Editor,
In the Victorian era, English society was governed by what I call a "moralocracy." That is, anything that was deemed immoral was equated with wickedness, and therefore subject to prohibition in polite society.
Today in the United States, we still pretty much live under a moralocracy that is disguised as a healthocracy.
Today, if the powers that be suggest that some type of activity is harmful or unhealthy, calls and outright protests by these same powers are sure to follow urging that the activity in question be made illegal.
The assumption is that people are not mature enough to make their own decisions and need some authoritative body to decide for them. Yet the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the issues are pretty much the same as they were in Victorian England. That is, many of our laws, in reality, have nothing to do with health and everything to do with morality, or at least the imposition of one group's morality on another group.
One quick example is the drug war. Alcohol is legal, while drugs like marijuana are illegal. The argument is that drug use is an unhealthy behavior and therefore should be outlawed - yet there is no scientific evidence that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol. Indeed, it would appear that quite the opposite is true. Nevertheless, we still try to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy drugs while the real issue has to do with morality.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
One group is essentially regulating the behavior of another group for moral reasons. This is most unfortunate, since our society is loosely structured around the notion of individual liberty and freedom of the individual to decide which course he or she is to take in life.
If you find some activity to be offensive or immoral, don't engage in it. But, unless you are being personally affected, you have no grievance against others for engaging in that activity.
I think when we hear politicians talk about unhealthy activities and the need for legislation to regulate them, we should immediately become suspicious and ask ourselves what we are being asked to give up in return for their benevolent protection.
After all, who would want to live in a society where only those activities deemed healthy and innocuous are allowed? Expressing political opinions or reading might become unhealthy activities.
In my opinion, the most unhealthy state of affairs that could exist in a society is a system that limits one's freedom of choice in the name of public health.
Emil Crawford
UNM student
