Irvin was forced to "apologize". As I watched, I asked myself "Apologize to whom?" To his victims? He didn't have any. No, he was forced to apologize to the Government, when in reality, the government should have been apologizing to him.
Mr. Irvin was not driving while intoxicated. He did not let his teammates down by appearing for a game intoxicated. No, this was the off-season. He had harmed no one. But the Government has harmed him.
Mr. Irvin was forced to cry and plead and convince people, with all the sincerity he could muster, that the Government was right to take over his body, was right to take over his freedom, was right to tell him what he must believe. His lengthy pleas would have looked familiar to the Soviet courts under Stalin who forced similar "conversions" out of citizens who failed to completely give up their minds and bodies to the religion of Soviet State Communism.
The Government is not satisfied with punishing people for their bad habits. They must require that the slave (citizen) scrape and bow, and profess devotion to the politico-religious belief that taking drugs is a sin, and the war on drugs is good, whether they believe it or not.
The kings of ancient China made citizens (subjects) prostrate themselves, as a token of the respect they had to pretend they felt for the criminal who seized all governmental power and turned individuals into his playthings. One would think that in a democracy, such a thing could not occur. But it does occur. Every day.
Bizarrely, Mr. Irvin's coach does not have the authority to decide whether Mr. Irvin would continue to be an asset to the team, even though a drug user. The NFL (National Football League) makes the decision political, and the actual performance of the player, the one factor that would be paramount in a non-political arena, has no bearing whatsoever. The first consideration is placating the anti-drug forces, regardless of whether that increases or decreases the team's chances of victory.
Ironically, if Mr. Irvin were to change to the drug of alcohol, he would be a national hero (like Mickey Mantle, who died of alcohol-related illness). And, if Mr. Irvin had had a doctor write him a prescription (the way Betty Ford got her pills), he could take almost any drug he wanted. So, what this is all about is preserving the power of doctors to decide on your personal habits.
The purpose of criminal law should be to protect people from being attacked by other people. The politicians who hijacked the system to attack people who are innocent of attacking others are the true criminals, as are their major accomplices: the judges. Judges could rule that people have rights to control their own bodies that are constitutionally recognized by the Ninth Amendment. Judges could rule that people have rights to their own opinions that are constitutionally recognized by the Ninth Amendment. Almost none ever do.
The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution was enacted into the Constitution with the same formalities as any other amendment. The wording is simple:
NINTH AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This clearly states that the list of rights in the Constitution is not the complete list of rights people have that government is bound to respect. The Constitution itself says that people retain rights even though they are not mentioned expressly in the Constitution.
What is a constitution? It is a charter of government. It is the rule by which the governing authorities are supposed to be guided. A bill of rights recognizes rights that the citizen has against the government. It is a limitation on government power. Unfortunately, the provisions of the Constitution that give power to government are respected quite a bit more than the provisions that limit that power.
So what kind of rights is the Ninth Amendment talking about? You won't learn from the Supreme Court. Not one of the 9 present justices of the US Supreme Court has ever voted to recognize under the Ninth Amendment that a person had a right, not even once. But we submit that the right to control one's own body, and the right to maintain one's own opinions, are two of the core rights protected by the Amendment that government officials including judges always ignore: the Ninth.
But at least one judge has ruled that prohibitions on drug use are unconstitutional. Click here to read about what Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas G. Kavanagh had to say about the legality of the war on drugs. (This is near the end of a long article). What other judges have the guts to join him, and "Just Say No" to injustice and tyranny? If you know of one, send e-mail about him or her to email@example.com
On behalf of the American public, I apologize to Michael Irvin that the Government has attacked him in this way.