Op-ed By Peter Lagios -
My advocacy for decriminalizing drugs is not because I don’t realize that certain chemicals when ingested, inhaled, and injected can be dangerous and unhealthy for human beings-they can, it’s because I feel that fundamentally, in accordance with true ideals of liberty and freedom, governments shouldn’t be telling people what they can put into their bodies.
It’s ultimately a freedom of commerce and consumption issue.
Human beings throughout the ages have come to know what substances are good for them, and what substances are bad for them. Their evolved senses help them to distinguish between bitters, sweets, rancids, tarts, sours etc, through their olfactory and taste senses. Sometimes a substance can be good for them, while at first tasting bad, as in the case of certain medicinal substances. If you chew up an ibuprofen or acetaminophen for example, it doesn’t taste all that good does it? Yet once it courses thru your veins, it can bring down the inflammation and fever as intended. So in some cases, bitters and tarts, can be deceiving, yet still prove beneficial. Governments, in efforts to advise their citizens require labeling of substances with warnings if the substances can deliver adverse effects. Like a good and trusted friend, governments in their ideal form act as advisors to help humans navigate the often dangerous and uncertain waters of all the earthly substances, chemicals, foodstuffs, and poisons out there. Some governments, like the state of California, maximize their advisory role and inform the public on the potential for any carcinogenic property a substance may exhibit.
Let me repeat what I’ve written: Governments, in their ideal form act as advisors.
A free citizenry armed with trusted information, makes educated decisions as to what products they will consume into their bodies. The government and trusted advisory groups provide people with knowledge as to what the effects of a substance likely will be, and the citizens make an informed decision if that substance will be used by them, or not.
This is the true definition of freedom and a free people.
At present, does a government explicitly prohibit sodium hypochlorite aka Bleach?
There are warnings on the back to call poison control centers and seek medical help if the substance is ingested, as well as some preliminary basic instructions on whether or not to ingest water, milk, induce vomiting or not induce vomiting until medical help can be sought–but the substance itself remains legal to purchase and use, regardless that wrong use of it, can kill other creatures (pouring it into a fish tank) or kill human beings, were it to be ingested, deliberately inhaled, or injected into one’s veins. There are hundreds of thousands of such chemicals and agents out there in the world that can cause injury or death to humans and animals, yet remain legal.
The reason people have honed in on some substances to outlaw, is because certain segments of the population have found that some substances in the myriad millions of available agents, produce altered states of being, often in a pleasurable or psychedelic way, without being overtly or patently toxic. Some of these substances are required neither to sustain life, nor repair life if broken. It is disdain at this extracurricular “recreational” use of a substance that has utilitarian humans angry and ready to imprison those who have found a non-medical, non-nourishment purpose for an ingestible substance.
Like a good German who efficiently finds use for every moment of the day and takes in only the most necessary of food items to sustain their ability to work producing munitions and goods, sunup to sunset–time allotted to explore consciousness or reality through the use of drugs, or to experience pleasure of a euphoric nature, is thought to be detrimental to the utilitarian purpose the German Workers Party assigned human beings. Oracles of Delphi are not allowed in Hitlerland.
End of Part 1