I'm a bit bewildered, Melclin.
I agree with you about the infringement of personal liberty when the government decides, arbitrarily and capriciously, what substances an individual may or may not put in their bodies. However, to switch from a "Why should the government intervene in situations where no one is impinging upon the rights of others", to "I sure wish the government would force more people to do things against their will" is the problem with our system.
My gun-loving friends preach the Constitution like a preacher does the Bible. Yet when I mention legalizing soft drugs, they complain about it and rally against it. My hippy-type friends talk about the militarization of the American police and the further erosion of our freedoms in the War on Drugs, yet they are appalled that I carry a sidearm and preach for guns to be banned.
America is about individual liberty, natural rights and freedom from prosecution for making choices different than others. If more people understood that, it would further the "live and let live" notions of our Founding Fathers. Instead, each special interest group focuses only on their specific interest instead of the larger issue, the Constitution as a whole.
Yeah I know the feeling. I have a number of views that are, considered very conservative here, esp for my demographic (young university student), but I'm also quite passionate about many aspects of social justice that people don't often associate with the conservative side of politics. You point out an interesting common political phenomenon: ideological groups often have a seemingly contradictory footnote to their beliefs (charmingly satirized in 'American Dad', "[speaking of abortion] We're conservatives! The one way we don't like to kill things, is THAT way").
I've always had two conflicting notions at the heart of my thoughts on these matters:
1)The first is the Orwellian notion that I would rather be free to make the wrong choice than be forced to make the right one.
2)The other is that while a person is smart,
people are idiots. So when you're in the business of looking out for their best interests (as a government is supposed to be doing), you may have to make decisions for them that they don't like: tough love.
This is all very tangential. It all depends on what you want from your society. American is at the bottom of the list on just about every measure of a what the rest of the developed world considers to be a civilized society. But if they are a price you are willing to pay for all you 'freedom' then I can accept that.
A curious aspect of American society is the pillar on which the 'founding fathers' are held. People regularly invoke their name to prove a point as though it is self evidently obvious that they are the undisputed authority on everything. Why (and this is an actual question, its not argumentative rhetoric) are their opinions
so sacrosanct?
The random drug tests are required by the employer, not the government. If I don't want to subject myself to random drug tests, I have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere.
Yeah I suppose that makes sense. I get that its different people doing it, but the end result is the same. Its still an unnecessary violation of privacy (if, of course, you take that point of view). I would have thought that people would be against a result, not the particular cause. They don't seem to mind when an employer F@$# them, just as long as the government doesn't. We have a similar mistrust and veiled dislike of authority in Australia, however, it extends to the private sector as well as the public. In America it seems to stop at the public. Just an observation.
FOR EVERYONE:
There's some exceedingly interesting talks given by Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief; and Dr. Alex Wodak, Head of the Alcohol and Drug service in Syndey's St. Vincet's hospital, broadcast here recently. If you're interested in the legality of drugs then I urge you to listen to it. They are only about 7 minutes each.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2717526.htm
