SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: You're Doing it All Wrong

SOLO-NZ Op-Ed: You're Doing it All Wrong

Issues of compulsion and prohibition facing New Zealand such as the prohibition of marijuana, the planned prohibition of BZP, and the mandatory medication of New Zealanders with folate are being fought against by specialized, interested groups and that's great. But they're doing it all wrong!

The issues are being fought on the basis of "is the prohibition justified?" or "is the compulsion beneficial?" Instead they should be asking: "Does the state have ANY place compelling or prohibiting the ingestion of substances by sovereign individuals in the first place?" The self- evident answer of course is NO.

Groups such as NORML will argue against the prohibition of marijuana by arguing for possible environmental benefits, possible beneficial medicinal uses, and the fact that it may not be as bad for you as thought. I have a strong, but un-indulged desire to punch marijuana law reform advocates on the nose when they say things like: "Ummm dude, alcohol is waaaay worse than pot. They should ban alcohol man." Do these space-monkeys know why marijuana prohibition is so unlikely to be repealed? It's because of THAT very attitude. The attitude that substances, considered too "dangerous" by the state to consume, should be kept away from the public for their own good. Instead of arguing that marijuana prohibition should be repealed because it's "safe," they should be arguing that prohibition be repealed because it's none of the state's damn business what people ingest, safe or not.

The Save BZP groups put forward a similar argument, contesting that the pills aren't all that dangerous as no one has ever died from them. Again, they are missing the point. Advocating the "safety" of a particular banned substance does little to change the circumstances that led to its banning in the first place.

I'll reiterate: If you want to be free to ingest certain substances of your choosing, then you need to fight not against the justification of the prohibition, but against the notion of prohibition as a justifiable practice. You need to fight for an individual's sovereignty over his own body.

The flip-side of prohibition (banning the ingestion of "dangerous" substances) by the state, is the mandatory medication (compelling the ingestion of "beneficial" substances) by the state. For the unaware, all bread sold in New Zealand will soon be made with folate included. This will be compulsory. The state decided that it was a beneficial substance for pregnant women, but didn't trust them to take it themselves so have decided to mass-medicate the country via our bread supply. The situation is worse in Australia where *all flour* must have folate added. The Green party initially opposed the mandatory folate doping on the basis that it may not be safe, but then agreed so long as organic bread could be spared. Others argued over the cost/benefit, others whether was *any* genuine benefit. But they all, just like the anti-prohibitionists, missed the fundamental point: That an individual should have sovereignty over his own body—he should neither be forced to, nor prohibited from, ingesting any substance, dangerous or safe.

Don't think the folate is an issue of force? You, a consumer, wish to purchase a loaf of bread from the baker, a producer; you exchange money for bread, BUT the state steps in between and says, "You, baker, may only sell that bread to that consumer if you add this (folate)." It's force, plain and simple.

Marijuana could be a noxious weed, BZP an addictive heart-stopper, and folate a life-saver, and at the end of the day, the state would still have no damn business telling you what to put in and keep out of your body. THAT realisation will lead to the repeal of prohibition and compulsion, not arguing about the dangers or benefits.

www.SOLOpassion.com

ENDS

© Scoop Media