Oh, and the other ballot initiative I forgot to mention was a Denver initiative de-criminalizing marijuana. That measure passed by a 7 percentage-point victory. Now, adults in Denver over 21 years old are allowed to have up to an ounce of marijuana in their possession . . . sort of. Marijuana possession is still a state and federal offense, and Denver prosecutors can still prosecute people under state law, so the victory for pot is more a moral victory than anything else.

Which brings me to my topic of discussion: how would the government go about dealing with legalized marijuana? Marijuana advocates often compare marijuana to alcohol because alcohol is the only mind-altering substance that's legal to consume.

Alcohol, even though it can cause death in large enough doses, is legal to sell. Alcohol can become physically addictive and can cause a myriad of health problems, including cirrhosis of the liver, a condition in which the liver processes so much alcohol over such a long period of time that it becomes damaged and scarred. Tobacco cigarettes and cigars are also legal to sell, despite moutains of evidence that tobacco smoke causes lung cancer. Cigarettes contain over five hundred carcinogens, including formaldehyde (the stuff used to preserve dead tissue) and nicotine, which has been used for thousands of years as a pesticide. With these examples in mind, the argument that "marijuana is dangerous" is invalid; here are two examples of dangerous drugs that are legal to use. Marijuana is not physically addictive and has not been proven to cause any chronic diseases. There has never, ever in recorded history been a case of death from a marijuana overdose. To see examples of alcohol overdose, all you need to do is live in a college town and read the newspaper.

Reasonable restrictions are placed on alcohol and tobacco. First, the government regulates the purity of the substances so that when you have a drink, you know what you're getting. You know that beer is going to be about 5% alcohol and that shot of whiskey is going to be about 40% alcohol. The legalization of alcohol and tobacco may mean that the government believes that using these substances are okey-dokey. Or it could mean that the government takes no moral stance on the issue of alcohol and tobacco and instead leaves the decision up to you, the citizen. Either way, the government understands that you're making a decision to use alcohol or tobacco of your own free will, with full knowledge of the risks those actions entail. Ensuring that the products are uniform in their purity means that there are no risks involved that are not within your knowledge; that is, you know that the alcohol doesn't contain bleach or that the cigarettes don't contain cocaine or some other non-cigarette impurity. While alcohol and tobacco are both dangerous, it is not the government's duty to stop you from using them; rather, it is the government's duty to ensure that you are aware of all the risks involved and that there are no "surprise" risks. If you choose to engage in these actions, government ought to make them as safe as possible up to the point of the natural level of danger incurred by engaging in an action that is harmful to you. This is why the government mandates that food contain nutrition information on the box: so that you can determine, with the most data available to you, whether you want to consume that food. The government mandates purity of food so that the only risk you take when consuming the food is the content of the food itself, not some lethal extra-food additive.

Reasonable restrictions are also placed upon what you can and cannot do with these drugs in public. While you may have made the decision to harm yourself in spite of your knowledge of risk, there are other people who have chosen not to harm themselves, and in a public setting, your personal decision starts to erode other people's personal decisions. This is why we have laws banning smoking in public places: smoking is an activity that has the potential to harm others if done in the presence of others. The government is defending their decision not to smoke, and since smoking is a harmful activity, the government errs on the side of protecting the individual decisions of the people who have chosen not to engage in that harmful activity. While you may have a right to engage in a harmful activity as long as that decision affects only you, you do not have the right to force your decision upon others. This is why driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal: your decision to drive while drunk is a decision that affects others besides yourself, and it affects them in a profound way. After all, drunk driving is lethal, and it is unfair to subject others to the consequences of a personal decision of yours; it was not their decision to make for them to be killed by a drunk driver.

And so we come to marijuana. And, indeed, we come to all illegal drugs. Why is it the government's business what consenting adults do to themselves? The same case can be made for pornography or homosexuality or any other decision to which certain people object. "Drugs are bad." Very well, then, drugs are bad. But it is my decision to take those drugs. The government is not here to be my parents. Government is here to make sure that, whatever I choose to do, I'm free from what might be called dangers that are external to the dangers inherent in the activity. if I decide to drink, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by drinking alcohol. If I decide to smoke, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by my smoking. If I decide to eat chili cheese fries, the government must make sure that the only danger involved is the danger posed by eating chili cheese fries. The same goes for sex and drugs. (But curiously not for rock 'n' roll, as the government has yet to declare the Rolling Stones illegal because they pose dangers to your sense of taste outside the normal dangers incurred when listening to rock music.) Hence, condoms. Hence, needle exchange. Hence legalized (but regulated) marijuana.

Sure, the government can try to talk me out of an activity that is potentially harmful. I'll accept that as the government informing me of the dangers of the activity I'm about to undertake. "Surgeon General's Warning: Qutting Smoking Now Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health." Very well, Surgeon General. I'll take that into consideration . . . or not. But I appreciate the effort.

The reasons for keeping certain drugs illegal, for making pornography illegal, and for making homosexual sex illegal (until Lawrence v. Texas, anyway) are all the same. They're bad for you and we, the government, don't want you to do bad things for you. We know what's best for you. It's a very paternalistic attitude that should be offensive to adults. Perhaps the very definition of "liberty" is having the freedom to do something that is contradictory to your own self-interest. The definition of "authority" is "having the ability to make someone do something he doesn't want to do." In other words, authority means forcing someone to do something he doesn't want to do. Liberty means allowing someone to do something he shouldn't do. Again, liberty extends only as far as the individual, so while I may have the right to do something that's harmful to me, I most definitely do not have the right to do that thing to someone else, especially if that person has decided that he or she doesn't want to do that thing. There's an old saying about civil liberty which says that the rights of my fist end where your nose begins. That's very true; I'm the only person who should have to deal with the consequences of my decision. Other people shouldn't have to, and the government must protect their decisions, as well. This means that, in private, I can do whatever I want. In public, or any other situation in which others might be affected, the government is obliged to protect their decisions not to do something.

And if the government wants to tax the crap out of marijuana, good for it. Government can go right ahead. It can demand that people pay an economic price to offset the social cost of a dangerous activity, but it mustn't impose such a burden that it effectively uses the "power of the purse" to make a dangerous activity unreasonable instead of illegal. (Imposing high costs on abortion, for example, is one tactic that anti-abortion legislators use to make abortion de facto illegal by making it extremely difficult to obtain.)

And, finally, some words from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, from his essay "On Liberty":

The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion. And in general, those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling, have left this condition of things unassailed in principle, however they may have come into conflict with it in some of its details. They have occupied themselves rather in inquiring what things society ought to like or dislike, than in questioning whether its likings or dislikings should be a law to individuals.

[...]

There is, in fact, no recognized principle by which the propriety or impropriety of government interference is customarily tested. People decide according to their personal preferences. Some, whenever they see any good to be done, or evil to be remedied, would willingly instigate the government to undertake the business; while others prefer to bear almost any amount of social evil, rather than add one to the departments of human interests amenable to governmental control.

[...]

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

There you have it. May I also induct John Stuart Mill as the first person to have the honor of being a SEDHE Hero of the Forever.