All of us were born with the freedom to do whatever we please, including rape, murder, extortion, etc. It's obvious that any civilized society must place limits upon individual freedoms or the strong would enslave the weak in an atmosphere of chaos and violence. The question is, where do we draw the line in order to maximize both freedom and security?

The first step is to acknowledge that there is a difference between "good and bad" and "right and wrong." It is considered good to be health conscious and bad to be excessively overweight. But is it truly wrong for a person to become obese? Should our laws force people to do what is good for them, or should we have the right to do "bad" things to ourselves? If we were to outlaw obesity we would have to put a huge portion of our population in prison and society would cease to function. It becomes obvious then that there is a difference between "bad" behavior and those actions which are clearly wrong and justify imprisonment. That difference is whether or not one's behavior harms others.

What is considered good and bad can change over time, whereas true right and wrong never change. Not so long ago it was not only considered bad, but wrong, for people to have sex before marriage, for women to wear pants, for people of mixed races to marry or even date, to be homosexual, etc. There is no hope whatsoever that such restrictions on personal freedom could ever be enforced again. But how could such behavior become acceptable now if it were truly wrong? For centuries it was considered good to own slaves, to discriminate against people because of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, etc. How could such things be considered good then yet wrong now? It is because these negative behaviors are finally recognized as causing harm to others.

Western societies have been slowly but steadily marching toward a recognition of the dividing line that separates true right and wrong. It is finally becoming clear that personal behavior which does not harm others is OK. Such behavior may not be ideal, but if no one is hurt then no harm is done. Where there is no harm, there can be no crime.

Some people may voluntarily engage in behaviors which result in predictable harm, for example, people engaging in rough sex becoming bruised, or individuals drinking too much at a party waking up the next morning with a hangover. Such results may be "bad" but because the participation is voluntary it can not be considered wrong. So a better way to define right and wrong socially is to say that it is wrong to force others to participate in one's behavior against their will. From rape and murder to fraud and shoplifting, every true crime involves someone forcing others to be involved against their will. It stands to reason then that any behavior which does not force others to participate, while perhaps being "bad," is not wrong, and therefore should not be subject to imprisonment.

Yet we have numerous laws which continue to inflict hardship upon millions of individuals who do not force others to participate in their behavior. Prostitution is one example. Recreational drug use is another. Are such behaviors truly a crime when no one is forced to participate?

Those promoting religious values will point out how prostitution can undermine the ability of both men and women to maintain a strong nuclear family, at a time when the world is being literally destroyed by overpopulation creating climate change and the decimation of our limited natural resources. Perhaps it isn't such a bad idea for some people to choose lifestyles which do not contribute to over population. It is also true that educated women appearing in public without covering their face and body can increase the likelihood of flirtatious behavior and sex outside of marriage. Do we try to put the cat back in the bag, kicking and screaming, because someone out there is convinced it is for our own good? There are people using violence right now with the intent to force all the women in the world to wear burkas.

In the same way, we have laws against recreational drug use which are meant to protect people from themselves. Drug abuse can devastate an individual's life and lead to health problems and even death. So can food abuse and all other self abusive behaviors. We can attempt to regulate food intake and force regular exercise upon everyone, and the result would be good for both individuals and society - except for that thing about freedom, about making one's own decisions and leading one's life the way one chooses. Attempting to force the entire population to exercise and eat right would be just as ineffective as the war on drugs has been, because human beings will always express free choice regardless of any outside force intended to regulate their personal behavior.

We have a choice, the freedom of choice, to live in a society where the threat of violence and incarceration is used perpetually and ineffectively in an attempt to force people to conform to doing "what's good for them." Or we can observe the path of social evolution and recognize where freedom and reason are leading us. We are being led toward the separation of "good and bad" from "right and wrong." Good and bad are finally being recognized as personal choices which do not harm others, whereas Nature is telling us that it is wrong to force others to participate, even if it is for their own good.

We can continue destroying more lives through incarceration than are destroyed by "bad" choices, or we can finally evolve and pass the Personal Freedoms Protection Amendment to spare ourselves even more decades of unjust abuse. How much longer will it take before we look back at the war on drugs with the same shame we now feel about slavery and discrimination?

The solution has been presented. The choice is yours.