“The War on Drugs”: The True Freedom Series Legalization as it was before the 1920’s by D. Bourne
This is the Fifth part of a large series of articles/blogs on the current “War on Drugs”, and how all drugs should be legalized. It will examine many of the various aspects as to why drugs should be completely legal as they were prior to 1914 without government oversight and regulation. It will also cover why even though statistics show and have shown for years that it makes much more sense for drugs to be legal as it increases safety, decreases use, lowers taxes among other positive aspects most drugs still remain illegal. Please Note: Due to current knowledge along with research already obtained and or not yet obtained, not all of these articles are in a specific or chronological order. But each article is written to stand alone and as part of the series. Also please keep in mind that most documentaries (at least the well-funded ones released on DVD) ALL promote whether directly or subliminally that drugs should be illegal and prescription drugs should be even more regulated then they already are, which currently is very highly regulated on a federal level and state level as well in many areas. The reason for this series is to show people how much damage the “Drug War” causes and how many lives it has ruined and even taken, including people that have never used or possessed a drug in their life. As well as who it effects freedom and is a total contradiction to true freedom and liberty as well as violating the constitution on more than one level.
Part 5 People’s Contradictions, Drugs and Self Ownership by D. Bourne
If you ask most people “who owns you? They may initially stop and think about the question for a second, but most the majority will then say “I do”. But when you ask those people should Heroine be legal most of those same people will say “no”. And some that just said they own themselves will even get angry, passionate or think it’s a crazy idea to legalize a drug like heroine. But stated that heroine should be illegal, they are saying that people don’t own themselves, as if they did they would have the right to consume heroine or anything else. As a principal of self-ownership is the ability to choose what to consume and put in your body as well as possess that substance or anything for that matter. The truth is they don’t believe that they own themselves, and if they don’t own themselves there is only one other “owner” them, the entity that not only believes they own you, but believe they have sole and total control over you. As well as they authority by passing rules and regulations and even take your life if they choose, the government. Not only have has the person contradicted themselves in their answer, they have also inadvertently stated that they are owned by the government.
The right to consume and or possess any substance you wanted was the case until 1914 when the Harris act was passed essentially making Heroine and other drugs made from opium illegal or at least illegal without paying a tax and getting a prescription. This was the first time in history that the US federal government or any state governments for that matter, had enacted a law telling people what they can consume and or put in their body. This clearly if not prior to the Harris proved the US governments thoughts on self-ownership and their claim on your body and what you put in it.
A person can’t believe in self ownership without supporting the legalization or the removal of government interference when it comes to what the government and others call “drugs”. All if they don’t own themselves then the only other owner of them can be the government. Drugs are only a small part of what it means to own yourself. Not only does self-ownership include consumption of any and all substances leaving that choice to the person, but it includes possession of all and or any item and most importantly the right to choose how to live your life. This not only includes substances that can be consumed, but it includes things like weapons to defend yourself, which is a basic human right that stems from self-ownership. If you own yourself you have the right to defend what you own, which in this case would be yourself as well as your right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Which is threatened in cases where self-defense is necessary. And that is using the words of the founds of the US government itself in the case of the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. However, the government claims through their actions that they own you and that self-ownership does not exist under government. You can see this not only by the parts of their constitution that attempt to protect freedoms that they constantly violate, (which violates self-ownership as a whole anyway) up to totally ignoring it and doing whatever they want somehow justifying it by how they feel they want to interrupt a law on that particular day, but also by the laws they pass and continue to pass to take away more of your choices, freedom and rights to make your own decisions, self-ownership.