GOVERNMENT SHOULD RESTRICT INTRUSION ON PERSONAL CHOICES

It's wrong for people to legislate their morality to others, and it's also
wrong when adults aren't allowed to make their own decisions about how to
live. Nowhere is this more apparent than America's policies on alcohol and
marijuana. Don't get me wrong. This column isn't about promoting either of
those things -- it's about the importance of preserving individual choice.

Take alcohol and consider how our policies do more harm than good. First of
all, where did a drinking age of 21 come from? You can vote for your
leaders and die for your country at 18, get married at 16 in most places
but not drink until you're 21. Ludicrous.

Obviously, there are problems with people not drinking responsibly. But
that has to do with the role alcohol plays in our culture. Although an age
limit might treat the symptoms, it doesn't fix the underlying problem,
which is what we really should be focusing on.

In Europe, kids start drinking around age 12. But it's not a problem
because Europeans teach their kids how to enjoy it responsibly instead of
treating alcohol as "forbidden fruit" as Americans do. Here, when kids are
lucky enough to get their hands on some beer, they feel the need to binge
drink to "be cool" and to "break the law," something teenagers especially
are prone to do.

We further exacerbate this problem on college campuses. Think about what
happens when you keep college kids, who are going to drink, out of a bar.
Underage students are prevented from drinking at a place where there are
people trained to watch out for those who have had "too much." Instead,
they go to a frat party or somewhere else where binge drinking is not only
allowed, it's encouraged!

Then we also hire officers to go patrol bars for underage drinkers instead
of putting them out on the street or at DUI checkpoints -- what a misuse of
resources. So when politicians rant about how fake ID sales help launder
money to terrorists, maybe they should take a look at why kids are getting
the IDs in the first place.

And we're just as unrealistic when it comes to pot. Despite the fact that
no credible medical study can convincingly prove that marijuana is much
more harmful than alcohol, our government's reactionary stance on the
little plant's use just doesn't seem to change. Part of the stubbornness
comes from the entrenched bureaucratic interests that want to keep fighting
the war on marijuana. Stop and think for a moment about how ridiculous that
sounds. And part of the problem is some people wrongfully telling others
how to live.

Think about what keeping marijuana illegal means in practical terms. Rather
than having a revenue-producing and regulated pot industry, we have a
situation where gangs, shady dealers and cartels fight over drug turf.

So next time you see a commercial that blames "Johnny" for helping to fund
terrorists by "buying pot," ask why Johnny's local politician hasn't tried
to legalize pot, eliminating the crime and other negative effects that come
with getting it on the street.

Not only is the prohibition on recreational marijuana use bad, but it's
even worse when the government stunts useful research on the drug's
potential medical capabilities. Many scientists find that marijuana is
often the hardest drug to access and to get funds to study. We should be in
the business of promoting useful research and not an entrenched ideology.
Isn't it wrong to allow our blanket prohibition to deny much-needed relief
to gravely ill people who are suffering?

Please remember -- I'm not advocating drinking or smoking weed. But what
I'm saying is that whether or not you choose to do either should be your
choice and your choice alone -- just like it's your choice whether you eat
unhealthy foods or not.

The laws we have today are not only ineffective -- they're
counter-effective. By getting real on these issues, we'll all be better off.