health

The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom

by on December 14, 2012 @ 10:57 am · 0 comments

in Drug Policy, Non-Fiction Reviews, Reviews

http://mises.org/store/Assets/ProductImages/B1035.jpgBook review of The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom by Laurence Vance. Vance Publications, 2012. Orlando, FL. $9.95 at Amazon.com. Cross-posted from LibertarianChristians.com.

To many newcomers to libertarian ideas – especially Christians – it is not always perfectly clear why libertarians oppose the War on Drugs so strenuously. Some Christians even think that the only reason libertarians oppose government prohibition is so that they can get high legally. Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply put, we despise government prohibition because it is a power no government should have. Moreover, the War on Drugs is an incredible example of precisely how a government usurps liberty, destroys lives, and consolidates power unto itself. This short book by Dr. Laurence Vance, writer at LCC, LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, and the Future of Freedom Foundation, explains in great detail why everyone should oppose the War on Drugs .

Vance begins the introduction by giving his purpose in collecting these essays into book form:

This is not a book about the benefits of drugs; this is a book about the benefits of freedom. I neither use illegal drugs nor recommend their use to anyone else. I am even skeptical about the health benefits of most legal drugs.

So why this book? Because I believe in freedom. I believe in individual liberty, private property, personal responsibility, a free market, a free society, and a government as absolutely limited as possible.

The book then contains 19 essays, written over the past 4 years, that tackle the War on Drugs from a variety of angles. A few common themes resonate throughout the book:

1. The War on Drugs is unconstitutional. You would think that “conservatives” who support the United States Constitution would readily admit when the Federal government has overstepped its bounds, but such is rarely the case. Still, the Feds do not follow their own rules, and we should point this out whenever possible. Substance prohibition has never been constitutional.

2. The War on Drugs is a total failure. It has clogged the judicial system and incarcerated completely innocent people, instigated worldwide violence, corrupted law enforcement, eroded civil liberties, and destroyed financial privacy. Additionally, it hasn’t even been able to prevent drugs from getting into prisons much less the general population. By any standard of “helping” anyone, the War on Drugs has completely failed. To me, those in jail for possession of illegal drugs – assuming they have not committed a violent act – are prisoners of war and deserve to be liberated immediately.

3. Drug abuse is a health issue, not a legal issue. If you oppose government intrusion into health care, then there is no reason at all to support the War on Drugs. It is not the government’s business to dictate health issues to you.

4. The War on Drugs is a war on the ideals of liberty and a free society. Actions that are not aggressive in nature have no business being prohibited by government. Vices are not crimes, and it is not the purpose of government to monitor the behavior of citizens like a nanny! The War on Drugs is a perfect example of why government intrusion into people’s lives does nothing but harm. In order to ward off “vices” like illicit drugs, the government must continuously undermine liberty.

Vance even has an essay for why Christians should oppose the War on Drugs. Yes, Christians are free to consider drug abuse a great evil, but such evil should not be compounded by a drug war that is an even greater evil. Vance argues that Christians are both inconsistent and immoral for calling upon the state to punish non-crimes:

It is not the purpose of Christianity to use force or the threat of force to keep people from sinning. Christians who are quick to criticize Islamic countries for prescribing and proscribing all manner of behavior are very inconsistent when the support the same thing [in the United States]. A Christian theocracy is just as unscriptural as an Islamic theocracy.

Now more than ever we Christians ought to expose the War on Drugs for what it is: a War on Freedom. Laurence Vance concisely brings you a wealth of information to educate you on the issues, and I highly recommend this book to any believer anywhere.

Interested in learning more? Check out The War on Drugs is a War on Freedom at Amazon.com.

{ 0 comments }

The War on Nutrition

by on April 24, 2010 @ 9:18 am · 1 comment

in Food & Cooking, Nanny Statism

Slate writer Melinda Wenner Moyer makes a big to-do over new mainstream medical-research findings that suggest that saturated fats affect your blood-cholesterol levels in ways that don’t really hurt you, while processed sugars affect your blood-cholesterol levels in ways that do hurt you.  I agree with Moyer that the topic is something over which it is worthwhile to make a big to-do.  The bottom line:  LDL (“bad, bad”) cholesterol comes in a variety of flavors, distinguished by the sizes of the particles in your blood.  Big LDL particles — those you get from eating fatty meat — seem not to attach to artery walls; those are the heart-neutral particles.  Small and medium LDL particles — the ones you get into your blood by eating processed sugars and flours — do appear to attach to artery walls and contribute to heart disease.

The knowledge that processed carbohydrates lead to problems with blood cholesterol isn’t new, however.  Dr. Sheldon Reiser published studies showing that processed-carb intake raises LDL and triglyceride levels back in 1983.  (You’ll have to visit a library to find this:  “Physiological Differences between Starches and Sugars,” in Medical Applications of Clinical Nutrition pp. 133-177, ed. By J. Bland, Keats Pub. New Canaan, CN, 1983.)

I’ve known how to eat well for years, but recently have set aside the time and developed the motivation to really do it.  What occurred to me while I was shopping:  My wife and I are now shopping mostly for meats (including fish), cheeses, nuts, and a huge variety of fresh produce.  In other words, the “radical” healthy diets some of us are eating, including the “paleo” diet, remind me of what my grandmother ate (though our grandparents didn’t know to avoid bread, especially white bread).  Of course, we’re avoiding processed foods, which everybody has known to do for decades.

So, what’s the federal government to do?  Government officials have been waging war on our meat and fat intake for years, most recently with the updated food pyramid (the one from 2005, due to be updated this year) that calls for six or more servings of grain (only half of them whole grain), and only two of meat, per day — a diet likely to make anyone but a marathon runner gain body fat and tiny-bit LDL.  Knowing that the 2005 pyramid is already obsolete, is there any reason to trust the next one, or any reason to trust that the government’s new war on salt is any more credible?

The final answer:  Don’t trust the government’s war on nutrition (ostensibly a war on bad nutrition) any more than its wars on inflation, unemployment, drugs, or terrorism.  Inform yourself, take control of your own health, and enjoy a long and healthy life in spite of the government’s attempts to help.

{ 1 comment }

Corporate Leftism: Questions About the University of Michigan’s Smoking Ban

by on April 7, 2010 @ 10:21 pm · 20 comments

in Corporatism, Education, Nanny Statism, The Left

Just less than one year ago, it was announced that the University of Michigan would institute a “smoke free” policy on all three of its campuses, finally banning smoking on all university property after incrementally banning it first indoors and then within fifteen feet of all entrances and exits to university buildings. The new policy is set to take effect on July 1st, 2011.

However, this proposed policy has caused significant and vocal opposition from members of the campus community. In particular, members of the University of Michigan College Libertarians, including myself, have led the efforts to reverse this decision.

Criticisms, up to this point, have focused heavily on the fact that this decision was made entirely from on high by President Mary Sue Coleman without the involvement of students, faculty, or staff. There have also been significant concerns regarding the justifications for the ban: representatives of the “Smoke Free University Initiative” have stated, interestingly, that the ban is not in response to concerns regarding second-hand smoke (the usual excuse for such measures), but rather for the purpose of creating a “culture of health.” This, it seemed, was particularly ridiculous: the university was engaging in blatant paternalism and trying to make personal health decisions for students, faculty, and staff. One of the most vocal opponents of the ban, Alex Biles, had a modest proposal of his own for promoting a “culture of health.” There were a variety of other concerns, of course, including the issue of enforcement, the costs of this policy to the university, the additional cigarette butt littering after the removal of butt huts across campus, and so on.

However, a massive break was made last weekend when it was discovered that President Mary Sue Coleman, architect of the policy, also just so happened to sit on the Board of Directors of the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, which is the largest producer of smoking cession products in the nation, and received an incredible $229,978 in compensation. The College Libertarians quickly wrote up and sent out a press release regarding this development and the issue has spawned two articles in the most-read campus newspaper, the Michigan Daily, this week. This significant and obvious conflict of interest has never been addressed by Mary Sue Coleman and it was only through independent investigation that this was discovered.

This, of course, does not constitute evidence that the policy was motivated by her affiliation to the corporate giant. But, as Murray Rothbard insisted, we should not shy away from investigating such relationships and always asking, “cui bono?” when examining the genesis of government policies. What appear to be disinterested and benevolent actions by “public servants” are often motivated by far more sinister and self-serving reasons.

{ 20 comments }

But This Cheese Pizza is Two Grains

by April 1, 2010

Nutrition is first taught in the home. Parents must take their responsibility as educators seriously and not depend on the schools to teach their children.

Read the full article →