"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Old Nonsense From the U.S. Supreme Court

I am proofreading a legal book about ineffective assistance of counsel. I was checking on some quotations from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when I came across the following in the majority opinion: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." 384 U.S. at 491.

I call this nonsense for the following reason. The principle of inalienable rights (which is merely given lip service at all levels of government) should mean that a person actually and completely owns the property of his or her body and mind. That would mean that a person could use that property as he or she wants, just so long as in so doing that person does not violate the rights of others. That means, as adults (minors do not have full adult rights) a person should be able to use any chemical substance or drug he or she wishes--for any reason--if not violating the rights of others in so doing. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the laws that prohibits the manufacture, sales, and use of certain chemicals and drugs; laws that violate the inalienable rights of otherwise honest adults; the above Supreme Court quote notwithstanding.

Oh, and did I mention that the legal drugs, alcohol and nicotine, cause between 40 and 50 times more harm--disease, disability, and death--than all the illegal drugs combined? Or that the use of alcohol is the number one cause of both violent crimes and retardation in newborns? None of that matters because they are legal, whatever that means. One thing it doesn't mean is just.

Never confuse the fact that legality and justice do not equate. Otherwise, why would nearly one-half of our prison population, nearly one million people, be incarcerated for drug related activity? The vast majority of those people did not violate anyone's rights with their drug behavior. What they did was to offend the moral and religious beliefs of people who were able to get their beliefs enacted into secular law. That is not justice and it should be illegal.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

And Now, a Word From an Expert about Anti-Drug Legislation

Stop the War is an article that Joseph D. McNamara, former Police Chief of San Jose, California with 35 years of police experience, wrote for The Washington Post, Sunday, May 19, 1996.

Here are some excerpts from that article.

Most Americans are startled to hear that until the passage of the Harrison Act in 1914, drug use was viewed as a medical and social problem and was not against the criminal law. There was no billion-dollar black market. No violent drug trade No widespread official corruption. No widespread disrespect for drug laws. Drug users went to their doctors if they needed treatment.

There were drug problems. In fact, around the turn of the century large numbers of housewives were addicted to opium. Nerve medicine for women, containing opium, was sold across the counter at drug stores. Other addictive substances were sold as patent medicines. Gradually. the medical profession became more aware of the addictive nature of some drugs and supported the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which required labeling and warnings for habit-forming substances.

That law was a civil one; it did not criminalize drug users. It is instructive. The number of addicts and users was greatly reduced by educating them, not by arresting them.

Criminalizing drugs in the United States was a remarkable change in public policy. But it wasn't the police who were lobbying for the passage of the Harrison Act, which was the cornerstone of increasingly punitive laws against drug users and sellers. The Protestant missionary societies in China, the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League and other organized religions were the prime movers. In their view, drug use was sinful and people had to be saved from their baser instincts. In effect, they managed to get their version of sin enacted into the penal code, an old habit of power elites in America.

This view of drug users as criminals continues to haunt us and makes rational political debate impossible. It is too appealing for politicians to picture themselves as the good guys fighting evil.


Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman, doing a comparative analysis with homicide rates during Prohibition, estimated that as many as 10,000 murders a year are caused by the illegality of drugs. In addition, corruption of law enforcement, the legal profession and even the armed forces related to drug money is spreading.

That last paragraph is significant because the government figures for deaths from drugs for all causes is between 16,000 and 20,000 per year. If 10,000 are drug-law-related murders, that means that only 6,000 to 10,000 deaths per year are related to the mere use of the presently illegal drugs. Compare that to the 85,000 to 100,000 people dying prematurely due to the use of alcohol, or the more than 400,000 from the use of tobacco. And yet we, as taxpayers, are allowing the government to scare us, and lie to us, and to violate our inalienable rights, and use our money to the tune of anywhere from 50 billion to 100 billion dollars a year to try and stop the 6,000 to 10,000 deaths per year caused by the mere use of certain drugs. (If drugs were re-legalized, like the re-legalization of alcohol in 1933, the murders related to the drug prohibition would stop, as they did after the alcohol prohibition.)

I'm not saying that 6,000 to 10,000 people that misuse drugs (alcohol plus heroin is the usual cause of "heroin overdose" deaths) are to be dismissed out of hand. But compared to the extremely greater amount of deaths caused by the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine, they shrink into insignificance. Besides, adults are supposed to have inalienable rights. That means that they own the property of their bodies and their minds and have a "right" to use them as they wish, even if in so using them it causes them harm or death. That's what true personal liberty and freedom is all about. Otherwise, the government would have the legitimate power to ban all activities that might cause people harm or death . . . like driving race cars, climbing mountains, skiing, swimming, or just the daily commute.

If you don't like a person's personal moral beliefs or lifestyle, you can't force that person to stop or change, unless that person has harmed you or your property, or is a direct and immediate threat to you or your property. Merely snorting cocaine or smoking marijuana, or injecting heroin does not rise to the level of harming or endangering others. And if you, as a private individual can't force someone to change their lifestyle, then the government can't either. The government derives its proper power from the people. If the people don't have it, the government can't have it.

But that is just so much boring political history, brought to us by the Founding Fathers of this nation, who would be shocked insensible at the amount of government interference that now exists in the lives of otherwise honest, self-supporting citizens . . . and is tolerated by them.

Wake up America. The government has become a tyranny.

My question to you, America, is why are you allowing this b.s. to continue. And why do you believe that religious beliefs should be the basis of our secular laws and secular government. I, and millions like me, don't worship at that church.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Individual Liberty v. Government Force

"[T]he police must obey the law while enforcing the law; that in the end life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves." Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 320-21 (1959). So said the United States Supreme Court in 1959.

Where are we today with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, cellphone tracking, and so forth? When a government, in the name of security, destroys liberty, as our Founding Fathers knew, you will have tyranny. You will have tyranny because the type of person who wants to be in government, in control, is not the kind of person to be trusted out of your sight. All people are weak in one way or another, or in many ways. The desire to attain power over others is one of those weaknesses, one that will lead, eventually, if unchecked, to an absolute and complete tyranny over the people.

You don't believe me? Julius Caesar took the Romans from republic to tyranny. Lenin and Stalin change one tyranny, the rule of the Czar, for another, the rule of the "party members." Hitler, slowly and legally, changed Germany from a relatively safe and sane country into a tyrannous and paranoid regime. This desire to control and to be powerful is an addiction, from the level of the policeman in the street, city alderman, state or national legislator, or prime minister or president of a nation. Power is a seductive drug that few, given the opportunity, can resist.

It is not a matter of if America develops a totally tyrannous government. It is only a matter of when it will happen. Remember, to govern means to control. How much control by a politician or government bureaucrat do you need? How much will you put up with before you openly and vehemently protest? And will it be too late then?

Now here are a couple of quotes by two wise people:

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Ben Franklin

But there is more. I started out with a U.S. Supreme Court quote. I want to now briefly mention, along with individual liberty, the antiquated and no longer supported principle of inalienable rights. The anti-drug laws that the U.S. Supreme Court upholds fully and without hesitation, violate the rights of otherwise honest people who wish to make or sell, certain chemical substances, natural or synthetic, or merely use them in a mind-altering, recreational manner.

The vast majority of the people who use these drugs do not violate the rights of others due to the mere use of these drugs. Almost all of the violence surrounding drug use (alcohol excepted, of course) is due to the laws making them illegal. In the last part of the 19Th Century and the first part of the 20Th Century, these drugs were legally available (and inexpensive), but there was no, I repeat, no criminal justice problem associated with their use . . . and addiction rates were dropping as more people were becoming aware of their addictive nature.

The drug war is a direct violation of the inalienable rights of adults and yet the U.S. Supreme Court upholds those rights-violating laws (which are based on religious and personal moral beliefs). The U.S. Supreme Court, in the mid-19Th Century, also upheld the vile and rights violating institution of slavery. It upheld the Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed slave owners to go into "free" states and capture runaway slaves. It also made criminal anyone helping slaves to run a way from their evil incarceration.

Slavery in general and the Fugitive Slave Act in particular were evil and they violated the rights of people, yet they were legal and the Supreme Court upheld this evilness because it was legal. So, when you think of the Supreme Court decision that are being handed down today, think: justice or legal? Because what is legal quite often does not equal justice.

I will leave you with a couple more quotes:

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

"It is true that, in the United States, at least, we have a constitution that imposes strict limits on some powers of the government. But, as we have discovered in the past century, no constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government’s own Supreme Court, then the inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue to place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for its own government." Murray Rothbard.

Think about it, okay? That's all I ask you to do.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007


Puzzle me this, Christians: An ancient meaning for the word "lucifer"--a pre-Christian meaning--was "light bringer", referring to Venus, the morning "star."

One who brings the light. The light for what? Merely the precursor to the sun? Perhaps. But also, remember that Prometheus, a Titan in Greek mythology (as opposed to Christian mythology) brought light (fire) to mankind . . . and was punished forever for that act.

Christians call the great evil by several names. Among them are Lucifer, Satan, and Devil, or rather, "the Devil." But from where did the Devil come.

Again, Christians belief that their God created the universe and everything in it. They also believe that their God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Ergo, their God created the Devil, knowingly--because to have create "it" without knowing would logically mean that said God wasn't all-knowing. Ergo, the Christian God created what we call evil. Or, in the alternative, the Christian God is not all-knowing and all-powerful . . . so then what else is it not?

Friday, November 16, 2007

Something from the introduction of my "52 Perverse Questions"

Most people have a hard time dealing directly with sexual issues in a logical manner, especially when it comes to their own sexuality. Here is a question of logic for you to answer. Would the Creator God (assuming such a thing exists) have made humans to be so sexual for no reason whatsoever? How sexual are humans? Both men and women have a great capacity for sexual enjoyment, in many different ways, from many different people…or objects…and, yes, even from animals. Women do not have a sexual “season”. If approached in the right way by the right person, a woman will have sex at any time of the day or night, any time of the week, month, or year. A woman may even initiate such action. Women have a great capacity to enjoy a lot of sex in many ways and they have this wonderful ability to have multiple orgasms. (However, having the ability and having the desire, are two different things.) Men, of course, are ready to have sex whenever and where ever they can find it. And, unlike most mammals, most men when in their prime can have sex every day, sometimes more than once a day, for weeks or months or years on end. Also, human males, pound for pound, tend to have the largest penises of almost all, if not in fact all, mammals. * So why, then, would a Creator God tell us (through his priestly minions on Earth) that sex between one man and one woman, who are married, in which they participate only in face-to-face, penile-vaginal sex, and only for procreation and not pleasure, is proper and correct sex…if you have to do it at all. Now that’s perverse!

If sex didn’t feel good and we weren’t supposed to have sex except to have babies, then we wouldn’t have overpopulation and six billion plus people on this planet. So why did the alleged Creator God create us with the ability to enjoy sex so much and then tell us that we shouldn’t do it except under certain restricted circumstances? That’s illogical…unless the message was garbled in the translation from God-Talk to human-talk, and the real message was that we were supposed to enjoy sex as much as we can, but that we are supposed to be careful; don’t cause unwanted pregnancies, don’t pass diseases around, don’t harm other people in our sexual urges, and be responsible for our actions and their consequences. Of course, there could be another explanation; that there is no creator god and that we have to learn these things by using our logical brains.

* The blue whale is the largest mammal alive today. By the best estimates of scientists, a male’s erect penis can reach a length of six and a half feet, or 78 inches. Blue whales can reach weights of up to 150 tons, but for this analysis I will use a weight of 130 tons, or 260,000 pounds. A thoroughbred stallion of 1,200 pounds can have an erect penis length of 30 inches. A human male of 200 pounds can have an erect penis length of 6 inches. (There are men with penis lengths much greater, but 6 inches is a good average. I have also seen photos of men with penis circumferences that rival or exceed those of many horses.) If we divide the penis length in inches by pounds, we can establish ratios for comparative penis size of these three mammals.

• 78 divided by 260,000 = 0.0003
• 30 divided by 1,200 = 0.025
• 6 divided by 200 = 0.03

The larger the number, the greater the penis size is in relation to the body weight. (And 0.03, three-hundredths, is one hell of a lot bigger than 0.0003, three-ten-thousandths.) If we use the human male’s ratio number as a whole number and adjust the other two numbers to it, then for humans, horses, and blue whales we have a comparative ratio of 3 to 2.4 to 0.03. As we can see, even though the blue whale has the largest actual penis, by far, it has an incredibly small erect penis length as a ratio to its body weight. That would be like the human male having an erect penis length of 0.06 inches, six-hundredths of an inch (0.06 divided by 200 = 0.0003). And, our human male also beat out the stallion in comparative erect penis length. So ask yourself this: Why would a creator god create a human male with such a comparatively large erect penis, from which he can derive so much enjoyment, and then tell him not to use it except in the most restricted of circumstances? (Male gorillas, which are much more massive than human males, effectively breed their females with a penis that only averages one and a half inches in length.) You should also know that a healthy, mature stud (stallion), in a good breeding season and in a natural setting, such as in a pasture or field, may breed between 25-30 mares. It will then need a long break—like until next year—and be glad for it. Hell, when I was 35, I met and fell in love with a woman and shortly thereafter we were living together. We had sex nearly every night, or day, sometimes more than once a day, for at least a year before we slowed down…slowed down, not stopped. And I am sure that there are men out there who have done even better—if sex more than once a day for a year is better.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007


Koyaanisqatsi is a Hopi (Indian) word for a world turned upside down, or something very close to that. (By the way, when I use the word "Indian" I am referring to the first inhabitants of the Americas -- North, Central, and South. I an not referring to a people who were better than the Europeans who came later, just different.)

So why is the world turned upside down? Because your government (I learned years ago that the U.S. Government was not mine by choice) continues to do really illogical and stupid things.

Recently in the news, the U.S. Sentencing Commission decided to reduce the penalties for "crack" cocaine, making it more equal to "regular" cocaine. (The physiological effects upon the body is no different.) And now they want to make the reduction in prison sentences retroactive. The Bush administration is strenuously objecting. They are saying that the, approximately, 20,000 inmates in federal prison (this will not affect state prisoners) are "hardcore" drug dealers and this would be a community disaster to let them out all at once.

First of all, they won't all be let out at once. It's just a bit more complicated than that . . . and the Bushies know that. But second, and more importantly, those now in prison for "crack" cocaine (or any of the presently illegal drugs) by and large did not violate the rights of others while selling their drugs. How can something be a (secular) "crime" if no one's rights are violated? That sounds like a religious law to me. And, of course, that is the basis of the so-called war on drugs: a religious (or personal moral issues--which is just another way of saying religion) war on those who believe in the right to the full and complete ownership of their bodies and their minds. And, if we do actually own our bodies and mind, then, under the principle of inalienable rights, we can use drugs (as adults--minors do not have full adult rights) if we so desire.

The vast majority of all the violence involved in the manufacture and sales of the presently illegal drugs is due to their illegality. Once (over 100 years ago) they were not illegal and there was no criminal justice problems associated with their use, unlike alcohol, a true narcotic drug, the very use of which causes the majority of all violent crimes. Also, 100 years ago, as people were becoming more aware of the addictive nature of those drugs, and with the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act, which mandated listing addictive drugs on the labels of products for human consumption, addiction rates were going down.

Okay, so far? Then, on "Fox and Friends" (Thursday, 8 November 2007), Sean "Diddy" Combs was promoting his new product, a specialty vodka. Vodka is an alcoholic beverage and alcohol is (as stated above) a true narcotic drug. It is addictive, its use causes the majority of violent crime; its use is the number one cause of retardation in newborns, and there are millions of people who are addicted or who have serious problems due to alcohol. The premature death rate because of the use of alcohol is around 100,000 per year. (All illegal drugs is under 10,000--government figures of 15,000--and at least half of those are due to the violence caused by the war on drugs.)

So, as I said, this is a world turned upside down, where the inalienable rights of adults are openly violated by the government and very few people stand up and protest the tyranny of our moral masters. And, also, a narcotic drug that causes far more harm than all of the presently illegal drugs--in spite of the violence caused by their illegality--is promoted on a respected morning news program.

Koyaanisqatsi! In spades!

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

A Lesson Learned

Many years ago I had a friend who was put in federal prison for not violating the rights of others. He made a friend of a young man from Nepal who was also in prison for not violating the rights of others. One morning at breakfast, the man from Nepal exclaimed: "Meat, eggs, milk, cheese, fruit, vegetables, every day. I tell you, if I didn't have a family waiting for me at home I would do it again."

He was serving five years in federal prison for attempting to smuggle heroin into the country. He had made one successful trip and had been able to build most of his house for his family. The second trip was to finish the job.

We, in America, are used to "meat, eggs, milk, cheese, fruit, vegetables, every day" but the vast majority of the people in the world don't have it as good (food-wise) as the average prisoner in America.

Soon it will be Thanksgiving Day. Think about it.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Sugar v. Cocaine

Scientists have recently proven that sugar is more addictive than cocaine. In an article in the Los Angeles Times (I saw it in The Fresno Bee, Sunday, November 11, 2007) it said: "Researchers have learned that rats overwhelmingly prefer water sweetened with saccharin to cocaine . . . ."

Now, with the "obesity epidemic" that's going on in America, with the related health costs due to obesity, of which taxpayers are having to pick up the bill where private insurance leaves off--and considering that so many people are un- or under-insured, that is probably a rather large bill--it's time for the federal government to do the right thing: make sugar a prohibited substance.

Let's face it, sugar is in every prepared food that you buy: sugar, malt, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, etc. The processed food industry has addicted the American people and it is causing a health crisis. It has to stop, now. JUST SAY NO TO SUGAR!

What do you think? If we run it up the ol' flagpole, will people salute it? Hell, they took in the "drug use is immoral and causes crime" b.s., hook, line, and sinker, they should go for this one too. Oops! I forgot. When the government, due to religious pressure, started the war on drugs in 1914, there was no multi-billion dollar a year cocaine, heroin, or cannabis industry to lobby Congress, like the multi-billion dollar a year processed food industry.

Ah well. It was a thought. Might have saved a lot of pain, suffering, and premature deaths by banning sugar. It would have worked too, just like the war on drugs has stopped drug manufacturing, sales, and use in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Friday, November 09, 2007

The Evils of Government

I'm a Libertarian and I know that the so-called war on drugs is evil. This does not mean that I am suggesting that everyone, or even anyone, should use drugs in a recreational manner. Drug use for non-medical purposes is a decision that each adult has the right to make. It's called an inalienable right. Any behavior, by an adult, that is done alone or with other consenting adults, and that does not violate the rights of your fellow citizens, especially if done in private and on private property is your right because you exist. If this is not true then inalienable rights do not exist and we are at the mercy of our governmental moral masters.

Think about the following. Marijuana is an illegal drug. Growing it, selling it, and possessing it (in kilo or more quantities) can get you serious jail time. Still, it can be, has been, and is now being used for some very good medical purposes. Also, there is no record of anyone dying from using marijuana. (I suppose if one smoked it constantly, like tobacco cigarettes, one could or would develop some of the same illnesses . . . but who, other than seriously socially and emotionally retarded people, does that?)

Then examine tobacco use. It is widely accepted that over 400,000 people a year die prematurely from using that substance--nicotine being the addictive drug. Most people think of tobacco related-disease and they think of cancer. But over 100,000 heart attack deaths are caused by the nicotine in the tobacco. (35 milligrams of pure nicotine, injected into your vein, will stop your heart instantly upon reaching it.) And then there is the second-hand smoke issue, that is, causing disease and death to non-consenting others.

Tobacco has no redeeming value. You don't even get "high" from smoking it. You only continuously take in tiny addictive amounts of nicotine, thereby keeping you addicted. With marijuana, if you are not taking it for a legitimate medical reason, at least you can enjoy an altered state of mind, one of the hallmarks of being a human, with a history that goes back many thousands of years.

So with tobacco being so bad and marijuana being--if not so good, then not nearly so bad as tobacco--why does the federal government extort taxpayers to pay tobacco subsidies? From 1995 to 2005 $530 million taxpayer dollars were paid to support this evil weed.

We have people in prison for the wonderful weed marijuana and evil legislators still supporting both tobacco and the war on drugs. That is what I mean by "the evils of government." To govern means to control. How much control do you need by a politician or a government bureaucrat?

Sunday, November 04, 2007

What is an inalienable right?

Perhaps I should not ask what is an inalienable right, but rather, how do you recognize it?

I have given this a lot of thought over a long period of time. A few years ago I came up with what I thought was a good definition of how to define or recognize inalienable rights. This, of course, only applies to people who believe in these mythical things and to governments who uphold them . . . which is exactly zero governments in the world.

Here is my definitions of inalienable rights:

Any and all non-violent, non-coerced, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults.

That means there is a whole lot of behavior that us rightfully yours, if you wish to participate in it, but which is now considered illegal.

I think that my definition is pretty much self-explanatory. "Disturbing the peace" would mean, more-or-less, making loud noises and/or commotions that would not normally be legally licensed or normally expected in the place and/or at the time that such noise or commotion would be made, thereby disturbing the tranquility, quiet, or peace that people living in those places would normally expect.

Creating a "public nuisance" requires that whatever the nuisance is, it must be done in public, not in private, out of sight of the public, and especially if done on private property. My dictionary defines "nuisance" (legally) as "something offensive or annoying to individuals or the community." I think I need to define it a bit more definitely, as there are many things and many people that some would find to be offensive or annoying, but should be perfectly legal by right, as those things or behaviors do not harm or endanger other people or their property. (Many years ago, I wore quite long hair and a full beard. I was verbally accosted on more than one occasion by people who found my appearance to be offensive or annoying.)

Therefore, a "nuisance" should be defined as a thing or a behavior that has the potential to physically harm people or property, or disrupts the normal flow of traffic (foot or vehicular), or is a public display of behavior that would deeply offend the religious and personal moral sensibilities of a large percentage of the citizens subjected to the behavior such that they would avoid the (public) area where the behavior is being done (disruption of traffic) and not allow their children to be exposed to it. Disturbing the peace would be considered a public nuisance too.

Therefore, naked dancing women, in public, could (and most likely would) be considered a "public nuisance" by many in your community. However, naked dancing women, on private property and behind closed doors is an inalienable right of adult women. And watching said naked dancing women is an inalienable right of all adults.

Playing your music so loud that it bothers your neighbors is "disturbing the peace." A band, booked into a local sports arena where loud noises are expected, is not disturbing the peace.

But mostly, my definition of an inalienable right has to do with behavior that will neither disturb the peace nor create a public nuisance. A Saturday night poker game where the participants agree to bet money on each hand. If all the participants are adults, no one is coerced to play, no violence is used, and no stealing is going on, and as long as the participants do not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, then it is their inalienable right to so gamble. If a person loses money in the game, but can't cover his bets (why accept them if the money is not on the table in a "friendly" game), then the loser could be taken to court.

The same can be said for using drugs other than alcohol in a mind-altering, or medicinal, or recreational way. Ditto for sex among consenting adults, with or without the transfer of money from one person to another.

Any behavior that adults, alone, or with consenting other adults, wish to participate in, as long as it does not violate the rights of others or directly and immediately threatens to violate the rights of others, is an inalienable right, but only if we are serious about the concept of such rights. Otherwise, we are left with either religions or governments (usually influenced by religions) telling us what we can and cannot do, even if what we want to do does not harm or threaten others. And then, as we are today, we are not fully and truly free. We are slaves or quasi-slaves to those who can punish us for behavior that does not meet their standards, even though said behavior does not violate the rights of others.

And, as I said above, there is not one nation on the face of the Earth that truly and fully respects and protects inalienable rights.