First Amendment Violations of the Drug War

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .” First Amendment to the United States Constitution.


The word “respecting” can be replaced with “regarding” or “on the subject of”. Therefore we can say that “Congress shall make no law [regarding] an establishment of religion” – or “no law [on the subject of the] establishment of religion.

So what is a religion? I am a strongly agnostic Libertarian and to me, the term religion in its broadest form means the totality of one’s belief system about Life, the Universe, and Everything and what is right and wrong behavior.

I believe that right behavior, under a secular government that protects inalienable rights, means you can do whatever you wish just so long as you do not violate the rights of others. Your personal moral values should not be an issue. A truly secular government should only care that your behavior does not harm others or their property without good cause.

In my article, “The Myth of Inalienable Rights,” I define those rights as follows: 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.

Please note that I am only talking about adults. Minors do not have full adult rights.

So just what does the “establishment” clause mean? One point of view is that there is a “wall of separation” between the government and religion. Another point of view is that the federal government is prohibited from creating a state church.

The anti-drug laws, starting with the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, came about because religious groups lobbied Congress to pass a law to control drugs because their non-medical use was considered to be immoral. That is, the use of certain drugs are immoral therefore they should be illegal. The fact that there was no criminal justice problem associated with their use at that time (when they were legal) was not considered. Certain religious groups got their version of religion enacted into law to enforce their personal moral/religious views as to right and wrong behavior. The wall of separation between Church and State was breached.

And even though the federal government has not established a church that we must all attend, by passing the Harrison Narcotics Act, and subsequent drug prohibition laws, the federal government has promoted the religious and personal moral views of some of the people at the expense of others. That is the same as forcing us all to adhere to a specific religious belief upon pain of punishment if we do not.

But of course, millions of people don’t go to that church and don’t believe in that religion, yet they are forced by a supposedly secular government to obey the religious beliefs of some people or risk arrest, fines, loss of property, and imprisonment. Should a person resist strongly enough, they risk being murdered by government agents for their peaceful, honest, consenting adult behavior. (In fact, many innocent people have been murdered in botched drug raids by the police.)

I am in no way promoting any drug use by anyone. To use a mind-altering, possibly addictive, possibly dangerous drug, however stupid that is, should be the right of all adults under a truly rights-protecting, secular government. That would include the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco which are several times more harmful to individuals and society than all the illegal drugs combined, with alcohol being the drug most likely to cause violent crimes.

The so-called war on drugs, while good for the Prison-Industrial Complex and campaigning politicians, does more harm overall than any good it was supposed to do. The drug laws are clear violations of the principle of inalienable rights and are actually religious laws masquerading as secular laws. I would like to see some major civil liberties organization attack those laws as violations of the “establishment” clause of the First Amendment.