The next inherent human right I want to talk about is the right to one’s body.

As usual, let’s start with what this means:

Having the right to one’s body means that all decisions regarding your body fall under the discretion of your authority and only your authority unless you choose to assign such authority to someone else. This includes decisions regarding surgeries, piercings, tattoos, clothes, food, drink, exercise, and yes, even drugs.

There are, of course, cases where you may assign this right to someone else (allow someone else to make decisions that affect your body in your place or on your behalf). This usually applies to situations of dire emergency, such as during surgery or in cases where you suffer such injury that you can’t make or communicate a decision. Of course, there are other, situations (fun which you might have caught a hint of in the last article) that it may apply.

Of course, as stated within, that article also covers choices which affect your body which involve sexual behavior. So if you want to know more about that, go there.

One particular application of this exception occurs in childhood. Obviously, when you’re young enough you can’t make or communicate decisions about your own body, so the exception is made for parents. However, the exception, in this case, is most certainly limited- parents, guardians, caretakers, and others would violate your right if they did something to your body that’s unnecessarily lasting or harmful.

There are, of course, some other… terms and conditions.

Generally speaking, most of our society requires that you wear clothing and cover yourself. This is acceptable to some degree as a matter of public policy and personal preservation. Clothing can, or at least most would imagine, prevent the spread of germs to a certain degree. Of course, you may personally want to wear clothes to protect you from the elements and from injuries.

Modesty, however, is where things get tricky. Both public and private sector entities require you cover yourself to a certain degree in most public areas. Schools are a particular source of contention. I would argue that this reason for requiring a certain amount of clothing is less workable than others, and dress codes can certainly become dangerously frivolous and ridiculous. (Honestly, shoulders really don’t need so much consternation).

Now, about drugs or alcohol…

This can get pretty controversial. Hell, the U.S. even went through a period of prohibition, a blanket restriction on alcohol consumption and commerce. We’ve also seen the infamous War on Drugs (including the “Don’t do drugs” programs). Ah, grade school.

However, it follows from this right that you should have absolute ability to decide whether or not to ingest drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. This has some caveats, though.

If the ingestion itself, as an act, damages or could foreseeably harm another person, your right of ingestion can be limited (within reason). One most obvious example is when smoking tobacco- which we know can be dangerous to those around us.

In terms of alcohol, while no one can completely stop you from consuming alcohol, at a certain point providers of alcohol may (and indeed, have an obligation) to stop providing you with alcohol, especially if you’re already intoxicated and because of that are likely to hurt someone.

Of course, what you actually DO while under the influence is not always protected. The obvious example would be driving while under the influence. If you ingest something which will or is likely to impair your ability to operate a vehicle, that activity is not and should not be protected. This is because, as is well known, driving under the influence is likely to result in harm either to yourself or to someone else. So don’t do it!

As far as drugs (referring to things such as cocaine, marijuana, heroin, etc.), I would argue you that should have the right to decide whether or not to partake of those. Obviously, though, that doesn’t mean these substances cannot be regulated to promote public interest or that you necessarily should partake of them. This just means you should not be deprived of or legally punished for exercising the ultimate right to choose whether or not do so.

If a government were to decide to remove that right relating to a specific substance, that decision should be based not merely on public emotions, but on reliable and reproduced scientific evidence obtained through research. It is ethically obligatory to refrain from depriving individuals of their rights for a harm we can’t reasonably say exists.

Finally, you may be wondering what I would say regarding the conflict between a woman’s (according to birth sex, not gender) right to her body and the potential right to life of an embryo or fetus. I will not discuss the general topic here, and I shall ever address the actual, personal decisions thereof. I do not fill the requisite shoes to do so.