Freedom of Consumption in a Consumerist Society

In an expanding, evolving society it is increasingly imperative to find a means by which all members can peacefully and harmoniously coexist. This need was the impetus behind the creation of legal systems and means of population control. As science pushes new boundaries and more knowledge and power are added to the pool of individual possession, the need for progressive understanding becomes more pronounced.

There was a time when most (if not all) legal decisions and moral norms came from the authority of the church. This disturbing occurrence is still observable in present-day theocracies such as the ones operating in the Middle East. Not too much time has elapsed since the Judeo-Christian holy books were the only source of law in the West. The damages of this mindset can be viewed in the Crusades or the Spanish inquisition to name only a small fraction (albeit possibly the most drastic) of harm which has been caused in the name of religion. The Salem Witch trials would be another great example of the harm of religious law.

However, none of this is to say that religions are bad, or that all 'law' derived from ancient texts is perverse and cruel. On the contrary, many humanitarian and progressive ideals can be found in these holy books. It is simply the ignorance of the unquestioning zealot and the fervor of the extremist which creates the perverse form of theocracy which we've been the unfortunate witnesses of these past hundreds of years.

Presently in the United States, a supposedly progressive and free nation, there is a great deal of friction caused by the issues of abortion and gay rights. Most (if not all) of the opposition to these topics is caused by the religious mind touting the end of civilization and the wrath of God as reasons for their stance. In a free nation--especially a nation with the separation of church and state, founded on the grounds of personal liberty--this sort of defense simply should not exist. The anti-abortionist claims it's a sin to end a life and the anti-gay claims it's a sin for a couple of the same sex to be happy together. Each of these arguments is founded on the concept of 'sin'--or that which is prohibited, implicitly or explicitly, in a book of questionable origin, by anonymous authors, and of a different period in time.

One could validly begin to wonder just where these antiquated and anti-humanitarian sentiments end, or just how far they're engrained in the mind of our legal system. What kind of 'crimes' are taken for granted without showing the exact nature of the offense or demonstrating tangible damage to an actual victim.

For the sake of exploration and as a sort of thought experiment, let's turn our attention to the current 'War on Drugs'. The statistics exist which will show this war as a complete failure. Despite years of effort, drug use is on the rise. Let's consider for a moment what would happen if the use of drugs were to be decriminalized.

One of the more controversial and common drugs is marijuana. A plant. Marijuana has recorded medical uses and benefits, and, moreover, marijuana isn't linked with any form of violent behavior. The use, possession, and sale of marijuana is currently, however, a criminal offense. Looking back to the criteria for a 'crime' and the basis of illegality, it should mean that somehow the use of marijuana causes some form of damage to a non-consenting 'victim'. Where is that victim?

Let's say that one could argue the community/family of the ingester of marijuana is victimized by being deprived of a member or by watching a member do something of which they don't approve. If going against the approval of the community/family is a crime, then what of the child of pacifists who joins the armed forces once of legal age? What of the child who decides to be an engineer instead of the lawyer/doctor their parents always wanted? Do either of these constitute crimes? Each instance shares a commonality: the informed choice of a legal adult led to a decision which caused psychological harm to another party by sole virtue of a difference in beliefs. It would appear then that the basis for illegality is based on 'thought-crime'--a certain belief system which causes no harm, beside the irritation of those who don't believe the same, is held as illegal.

As long as belief doesn't cause demonstrable harm, tangible, physical/financial harm to another person, why should it be outlawed? This borders on a violation of religious freedom, considering religion is an adherence to a certain set of beliefs held to be true by the devotee. As long as these beliefs don't bring harm to an unconsenting third party, there can be no basis for a crime.

The other major argument against drugs, where one finds actual victims, involves the current state of the sale/distribution of illicit substances. Street crime is more prevalent in neighborhoods where more drug trade happens. Here are actual victims: dealers killed, innocent bystanders killed, purchasers killed. Surely this constitutes a crime? The answer would be yes, as the situation currently exists, much crime exists around the trade of drugs. What would happen, however, if the industry weren't forced to be run as a black market where lack of regulation and need for secrecy exceeded all? Basically, drug trade creates crime because it's a criminal activity. Take away the criminal component and the criminals and victims begin to disappear.

The mentioned social issues are simply the tip of an extensive iceberg. The true question at hand is the role of logic and reason versus fear and religion in the creation of legal codes and the maintaining of social structure. One can't help but wonder what would happen if religious prejudice and irrational convictions were taken out of the equation what kind of society could emerge. If the reader has any faith in human virtue--of their own virtue, of their neighbors' virtue--then the dawn of human reason will be a very welcome event. It's definitely a brighter future than huddling in fear of a deity whose mind, while unknowable, you believe to have completely figured out.