| Can a Mormon Oppose the Drug War? |
|
|
|
| Monday, 07 April 2008 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Written by Chris Reeve One of my biggest concerns about libertarianism was the federal drug war. As an active Mormon (and some may say, due to common sense) I am opposed to the use of drugs for recreational purposes. Why, then, would I oppose what is termed the “drug war,” a federal government-run program to try and reduce the demand and supply for illicit drugs? The thinking goes that if the supply can be reduced sufficiently via diplomatic or often military means, prices will go so high that they will be cost-prohibitive to most users. The sad story is that despite government’s decades of effort and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, drug use is still unpredictable, and largely continues to rise. Crime in drug-ridden areas continues to be problematic. I am no sociologist or criminologist, so I will leave the trends to the experts. Suffice it to say we still have a significant drug use problem in America. Most, I would venture to guess, will agree with this statement. When Prohibition was enacted in 1920, a Constitutional Amendment was proposed, written, and passed. This showed that those in favor of prohibiting alcohol consumption needed a Constitutional Amendment to give those powers to the federal government. No Constitutional Amendment was proposed, written, or passed to prohibit marijuana, cocaine, barbiturates, opiates, or any other drug currently combated. The current drug war was started on the whim of President Nixon several decades ago. Drugs, he said, were public enemy number one. What about rapists or serial killers or terrorists? He said drugs were public enemy number one. This is another problem I have with the drug war: it has a false premise. I disagree that drugs are public enemy number one. Don’t we use drugs (even hard drugs like opiates and barbiturates?) for medicinal purposes all the time? Why then, are they not public enemy number one in the medical field? Another reason I am opposed to the drug war: government actions have unintended, negative consequences. One example of an unintended, negative consequence is an increased difficulty in procuring medicine. If I am a low income individual, and I want a special type of antibiotic for a special type of infection, government regulation of drug products (part of the drug war) makes it difficult, if not impossible, to get one. An market void of government regulation would make it much more available. But you ask, “Without government regulations, how can we know something is safe to consume?” One answer is that an unregulated market can provide all different private levels of certification, so I may prefer “XYZ” certified drugs where you prefer “ABC” certified drugs and someone else prefers (or does not want to pay for) any certification at all. What about mistakes? When a private company makes a mistake, his competitors will take advantage and the mistake or its effects will be lessened, if not eliminated. His reputation and that of his certifier will be damaged. In a free market, such irresponsible behavior is strongly discouraged. In the corporate system as currently set up today, however, if a drug company releases a dangerous drug (i.e. Viox) approved by the FDA, someone shouts at the FDA and perhaps the company, but life goes on with both the certifier (FDA) and the company largely unaffected. If there was a chance of a private certifier getting closed down, what would be the incentive to make sure they really did their homework before certifying a new drug? With lower barriers to enter the market, surely there would be more inexpensive and effective medicinal options than their currently are. More options mean that avoiding a particularly troublesome company would become a real option. The FDA is not really accountable, except in a vague way to some occasional government oversight. For instance, a few months back, a study indicated that eating thirty cherries can have a similar analgesic effect to a tablet of aspirin. When cherry growers planned to use this pain-lessening effect as a marketing tool, the FDA started playing hardball. If cherry growers were going to make that claim, then cherries would be regulated as a drug. This would cripple if not kill the domestic cherry industry, so the farmers backed off. Meanwhile, the FDA regularly approves sketchy pharmaceutical drugs that result in very serious health complications. Again, if the FDA were a private company, it would have to restructure its philosophy to compete with effective certification companies, as the market requires. Again, if private organizations were involved in food certification, then the market (individuals) would determine the most cost effective and life effective way of regulating food and drugs. But in the case of a government-run monopoly, we are stuck with the government’s decision, no matter how inept. We may try to exert pressure to make a change, but we are ultimately stuck with their decision and their methods. Another unintended consequence is innocent individuals caught in the crossfire. I am opposed to the death and harm of innocent individuals which could have been prevented. Another reason I am opposed to the drug war is the manner in which it has historically been carried out. Usually, military operations resulting in burning or destroying fields in third-world countries is a significant part of the drug war. I am uncomfortable with the United States military destroying the livelihood of destitute third-world farmers. I never approved nor signed up for that, and am uncomfortable with bureaucrats making these types of decisions for me. Another reason I am opposed to it is that it has not worked: a huge criminal organization has continued to flourish for decades of drug war prosecution. There have been ups and downs, but for the money and effort expended, there is very little (negligible) measurable progress to show for. Why should my tax money go to a wasted effort when I would rather invest in someone else (like my own retirement)? How much money can the government take from me without my consent for purposes I strongly disagree with? It was thought that tough sentencing of drug users would solve the problems. What has happened? Prisons are overrun with non-violent drug offenders while those who should be in our prisons (i.e. rapists, sex offenders) are released. More and more taxpayer money is needed to build more and more prisons to lock up the end drug user, many with no other record of non-violent crime. Some of the more controversial elements of the drug war involve medical marijuana, or use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. There are several state laws that allow use of medical marijuana. Federal drug agents will often overturn these state laws and prosecute individuals using marijuana for medicinal purposes, even those with significant health conditions. Considering problems with overrun prisons (see above) I have issues sending the chronically ill and elderly to jail. I also disagree with federal agents and federal policy trumping state laws. Unless there is a significant amount of interstate trade involved (a.k.a “commerce” as in the Constitutionally controversial “commerce clause”), I see absolutely no basis for federal agents to trump state law in such matters. It is simply not in their jurisdiction. Unfortunately for me, this is an unusual position to take. But this particular point of contention is more about states’ rights (negative federal government rights) then it is about drug use. The astute would note that if a Constitutional Amendment was introduced to combat certain drugs, and those drugs were clearly specified, as were the intended means of combating drug use, then I may have to reconsider my position, especially if the means employed were more humane (not military-focused and non-interventionist) and the funding was voluntary (not compulsory taxation). In that case, I would be less strongly opposed to the so-called “drug war.” But even in that case, private agencies and charities, voluntarily donated to and invested in, would do a more efficient and cost-effective job dealing with such social problems as opposed to a government monopoly. As it is now, the drug war seems like “anarcho-tyranny” as described by Samuel Francis. The situation is anarchic (chaotic) because the guilty, those who sell and distribute drugs, largely go free and unpunished (the laws are not enforced, either due to feasibility, ineptitude, or some other reason), while the innocent and law-abiding suffer from enforcement of laws for oppressive purposes, a near tyrannical control (certainly unconstitutional) over their lives. (For any true anarcho-capitalist reading, I would ask for your latitude: please try to understand the tenor of this term.) The government struggles to convince individuals not to ingest or inhale drugs. It is my opinion that leaving out the spiritual element is leaving out a large (perhaps the largest) component. Perhaps decrying drugs is best left to families and churches operating independently of the government. There are other issues at hand as well, but I think you get the point. As a Latter-day Saint, I have noticed that those who want to partake of recreational drugs may do so. Does having alcohol or tobacco legal make it that much more tempting or difficult to avoid? Though most would say that having drugs such as LSD, cocaine, and marijuana illegal makes them that much more difficult to partake/inhale/ingest than if they were legalized, I would ask: what data do we have to suggest that the drug war is actually accomplishing its stated mission and objectives of reducing drug abuse in the United States of America? Whether a substance is legal or not (i.e. cold medicine, superglue, whiteout) a Latter-day Saint may successfully apply his or her agency to determine whether they will partake/ingest/inhale or not. In other words, a Latter-day Saint, even if drugs were legalized, has the divine-given ability (as does anyone else) to navigate his or her life, including avoiding harmful substances, whether they are regulated by the government or not. We live by the health code known as the “Word of Wisdom,” after all. Might we not have at least some wisdom? It ultimately comes down to the exercising of agency, not the exercise of compulsory government control. Zion was of one heart and one mind because individuals exercised their agency to be pure in heart, and that there would be no poor among them. Compulsion is alien to the divine; God cannot compel us to be good, and to suggest we can be compelled to be good contrary to our will is, in my opinion, a near-devilish doctrine. But to me, that is the type of morality often suggested by the war on drugs. - - - Chris Reeve is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He currently resides with his wife and two children in northern Ohio. Visit Chris' website Mormon Paleo Thought.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 381 Comments (17)
Jeremy Ashton
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to this comment's feed |
Great article. For any who may support the "War on Drugs", upon what principle do you base your decision? Should we use force to stop people from consuming any substance against the Word of Wisdom (i.e. tea, coffee, etc) or to make sure we only eat meat sparingly? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jeremy Parker
said:
 |
I absolutely do not support the War OF Drugs. I do not however think that we need a constitutional provision to prohibit their use. If we as a society have the right to our virtue and to be free from the influence of drugs, then they are all but outlawed as a natural law. Positive law becomes a joke when it attempts to embody every aspect of natural law in specifics. We know of many strange and perverse things which are clearly an abomination and that goes without saying. Licking a toads back to get high obviously one of them. Standing on a motorcycle while driving 55mph on the highway another. In the mission I served time in, there was what seemed a contest to get rules made because of your actions (I remember the gloating over the bungee jumping rule). It is the height of absurdity to need to articulate all the possible offenses of man and then to try to measure them and assign a proper corrective action. How much better if whenever any offense were committed it was to be judged by the consequences of that action and full restitution made, whatever that might be? In the case of drugs the offended community or persons would receive a full and proper restitution for whatever offense was done by any provable measure. It seems to me that is the best that positive law can hope for. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
ed42
said:
 |
Jeremy, Where does "If we as a society have the right to our virtue and to be free from the influence of drugs, then they are all but outlawed as a natural law." come from? How do you have a right to "our virtue"? (Assuming you live in SLC): Does prostitution in Alaska violate your 'rights'? Does the Idaho lottery violate your virtue rights? Does drug dealing in Saint George harm you? Does adultery in another ward even come up on your radar? So what harm is it to you if a neighbor grows "every good herb"? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jeremy Parker
said:
|
It comes from God. If I can prove any harm and claim real, quantifiable by society, redress. How can you assert the right to steal something from another? Who is the socialist. You would steal virtue, steal innocence and pretend that it is a part of the package of your "rights." "There is no right to do wrong." |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jeremy Parker
said:
|
Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, October 1922, Afternoon Session, p.74 Any man or woman in this Church who violates the commandments, though it may be one of the least, is doing injury not merely to himself or to herself, but to the entire body of the Church. We individually have in our care and keeping the good name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and having that good name in our keeping, it is required of us that we walk circumspectly, that we be sincere in our conversation, in our deportment, in all that we do. A man may say that, if he violates one of these commandments which have been given to the Church, he is injuring only himself, but that is not the case, for he is doing an injury to the entire body of the people, because the world will judge the Church by the acts of the members. I have no right to do wrong, and you have no right to do wrong, although we have our agency and the privilege of doing right or wrong as we may choose in and of ourselves; but we, as members of the Church, are under covenant and under commandment of the Lord to keep his law; to observe his words. Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 9:, p.101 Man is an independent being in his agency, to do right or wrong, and has the liberty of doing as he pleases; but I qualify this by saying that he has not the right to do wrong or to infringe upon the rights of another individual. This is the law of society, and it is also the law of heaven. Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 9:, p.115 I have heard men say that they have a right to do wrong. In one sense, a man has such a right; and in another sense, he has no such right. We possess, in reality, very little; and that little the Lord has given us, and that is the power of choice. We may choose to do good, and, if we do good, we get the reward of good; we may also choose to do evil and reap the penalty. A man may knock another down because he has a right to, and have to pay a fine of fifty dollars because he is obliged to. Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 20:, p.337 - 338 and that when the time should come for us to exercise our full rights as American citizens, we might be able to administer the laws and govern in such a way that all should be protected, that every man of every creed, of every nation, and of every people, should enjoy his rights in our midst as perfectly as if he were in full faith with the majority of the people. Not the right to do wrong, not the right to practise iniquity, not the right to trample upon his neighbour, to intrude upon his rights, but the right to do that which may seem good in his own eyes, so long as he should not thereby interfere with the rights of others; the right to worship God as he pleases, to call upon him in any form that may be acceptable to him or his conscience, to believe in God, or not to believe him if he choose, so long as the belief, practice and rights of his neighbour shall not be interrupted |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jeremy Parker
said:
|
Elder James E. Talmage., Conference Report, October 1912, Afternoon Session., p.125-,128-129 Well, you will find that true liberty always works both ways, it never works one way alone, but is of universal application. For example, I hear some men say that they claim the right to speak out and say just what they like. They make that claim that they have the right to speak out and say just what they like to say. I grant you that is true if you will let it apply the other way as well. I have the right to be safeguarded against utterances which are offensive to hear. If a man says that he under the guise of his rights as a free citizen may swear and use vile and obscene language and may profane the name of God, I say to you that is not liberty, that is a license that is illegal. I hear some men say that they are free citizens and they are not going to be told what to do. I grant them that right, but by the same token I claim the right to seek advice if I want it and to go to whomsoever I choose for the advice and counsel which I desire. Now the men who say that they don't want to be told usually find fault with their brothers who are willing to be told, usually criticize them because they are willing to be advised and guided. I claim the right to give advice to my brother if I do it in a manner to cause him no offense. I claim the right, if I so choose, to publish my views in magazine or newspaper or book if I can make arrangements with the publishers. I have that perfect right as long as I say nothing in my publication inimical to the rights of men nor contrary to law and order, and you have the right to read my writings or not just as you choose. I cannot force them upon you, but if there be some who do choose to read them and who are willing to be influenced and guided by them, what business is that of others who refuse so to do? I believe that we are too apt to apply these so-called rules of liberty and of freedom in a one-sided way. There are men who say that they have the right to smoke tobacco if they want to, and in this State if they be of age they have that right legally and I know they exercise it (laughter), but I long to see the day when I shall have some rights too in that matter, and when I shall not be forced to breathe the foul emanations that come from smokers' mouths. I hope to see the day when women will no longer be offended as they board or leave street cars or as they pass along the streets, by having clouds of tobacco smoke blown into their faces. I believe we shall improve in the matter of liberty and come to see that there are rights that others have as well as rights that we claim for ourselves. The spirit of the Gospel safeguards the right of no man to the injury of another, but provides for the liberties of all: and I hope that I will never become so lifted up in egotism that I shall feel that I am the people and that I know it all. I hope that I shall ever be led to seek for those to whom I feel I can look with confidence for advice, for counsel, for guidance, and if I choose to follow the counsel and advice of those in whom I have respect. I claim that I have the right so to do as a citizen and a free man. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
ed42
said:
|
You claim that God has given you the authority to prevent others from "doing wrong" and/or punish them when they do so? So why aren't you out there punishing everyone? Your socialist notions remind me of the wrong side of the war in heaven. We fought over agency - the "right" to commit wrongs. I absolutely have a 'right' to consume any herb I like, and as long as I do not violate your rights (life, liberty, property), you will not be correct in the sight of God for punishing me - that's His domain. We are allowed defense (including restitution), but vengence is His. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jeremy Parker
said:
|
It's really too bad for you that you cannot see it and instead cling to a debased standard such as you do. I believe that we all choose our own Zion. Your's is no Zion I care to visit. Instead give me the Zion where my rights are not defined by your acknowledgment of them but to actual and true offense, any actual and true provable offense defined by God. Only then can heaven be secure from the tendencies of the natural man to offend others. Offense is by it's very nature absolutely never justified. It is the height of foolishness to believe otherwise. You have fallen for satan's counterfeits of freedom and rights and I find that terribly tragic. I can say no more on the matter. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
JC
said:
 |
I would be very cautious about saying that societies have rights, at leas tin a political contexts. There is no such person as society. Person or children of god have natural rights. saying that society has a right is the opening that governments use to deprive the natural rights of individuals. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
ed42
said:
|
"I can say no more on the matter" - let's hope so. You views are pollution to this otherwise wonderful (FREEDOM BASED) website. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Mormon Paleo
said:
 |
Jeremy, I'm not sure I understand the perspective you have, especially the recent statement, "give me the Zion where my rights are not defined by your acknowledgment of them but to actual and true offense, any actual and true provable offense defined by God." Does this imply that any sin is punishable both by God and man? That which offends God not only can, but must be punished by the state? Wouldn't that put all of us imperfect mortals in hot legal water? How would you prevent a wicked or selfish individual from not abusing such authority? What of individuals with no grounding in the laws of God? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent. If so, I apologize. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jeremy Parker
said:
|
Does this imply that any sin is punishable both by God and man? Morally punishable yes, practically no. Many sins are entirely impractical to enforce. That which offends God not only can, but must be punished by the state? Not Must, but can, possibly. Man is given the authority. Wouldn't that put all of us imperfect mortals in hot legal water? Are we not already in hot legal water for violating the law? Or do we think that we will escape the consequences of our actions and resulting judgment? How would you prevent a wicked or selfish individual from not abusing such authority? What of individuals with no grounding in the laws of God? Well first off by not electing them to represent you, secondly by checks and balances, third by a process of impeachment. When the wicked rule, the people mourn. You assume laws of such severity are not already on the books, they are, and they are far less just and being abused left and right now! What I am saying is nothing new under the sun. Almost all laws are based in morality, all I am suggesting is that they be properly done so and that the enforcement of such likewise be proper as according to the revealed word, natural law and order, and wisdom itself. The church has always supported such laws, I am baffled as to why so many seem nonplussed by it. It is not new doctrine. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
ed42
said:
|
JP blurts "Many sins are entirely impractical to enforce." Are you claiming that if we had the technology to enforce the prevention or punishment of 'many sins' that we would be justified in the eyes of God by doing so? Tattoo's and piercings (more than one for females, any for males) are apparently a sin before God. Do you, Jeremy Parker, have God's authority (are you justified before God) in bulldozing down Tattoo parlors and ripping piercings from people - punishing them for these 'victimless' sins? |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jeremy Parker
said:
|
Is that what this debate really comes down too? It is not a matter of technology so much as practicality. Now you're just picking nits. Cut your losses and move on. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
ed42
said:
|
I see you can't/won't answer - how most socialist react when they find themselves backed into an illogical corner. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Jeremy Parker
said:
|
So if I answer you are immediately discredited on both accounts. First off I have already answered all such considerations, so your dicrediting can long ago, secondly yes I absolutely have the right to enforce a standard of decency to the point of whatever enforcement that may entail so long as I adhere to the standard given of God and do not violate other's rights in the enforcement (thus the issue of practicality). There is no right to do wrong hence no violation to enforce rights in the face of that which is not right. Can we really still be debating such a simple and easy to understand principle as that? I support rights, and you support their violation and I'm the socialist  |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
