Throughout martial history there have been many occasions where armies have fought against each other to gain supremacy of a certain advantageous hilltop. But, correct me if I am wrong, there is no single instance of which I am aware where a man has combated with a hill. Men may fight for hills, but men do not fight against hills. We, the hills and humans, have enjoyed an unbroken peace since our first encounter.
Looking about me, I am delighted to see that man enjoys peaceful relations with a number of inanimate objects. Still, on some days I fear this peace may be in jeopardy. Each day, across every landmass, a cruel and bloodthirsty army of countless insolent rocks position themselves to stub the toes of hapless passersby.
But even such offenses as these do no not usually provoke more than a swear word or a wince. Certainly, it is a rare instance when the person with the bleeding toe seeks to even the score with the rock by scolding it, spanking it, or (most ill-advisedly) kicking it with his other toe.
Why does man display such sufferance and mercy towards the rock which stubs his toe? We all know that man is a passionate creature, prone to his emotions and quick to seek retaliation when he feels wronged. History, with its countless scores of bloody wars, testifies loudly to the fact that man has very little qualms about going to battle. So why the uncharacteristic forbearance towards rocks?
I submit that men prefer to settle scores with other creatures that actually have an appreciation for the concept of a scoring system, that is, other men. You can beat a tree all day with your fists and it probably will take very little offense and will, no matter how ferociously you beat, refuse to show remorse for any wrongdoing.
There is a very famous scene in literature in which the dauntless Don Quixote rushes the windmills. Miguel de Cervantes, the author of this classic, entertainingly illustrates the striking and comedic contrast between the windmills and their fiery assailant, Quixote. Quixote is an animate being, alive and invigorated, drenched in the perspiration that comes before battle, and hopelessly overwhelmed with emotions so grand only a human being could feel them. The windmills, by contrast, are utterly unfazed. They do not contemplate their attack, nor their retreat. They remain fixed to that spot where human hands constructed them. They are lifeless and unmoved.
Thus far, I have told you that man does not battle with inanimate objects except, perhaps, in rare circumstances when he is in a foul temper. Generally speaking, he does not seek revenge against the rock or retribution for the tree. And, with the exception of certain fools of fiction, he does not battle with windmills.
But I’m afraid that I would not be relating the whole truth if I told you that everyone is adult enough to realize the foolishness of fighting a battle with inanimate objects. It makes no sense, but a very large, violent, and expensive campaign is being fought, purportedly, with the object of vanquishing drugs.
Of course, the idea of engaging in mortal combat with cocaine is preposterous on its face. Men can’t battle with drugs anymore than they can joust with windmills. The “war against drugs” is not a war against drugs.
Like all wars, this one is a war against other humans, in this case drug users, drug vendors (allegedly including a Cal Poly freshman from the dorms recently), and producers.
For whatever reason, the government has decided that it does not like drugs. I don’t know why precisely. Perhaps the government simply does not like potheads (even when one sits in the Oval Office) or perhaps it doesn’t like for its citizens to use objects that could potentially endanger the user. If the latter is true, we should expect to see the government expand on this general principle and outlaw scissors in the very near future, or at least criminalize running with scissors and other potentially harmful behaviors.
But who really cares what reasoning the government employs to defend its violent behavior. Who really cares whether drugs are a good thing or a bad thing? Harmful or healthful? I certainly don’t.
You see, I defend the right of people to engage in peaceful exchange to acquire goods which they desire, regardless what those items might be. I even go so far as to defend the right of people to buy things (like kitchen knives) which could potentially be used to cause harm against themselves or others (willfully or accidentally). If a free society is our objective, how can it be otherwise?