we argue medical marijuana we inadvertently validate the faulty premises on which the drug war is based. We skip over the real issue and dive into an endless debate about the best way to do something we have neither the right nor ability to do.

When we demonstrate the folly of prohibition, we accept its existence at least tacitly. We should always refuse first to accept the drug war as a legitimate domestic policy. We do not have the right to wage war on the American people. It is a digression and a distraction to argue that this policy is stupid, counterproductive, and harmful or, as is usually the case with the drug war, all of the above. The drug war is much more than just a bad idea. It flies in the face of human freedom in direct opposition to everything for which the Bill of Rights stands.

Let us address the fundamental issue first. That is a government operating beyond a reasonable mandate. It is a people abusing a democracy. It is a people voting not just for their leaders, but also for a plethora of profound personal beliefs from the right to life to the right of death.

It is a fundamental distinction, to want something on one hand and to demand it at gunpoint on the other. Each of us has a view of how to deal best with our bodies and minds, but we must resist the urge to send some idiot to Washington charged with fulfilling our great plan for everybody. He has neither the right nor the ability to do so.

We must be responsible citizens, don’t encourage or support laws that require control of personal and private conduct. In doing so, we abuse our democracy; infect it with extraneous mandate. Even if we are right, it is wrong. We only manufacture criminals using our own self-righteous moral presumptions.

Mark your territory clearly and defend it well, but do not fence your neighbors. Speak your truth to all who will listen, but don’t foist it on your neighbors at gunpoint. Love your neighbors for what and who they are, not for what you want them to be. Accept your neighbors’ freedom, as you rejoice in your own. This is the best way to restore freedom lost and assure freedom to come. This will return our police to the neighborhood as protectors not controllers. It will reduce violence in our society and begin the long healing process that follows every war. We must attack the fundamental flaw or we are lost. So, forget about medical marijuana, escalating police state practices, or the like. Stick to the point. Your body is not a shared resource and is therefore not subject to government regulation. Bees and termites certainly benefit from this perspective, but insects are not trying to make a democracy work. Just as you and I must know our limitations, so also must we know the limitations of our government. The level of control required to effect a prohibition would make George Orwell’s “1984” seem like the “The Little Rascals”.

The government has no logical mandate to control a person’s body. The obvious mandate of a government in a free society is to regulate shared resources. Your body is certainly not one of these. The presumption that the government is charged with doing this is not supported in logic or the constitution.

Certainly government has the power to regulate a person’s body, just as thieves and thugs have the power to knock you down and take your money. But no one supports criminals. Why do so many support government efforts to do worse? It seems more reasonable to support thieves and thugs. At least we are not paying them to protect us. They only take our money and in the worst case our lives. The government would take our minds and our bodies from our control. So many people throughout our history have given their lives to protect our freedoms, so, why now do they give it up so easily? Is it because they are one hundred years into a debate based on a flawed premise?

It is not my intent to ignore the harm that drugs have done or will do. I simply want to remove drugs from the current venue, so that a more rational course of action may be taken.

Some small percentage of our population has and will abuse drugs to the detriment of their own bodies and/or minds. They do not do this to thwart the government or our personal belief systems. They are simply fighting despair in the only way they know how.

We can light the way for them but we cannot walk their path for them. We can win their hearts and minds, but we cannot take them. In a vane attempt to do so, we give up control of our own bodies and minds. We lose that which we can lose in no other way. This will truly be a reason for despair

Rick Wolfe

Our myopic society is the result of the so-called social ‘sciences’ virtually pissing in their beakers with every observation. The measured doing the measuring, I don’t think so.

To add to the mess we have mass communication for instantaneous observation reporting…fair and balanced.

By this time everyone with an education or a TV is a social scientist. They can also tell you what your problem is personally thanks to the psychology 101 coarse they took before dropping out of college.

Now these idiots (all of them!) go running to the polls to vote on the society they want to build. Thus, in this Mass stupidity, freedom transubstantiates, changing in one social brush stroke from unalienable rights to popular opinion.

If you are sitting in a big house in the suburbs, this might seem like a bright new way. But if you are sitting in a cell or if you are sitting in a one room flat with a locater bracelet around your ankle or if your character in the view of society is no more than a beaker of warm urine, then it is a bit darker.

Protecting people is the highest calling. Liberty being a personal thing, protecting society is a euphemism for tyranny. Limit your government to the regulation of shared resources before it is too late.

Rick Wolfe

It is strange to me that religion stands so still while prohibitionist attempt to interrupt God’s great experiment. Is not the struggle with good and evil mans reason for existence in the religious mind? If this is so, controlling mans choices corrupts the result. How is God supposed to know if a man is worthy of heaven or hell if those pesky prohibitionists keep pissing in His beaker, so to speak?

For that matter, what about Santa Clause? If you lock little Johnny up in a closet all year, he only seems like a ‘nice’ boy. It could turn him into a psychopath. So tell me, does little Johnny the psychopath get a gift and go to heaven?

Rick Wolfe