Natural Right to Ricin?

by Gerard Emershaw

Daniel Harry Milzman, a 19-year-old Georgetown University student, was recently arrested by the FBI for possession of a biological toxin when he was caught with ricin in his dorm room. Ricin is a deadly toxin which is produced from the castor bean. There is no known antidote. There have been several incidents involving ricin over the last several decades. Ricin entered the pop culture zeitgeist when it was involved with several key plot points in the AMC television series “Breaking Bad.” Last summer Shannon Rogers Guess Richardson of Texas was arrested for mailing ricin letters to Mike Bloomberg, President Obama, and a lobbyist in an attempt to frame her husband.

In the case of Richardson, a crime was clearly committed. Mailing poisoned letters is an attempted deadly attack. However, in the case of Milzman, there was no attempted attack. It could be that having ricin in a dorm room constituted a clear and present danger. However, let us change the case a bit. Assume that someone like Milzman manufactured ricin and kept it in a secure location. Should there be a crime there or does a human being possess the natural right to possess ricin? Guns are no less deadly, and yet there is clearly a natural right to bear arms which is protected by the Second Amendment. Perhaps ricin is not as effective a means of self-defense as is a handgun or rifle. But so what? One can still envision situations in which one used poison in self-defense.

In addition to being a deadly poison, ricin has potential therapeutic use in fighting tumors. As such, scientists who register with the government are allowed to have small amounts of ricin.

If one is not using, planning, or conspiring to use ricin or the like to harm another human being, whose natural rights have been violated? Where is the victim? Why should it be a crime? There are countless substances which are potentially poisonous. If each were to be criminalized, the nation would be deprived of a large number of useful chemicals. So, where should the law draw the line? My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. If I do not swing my fist at your nose, should the government ban my fist?

This issue becomes even more difficult. Does a human being possess a natural right to own chemical weapons? Mustard gas? What about radioactive materials? Does a human being possess the natural right to own an atomic bomb? While it would be ridiculous to claim that a person in the suburbs is going to use a working replica of the Fat Boy atomic bomb to protect his or her white picket fenced 2 ½ bathroom home from burglars or home invaders, why assume it is for self-defense at all? Just assume that this person wishes to own an atomic bomb. Most would no doubt not even be willing to entertain this possibility. A libertarian is willing to give it some thought. Some libertarians may even conclude that there is a natural right to possess an atomic bomb. Most likely the federal government would claim that there is no way that members of the general public could safely control either ricin or nuclear devices and that such things represent a clear and present danger. But can the federal government use this to allow its national defense function override the exercise of freedom?

As long as Americans continue to be arrested and thrown into prison for merely possessing narcotics, the nation is far from the point where it needs to genuinely consider decriminalizing ricin or atomic bombs. However, it is far past the time when victimless crimes should be dropped from criminal codes. Human beings possess a natural right to use drugs. They have a natural right to engage in prostitution and to gamble. Do they also possess the natural right to possess ricin or an atomic bomb? Maybe. Let us end the War on Drugs and other ridiculous Puritanical crusades which violate natural rights by criminalizing consensual and victimless activities. Then we can continue this discussion.