THE ISSUE; The socalled war on drugs is a perfect example
of how politicians and government coopt our individual
rights and responsibilities.
__________________________________________________________________________
THE WRITER: Mr.TIBOR MACHAN teaches business ethics at Chapman University
and is an adviser to Freedom Communications,Inc. parent company of the
Register.
__________________________________________________________________________
This column appeared under the heading
THE ORANGE GROVE
__________________________________________________________________________
The Register welcomes opinions from readers, in the form of letters to
the editor, published in Talk Show on the opposite page,or as longer columns
published in The Orange Grove on this page.

Columns to be considered for the Orange grove should be typed,
doublespaced, and no more than 850 words. Send them to:

Columns Editor/Opinion Page
The Orange County Register
P.O. Box 11626,Santa Ana,CA
92711
___________________________________________________________________________
It is the hallmark of a free society that even under the greatest pressure
to relinquish personal responsibility and transfer it to government, the law
and bulwarks against this way of dealing with problems.

A case in point in American history was liquor prohibition,
something that its supporters deemed to be necessary to the moral
fiber of the people of this country. Despite the urgency felt by
them, the fact is that no such prohibition is tolerable for human
beings who must cope with the small and large temptations of their
lives, lest they start, to use Charles Murray's wonderful
phrase,"losing ground." Once one begins to treat adults as if thay
were childrenby inviting the government to be parent and moral
dictator to themtheir adult faculties begin to weaken and they
become dependents, no longer sovereign citizens.

This is what must be fully appreciated concerning America's failed
efforts to carry on the war on drugs. To start with, drugs are,
contrary to what one always hears, not universally harmful to
everyone.Second, even if they wereand they us ally are debilitating
to most folks who mess with them it would be, as it is with many
things that are bad for people, the job of individuals, voluntary
groups,med ical organizations, churches,etc.,to deal with the task
of helping people resist the temptation of drug abuse,not a job for
the state. Third, by making it the job of the state,it cannot be done
right since people cannot be coerced into being sen sible,wise and
good. That is something individuals must do for themselves and each
other by consensual means. Fourth, the results of prohibition are
nearly always going to be the driving of the prohibited activities
underground where they will be conduc ted away from the law and
where, as a consequence, lawlessness, crime, violence and criminal
looting will flourish.

Despite all this,Joel Rosenberg,former Republican presidential
candidate Steve Forbs' publicist at Americans for Hope,Growth and
Opportunity,tells us that Forbs is a supporter of the war on drugs.
His only complaint is that it is not being executed more forcefully,
with greater vigilance.

The crux of Rosenberg's and,we may assume, Forbs' reasoning is
contained in an email post he has sent out recently to some friends
who have questioned Forbs' good judgment regarding this topic:

"[F]ree people are allowed to draw limits for themselves and
particularly for their children. Americans overwhelmingly oppose
legalizing drugs and want their children pro tected. To protect
life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To ensure domestic tran
quility.We happen to agree."

Of course,this kind of "reasoning" implicitly gives away all of our
liberties. Socia lists and fascists can say the same thing about
wealth acquisition and distribution.

The use of the term "free people" in this collectivist way is
disappointing coming
from Forbs&Co.

Consider that at one time or another "Americans overwhelmingly
oppose" many measures that would secure our libertiese.g.,
abolishing the IRS, stopping Social Security, halt ing farm
subsidies, among others.Surveys show that Americans have mixed, even
contradic tory, opinions on what government ought to do in a
society. What they need, among other things, is leaders who can
present a consistent, moral vision that dose not involve the
violation of individuel rights. At one point it appeared that Steve
Forbes was one such leader.

It is a great disappointment that he caved in to the temptation to
jump on the prohib itionist band wagon. As if free people didn't
have the moral responsibility and gumption to cope with the
seductions that life poses for themincluding to avoid addiction and
pro tect their children from harm's way. It is preposterous to think
that bureaucrats are need ed for this job, with their proven record
of wisdom and efficiency and virtue! Even if they were saints, this
is not their job.

To invite the state here clearly implies that it may be invited
anywhere else where folks happen to believe they need help, never
mind how this imposes their will on other folks who disagree, who
would just as soon manage their lives according to their own best
judgments. In other words, it spreads the idea that problemsolving
in human life requires, first and foremost, coercive physical force.
This kind of "interventionist" thinking has been the enemy of freedom
in every part of the world and can easily take America very far from
its roots,nam ely, the idea that problem solving should be left to
individuals and voluntary organizations, with government restricted
to keeping the peace.

Of course, the poor and children have always served as excuses for
acquiring power in our relatively free society. Power seekers know
this well, so they always make reference to the poor and to children,
claiming that when problems arise with them, statist measures are
justi fide.Steve Forbs, too, now appears to sanction this political stance.

This is, I suppose, why so many people believe that nothing good can
come from politicians: They will not resist the addiction of power!
We can only hope some politicians might come forth who are not
willing to sacrifice their consistency and integrity in support of
liberty, no mat ter how tempting it is to cave in.