In an age of rampant liberalism, libertinism, and over exaggerated personal freedom, there has been a recurring looming question in lawmaking and policy. Can we make laws prohibiting basic pursuits of people when they do not result in damage or harm to others? Perhaps the most notable examples of these include drug laws, sodomy and other LGBTQ+ related laws, public obscenity and indecency laws, among many others.
Should drugs truly be banned? This is one of the most prominent questions on both the right and the left. At the time of this article, twenty four states have legalized recreational marijuana, with the approval of many among conservatives and liberals. Many conservatives make the argument that doing drugs, especially those considered “less harmful” (such as marijuana), is one’s personal choice and the government has no authority to infringe upon it. If it results in their harm or death, that is on them. A (perhaps fallacy) they make in this belief is that this only affects the one doing the drugs.
Calling back to the idea that only the person taking drugs is affected by them. Is that truly the case? I would argue not. Actually, it affects most people around them. It has a serious impact on their families, their friends, their home, their job, their company, their town, and their safety (and I could provide an entire paper showing this). Further, it also affects their own body and health. Do people not have the right to their own body? Yes and no. One has autonomy within the bounds of God-given liberty and freedoms, but that does not give one license to do whatever they may choose. So, while one may make their own healthcare decisions (and this ought not to be infringed!), they do not have the necessary right to harm their body through drugs.
Statistics, data, and basic observation have shown the effects from one person doing things such as drugs. They do not merely have a responsibility unto themselves, but rather, to all who are around them
Take obscenity. Many have the belief they have a Constitutional right to behave however they so choose in public, use any language they desire, and practice anything that they want. This is a very common belief amongst the libertarian right. The Founding Fathers heavily emphasized moral responsibility, civic virtue, and Christian actions. The Bible itself, a guidebook for the Founding Fathers and the basis of this nation, is far from a relativistic work. In actuality, it is a rather strict moral and spiritual code of God’s will that one must obey to actually achieve freedom.
What authorizes a person to practice such public immorality at the cost of others? Absolutely nothing. Before you argue your freedom of speech, which undoubtedly does indeed apply, you must understand the premise of freedom of speech. As covered numerous times, this freedom was within the bounds of moral, biblical, and civic duty. This freedom authorizes you to critique your president, but not necessarily say and do any seriously publicly grotesque and indecent thing you desire to practice because of your sinful desiresโthis being entirely crucial to understand, as the Founding Fathers based all of their opinions on the Bible.
5ย Therefore, be imitators of God, as dearly loved children,ย 2ย and walk in love, as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us,ย a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God.ย 3ย But sexual immoralityย and any impurityย or greedย should not even be heard of[a]ย among you, as is proper for saints.ย 4ย Obscene and foolish talking or crude joking are not suitable, but rather giving thanks.ย 5ย For know and recognize this: Every sexually immoralย or impureย or greedyย person, who is an idolater, does not have an inheritance in the kingdomย of Christ and of God. โEphesians 5 (CSB)
Thus, laws prohibiting public indecency, obscenity, drug use, and other objectively immoral behaviors are not only justifiedโthey are necessary. This is true conservatism and a rightful return to the moral order envisioned by the Founders.
Comments