I see and hear many people claim to support "freedom." This is no great surprise, of course. Singing sweet praises about the value of personal autonomy seems virtuous to an observer and reinforces the reputation of the speaker. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom to be one's own protector, and numerous other things are gathered within the camp of liberty but a very basic right is often ignored even by those who claim to bare freedom's banner. The right to govern one's own body and mind is cast down and trampled by those who should be its allies. The drug war is the tyrant emperor who lays claim to the bodies of the populous and attempts to colonize the minds of the people. For one who truly supports freedom there is no question; the drug war must be opposed.
Freedom and liberty includes things that we don't like and this is how it should be. I see a depressing and dangerous trend from people on all points of the political spectrum. These individuals and groups claim that people can not be allowed to have certain freedoms because exercising them is somehow immoral. Some claim that gay marriage should not be allowed because it will "destroy the concept of the family" even though it affects no one but the two who are getting married. Others say offensive speech should be banned even though such speech only serves to diminish the credibility and respectability of the speaker. Drug use is outlawed even though only the user feels the effects. One who is consistent in his or her support of liberty should view these things and everything else that solely effects the consenting individual as permissible. I have no love for a person who spews hate and ignorance and I will shine a cleansing light on their sophistry with my words but I also stand by their right to be an unforgivable asshole so long as they do not psychically harm another person. Who marries whom is of no concern of mine and I don't care which substances one chooses to put in his or her body. If you truly believe that a freer society is a better society you must place the value of liberty higher than that of your own feelings.
If one is not free to control his or her own body and mind, then he or she is not free. When a government or system of control says that one can not use a drug or alter his or her mind the implication that the authority is entitled to make this decision for the person. In short, the individual is viewed as property of the state. Now follow this train of thought a little further. If we are property, we have no rights, no freedom, and no autonomy. I, for one, did not consent to be a slave to the system nor do I believe that living in a society requires that consent. We can live freely but we must reject all violations of liberty including those associated with the drug war.
Peace.
Unless otherwise credited, all the images in this post were sourced from the free image website unsplash.com.
Resteemed to over 18000 followers and 100% upvoted. Thank you for using my service!
Send 0.200 Steem or 0.200 Steem Dollars and the URL in the memo to use the bot.
Read here how the bot from Berlin works.
We are happy to be part of the APPICS bounty program.
APPICS is a new social community based on Steem.
The presale was sold in 26 minutes. The ICO is open now for 4 rounds in 4 weeks.
Read here more: https://steemit.com/steemit/@resteem.bot/what-is-appics
@resteem.bot
This is a great and very succinct post, thank you @artisticscreech.
The best definition I ever came across of "Freedom" is: The ability to have or not have something, someone , someplace, etc.
If we HAVE to have something, we are not free on that subject.
Likewise if we MUST NOT HAVE it, we are equally unfree.
In a more conscious world, we would exercise our freedom, without having asinine laws that forbid it.
This does not mean we can go around deliberately and maliciously transgressing against the mores of society, as that is causing harm.
Ultimately more conscious, responsible choices leads us to Behavioural Wisdom.
That day is dawning!
Truth and thank you.
I agree that drugs should be allowed, although I look at it from a different viewpoint. I'll get to that in a moment.
I get your viewpoint on unlimited freedom, but that is not possible since that would have to include all manner of things, including murder, rape, theft, arson and more. My point here is that there must be restraint on freedom, and the dominant morale sense of the time dictates that. Sadly, the masses are often manipulated, as is now happening with all the school shootings to enact more gun control. People are easily manipulated and the fact that gun control is neither the root issue nor even related to the cause has been glossed over by those with an agenda. Personally, I think that liberty should be almost unlimited so long as what you do does not harm others. This is, if you think carefully about it, pretty limiting in and of itself because a great deal of what we do ends up causing indirect harm to others. If I were to troll you, for example, and you responded emotionally, that is a form of harm - even if it's temporary - just as punching you in the face is a form of temporary harm.
My viewpoint on the war on drugs stems from the fact that the US is the promulgator of the war, and the #1 consumer of those drugs. The war has increased the wealth of those involved in the illegal drug trade, thus increasing their reach and power, resulting in an ever-expanding role of illegal drugs around the world. The war is, and always will be, a failure. The only way to fix this problem is to legalize all drugs, implement educational programs for drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) that warn potential users of the possible side effects and consequences, including addiction, OD and death. If the drugs are sold legally, they can be taxed, users can be monitored and intervention can be used to help those who are out of control and affecting others' lives, and so on. This is the only sensible way to deal with the situation, I feel.
I don't think that we are that far apart on this issue but I think we differ on how we define harm. I do briefly mention that I draw the line at physical assault so that would still allow for the banning of things like rape and murder. In fact, I would argue that those things are wrong for the same reason that the drug war is wrong. That is to say, they both deprive a person of their right to govern their body.
As to your point about trolling, I still view that as a permissible (but thoroughly annoying) activity. Words only have power if we let them have power. I may not like the troll, I may argue with the troll (counter trolling is often more effective though lol), but I will not silence the troll. However there is some gray area when we talk about doxxing someone or making credible threats.
Indirect harm is the murky issue here. Most of it (in my opinion, anyway) is the result of prohibition. Cartels control the drug trade, pimps control prostitution, the mafia controls illegal gambling. If we want to reduce harm, the correct thing to do would be to let the legal more easily regulated market control the industries rather than criminals (you touch on this as well). Unfortunately, the authoritarian types will try to extend this indirect harm argument much too far. For example, they will bring up "drudged driving" as a reason for prohibition when the problem could be more easily addressed by banning the specific behavior in the same way that alcohol is legal but driving while drunk is not.
The other point that we may disagree on (or I am unclear on your meaning) is that "we" (meaning society) have any business intervening in another person's life if we are not asked to do so. I firmly believe that freedom includes the freedom to do the wrong things. I, for example, do not believe that smoking meth is a good thing for anyone to do but I will not stand in someone's way if they want to do it even though I know that it is bad for them. There is room for nuance here, though. My principal would not apply in the case of people who can not make choices for themselves (children, the mentally impaired, and so on).
The problem with trolling is twofold:
Indirect harm has to, of course, be defined. I can provide this example:
A parent is an addict. If you study the impact this has on the children, even if the person doesn't physically abuse the children, you'll discover that the consequences of the addiction can range from minor to severe. I was recently talking with a man who had serious issues with being in social situations that involved more than a small number of people. His father was an alcoholic and would behave terribly in social situations once he was drunk enough. This caused the social anxiety that crippled this man for many years until he realized this connection. It still troubles him but he can deal with it now.
Here's another example:
A child watches his mother routinely be abused by his father. The father never hurts the kids and may even be loving, but the child grows up, at the very least, believing that it is acceptable and even normal for a man to abuse a woman, but that is only one possible result. Other children may become depressed, fearful of males, become lesbians because that seems to be the only safe choice, and girls will be very likely to get into the same sort of relationship as their parents. If you just do the math, the exponential growth of dysfunction of this type is enormous, especially when you consider that it can impact people who weren't raised in that sort of situation.
There are any number of other examples, if you think about it, of what I mean by indirect harm.
I assume you meant to write "drunk driving" but autocorrect sabotaged you. :) DUI definitely needs to be illegal but the problem is that people will continue to do stupid things. It's an example of a very complex issue that has no end in sight. The only thing we can do is target behavior, help those in need and legalize as much as possible while mitigating direct and indirect harm.
I understand what you mean about not interfering in life decisions and, provided that socialization and education cover the bases thoroughly, I can mostly agree with you. Unfortunately, "mentally impaired" is about as specific as "indirect harm", so that needs to be cleared up. There are examples of mentally impaired people who have travelled the world, been to meet the POTUS, spoken to large audiences and so on, so it's not even a clear-cut issue. By the same token, I have heard from kids who make better decisions than world leaders - so who should be exempted?
Yes, freedom to do the wrong thing is important, but the lack of responsibility many people exhibit in making decisions has an impact not only on their children but on society at large. A drunk driver kills a mother, causing the father to spiral into depression and take to drinking too much and hitting his kids. And so on. Humans have been given freedom but, time and again, some of them make such poor decisions that they make psychopaths look good. Just look at the US leadership. ;)
To the first point, I certainly believe that emotional abuse is a dick move but I don't think trolling or cyber bullying falls into that category nor do I think being an asshole should be illegal. Suicide is ultimately the choice of the individual (this is another discussion but I believe it should, itself, be legal but a also discouraged). As I said in the previous comment, I draw a line once someone make credible threats or starts releasing someone's personal information (address, phone number, et cetera). Like drunk driving, these things are specific actions that can be addressed individually without punishing people based on how hurt someone's feelings are. If we allow for such laws we end up in a situation like they currently have in Britain where a person was prosecuted for quoting song lyrics that offended someone.
Your second example is, again, a specific behavior that is (in most countries) already illegal. It would be better to enforce the laws that ban domestic abuse. Plus we really can't say that drugs and alcohol cause such violence. I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest causal link between the two. In my experience, if someone is belligerent and abusive when they are drunk, it is because they are belligerent and abusive all the time. Blaming this type of thing on a substance is, to my mind, as flawed as blaming violent media for real violence.
To your first example, because I draw the line at psychical harm (or the threat there of), this is a nonissue. Lots of things can cause social anxiety. If someone is an annoying, embarrassing drunk (I have a few of these in my own family) and it makes that person's child uncomfortable, this is still not a valid reason to lock a person in a cage, remove the child, or become involved in his or her life. If, on the other hand, there is an actual danger to the child there are already systems in place to address that directly.
As far as the term mentally impaired goes I agree that is vague but if i had to draw a hard line, I would place it where the law already places it. That is, if a person has their power of attorney removed, then they are no longer able to decide things for themselves. This functions with children as well. The age of consent is fine for me in terms where to draw that line, but I am open do discussing what that age should be. In some states and countries it is definitely too low (14 in Alabama if I am not mistaken, gross) but 18 seems a bit high (I had a car, a full time job, and and a 27 year old girlfriend when I was 17).
All of the above issues could be ironed out without much effort, I suspect. It is your last paragraph where I believe we have our great difference. I acknowledge that any freedom carries a risk. The question is whether a person believes that freedom or safety are of greater value. I, personally, would rather be less safe and have more freedom. This is an issue that I am consistent beyond the drug debate. I will risk being bullied into suicide if it means we can all speak our minds. I will risk being killed by a drunk driver if it means people aren't arrested for drinking. I am willing to risk being shot by a crazy person if it means people can continue to have their property. The list goes on.
There are a number of other things that could be brought up but I think we may be at a bit of an impasse for the above philosophical reason (which is fine). I appreciate your willingness to debate me on this topic. All too often, when I cover these issues, I end up with rambling comments about religious concepts of purity and what not. We are all free to disagree but I will leave with you this question: No society is safer than a police state but what is life really worth under those conditions?
Resteemed by @resteembot! Good Luck!
Curious? Read @resteembot's introduction post
Check out the great posts I already resteemed.
ResteemBot's Maker is Looking for Work
Resteemed by @resteembot! Good Luck!
Check @resteembot's introduction post or the other great posts I already resteemed.
This post is resteemed and upvoted by @bestboom
Your Post Has Been Featured on @Resteemable!
Feature any Steemit post using resteemit.com!
How It Works:
1. Take Any Steemit URL
2. Erase
https://3. Type
reGet Featured Instantly & Featured Posts are voted every 2.4hrs
Join the Curation Team Here | Vote Resteemable for Witness
Today the control of ones life lies in their hands but we have indulged ourselves into doing things that do not portray a 50% benefit of the use of our sense of judgement about the lifestyles we lead.
Consumption of any drug does not only harm the user but remember persively it becomes even more dangerous to the community at large. We can forget about other rules but keep the rule that says our bodies are the temples of GOD and this does not mean that am 100% clean but lets give credit to some of these Biblical teachings less of that we do not actually appreciate 5% of the purpose for which we exist.
Freedom thus not mean corrupting our bodies with toxins because that becomes a secrete captivity of ones soul.
Big thanks to @artisticscreech for taking a thoughtful moment to come up with this and to steemit you have acted a bridge to enable the community post concerns of the things we do, say and write.
Thanks
Stay Blessed
Steemians at Heart
alioni
Great article!
Hopefully it inspires many people in thinking and informing themselves about this topic.
I want to ask if I'm allowed to translate and change your article a bit for my german community.
100 % Upvote anyway! ;)
Greets!
@artisticscreech wrote the article not you..?
So I need the yes from him^^
Yep: "The drug war is the tyrant emperor who lays claim to the bodies of the populous and attempts to colonize the minds of the people."