WHY IS IT ILLEGAL TO CHANGE YOUR MIND?

The Victorian Government is removing the crime of witchcraft from the
statutes. And along with that it is dropping fortune-telling,
enchantment and sorcery from the books.

There hasn't been a witch burning in these parts for donkey's years.
In fact, forever. And I'm not certain that I would recognise
enchantment or sorcery if I saw them, but I'm sorry to see these laws
go.

It is good to have laws against witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment and
fortune-telling, along with the laws against sedition, blasphemy and
the abominable crime of buggery, just to remind us that the law is not
revealed truth from on High, but is the creation of fallible, stupid,
superstitious men and women. Far too many people are dazzled by what
they suppose to be the sacred nature of law and are offended by the
proposition that a bad law is no law at all.

Any unexpected outbreak of civil disobedience sends a wave of
nervousness through the community. Deary us, if we break one law,
what's to stop us breaking others? Where do we draw the line?

Well, we know now that it is acceptable to break prohibitions on
Easter Sunday trading. So we have already established a principle by
which we judge when a law is breakable. If it interferes with the
pursuit of profit, it may be broken with a clear conscience.

However, I digress. It's the witches I feel sorry for. According to
the latest census, there are 2000 witches in Victoria, and you may be
asking yourself, "If witchcraft is against the law, how come they are
not all in the slammer?"

I have a theory. At least half the fun in being a witch is knowing
that it is against the law. It would not surprise me if the next
census turns up a sudden and dramatic decline in the number of witches
in the Garden State. If it's not illegal, what's the point?

So, where is all this talk of witches heading? Towards the prohibition
of drugs, of course.

The first thing to say about witchcraft is that it is a crime without
a victim. Enchantment and sorcery sound a tad more sinister, but still
Attorney-General Rob Hulls is prepared to run the risk of repealing
the prohibition of incantations and spells. I think we can expect that
nothing will happen, just as when prohibitions on buggery,
prostitution, off-track gambling, after-six drinking and abortion were
repealed. The only losers were the cops, who made untaxed income from
standing over the criminals without victims, and the suppliers of
services whose profits were seriously reduced.

I see that "an ambitious Federal Police agent and a world-class
athlete" pleaded guilty to seven charges of dealing drugs and two
charges of tipping his mates off to the modus operandi of the Federal
Police. The athletic policeman's counsel told the court that his
client had "worked for just about every voluntary organisation in
Victoria", which should get the lawyer done for hyperbole. But he has
a point. If the athletic policeman uses ecstasy and cocaine, but in
all other respects is a decent citizen, why send him to prison?

On the same page we read: "A suspended Victorian drug squad detective
is set to plead guilty to trafficking in... ecstasy."

A Vietnamese mother (Mrs Big?) and daughter are sent to prison for
heroin dealing. A North Korean freighter delivers an $80 million cargo
of heroin to Lorne, of all places. Heroin addiction costs Victoria
$845 million a year. Twenty-nine per cent of all crimes committed in
Australia are drug related. Sixteen West Australian politicians
confess to having used cannabis - some still do. This is merely part
of one week's despatches from the front line of the war on drugs.

Can anyone seriously argue that supplying prescribed mind-altering
substances to addicts in controlled conditions would be more damaging
to society than the consequences of prohibition? Only a witch, perhaps.