• C – The Most Dangerous of Drugs

    Email Print

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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."

    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

    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

    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?

    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."

    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.

    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!

    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.

    of Contents

    Email Print
  • Political Theatre

  • LRC Blog

    LRC Podcasts