C – The Most Dangerous of Drugs

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

If
Adolf Hitler had had television to assist him in his efforts to
ban the use of tobacco, I wonder how similar his campaign would
have been to the televised congressional circus now being conducted
against steroids. In the same frenzied self-righteousness with which
Congress supports military wars against the lives of innocents,
and domestic wars against domestic liberties, hearings into the
dangerous nature and use of steroids are nudging Scott Peterson,
Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, and even Martha Stewart from television's
center stage.

The
tone of this current statist inquisition was well-expressed by Congressman
Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California. Lantos, who never met an
expansion of state power that he did not immediately embrace, referred
to steroid manufacturers as an "arrogant industry" that
chooses not to "play by the rules." Had one turned to
the hearings just as Lantos spoke these words, one might have thought
he was being critical of the Bush administration! But, of course,
congressional hearings will never become so bold as to question
— much less criticize — the very base of the political power structure
in America. It is those who are in the market for buying and selling
substances voluntarily chosen by their consumers who must be attacked.
That arrogance lies in those who presume the authority to exercise
coercive power over the free choices of individuals would never
enter the mindset of Mr. Lantos. To entertain such a thought would
condemn Lantos and his congressional colleagues to a fate few of
them would be able to withstand; namely, to sustain themselves through
productive services to men and women in a free market.

I
have never used steroids, and have no case to make on their behalf.
From what I have read about them, I suspect that people are well-advised
not to use them for body-building purposes. I will add that any
parent who knowingly allows his or her child to use steroids for
such ends is doing a very poor job of parenting. At the same time,
I am a member of that rapidly decreasing minority who believes that
each person is the owner of his or her body and, consistent with
ownership principles, should be in uninhibited control over themselves.
To suggest that the state should be able to usurp such control —
particularly when ostensibly for the "good" of the person
intruded upon — is to revert to the mentality that burned "witches"
at the stake in order to save the soul of the person thus possessed.

If
people-pushers were truly desirous of benefiting others —
rather than exercising power over them — they could accomplish
their ends by conducting research into various foods, drugs, and
other substances, and making known the results of this research
to people who would then be free to incorporate such information
into their personal cost/benefit analyses regarding their use. There
are organizations who publish such research (e.g., Consumer Reports)
to people who choose to subscribe to their services. When such information
is provided in the marketplace, the liberty of individuals to accept
or reject it is respected.

But
people-pushers have never been content with simply informing others;
they demand the obedience of their neighbors to their values.
Nor are such people particularly interested in being benefactors
to others. It is the power to control their fellow humans
that underlies such campaigns as the "wars" on drugs,
tobacco, fatty foods, and now steroids. That such undertakings are
referred to as "wars" should be a tip-off not only as
to their purpose, but as to the enemy. H.L. Mencken got to the essence
of this motivation when he observed that "[t]he urge to save
humanity is almost always a false-front for the urge to rule it."

If
Mencken and I have it all wrong, and the lifestyle warriors are
truly desirous of protecting young people from the harmful consequences
of nostrums offered to their youthful minds, they might redirect
their attentions. Criticisms have been offered of high school coaches
who, perhaps obliquely, suggest body-building substances to teenaged
athletes. Because of their inexperience, and trusting in their adult
teachers, these children are unable to appreciate the long-term
costs that are implicit in what, at the moment, seems to be a harmless
endeavor.

But
if protecting the lives of young people is truly the concern of
the anti-steroid crusaders, they ought to look beyond the world
of athletics and consider a far more dangerous school-induced threat
to the minds and bodies of the innocents. By conditioning students
in the mindset of institutionally-structured authority — to which
they are to subordinate their wills and lives — the government school
system has played an essential role in the creation of brigades
of automatons whose primary function is to serve the state. Where
else, but in such schools, do children learn to recite their daily
catechisms of "allegiance" to the state, and to salute
the banner under which they are expected to identify and organize
themselves?

If
there are school coaches who subtly encourage steroid use, there
are many more teachers whose job it is to openly inculcate and reinforce
the minds of their charges in the virtue of service to the state.
If you doubt this, think back upon your own education in government
schools. How much time was spent in helping you understand yourself
as an independent, self-directed person, and to assist you in exploring
the spiritual, creative, and rational nature of your inner being?
On the other hand, how much time was spent defining your role and
functions in the political and social hierarchy to which you were
expected to subjugate yourself? How much time was spent learning
about the superiority of your nation's political system; the importance
of patriotism; the glory and moral necessity of its victories on
battlefields; and the heroic nature of young men who had gone off
to fight and to die in defense of "liberties" it was never
considered the right of soldiers to exercise?

We
laugh at Islamic suicide bombers who respond to promises of seventy-two
virgins awaiting them in the next life, and forget that young Americans
have been lured into service to the war-machine with a different
set of promises: the learning of new skills, college tuition, and
the prospect of discovering what it was never the intention nor
the capacity of government schools to provide, i.e., "to be
all that you can be."

Such
lies and illusions are offered to the young because the statists
know that grown adults would be more likely to resist such importunities,
at least if their own lives hung in the balance. But teenagers
are more easily seduced, whether by the glory of battle or the vision
of becoming a major league ballplayer. And so the state preys upon
both their innocence and the gullibility of their parents. Each
is told that war is a glorious cause, while steroids are a threat
to their lives, despite the fact that for every young person who
has died from steroid use, thousands more have died from war.

This
is child abuse of the worst kind! In deadening the minds of children
with patriotic opiates, the schools have helped to produce a society
of anesthetized adults incapable of discriminating between "truth"
and "lies," or even of appreciating the importance of
such distinctions in formulating government policies. Most of us
have become what the state trained us to become: people who look
upon "honesty" and "deception" as nothing more
than alternative strategies; people who are willing to accept the
fundamental political doctrine that a lie is as good as the truth,
if people will only believe it!

If
we love our children as much as we profess to, we owe them the opportunity
for lives that are better than this. Do we not, as parents, have
an obligation to protect them from those who threaten their lives?
Should we be content to allow others to dehumanize our children,
or should we provide them with an environment in which they can
live in harmony with their nature? If we are prepared to take on
this responsibility, we must help our children resist the indoctrination
that would make them slaves of the state, "resources"
to be employed on behalf of the interests of those in power. To
do so, however, we must unlearn our own conditioning, and
to "just say no!" to the peddlers of the statist narcotics.

Next
Chapter
                               Table
of Contents

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts