"If you support the war on drugs in its present form, then you're only paying lip-service to the defense of freedom, and you don't really grasp the concept of the sovereign individual human being"

Neal Boortz's quote provides an important view of the standard technique to the war on drugs, recommending that it disputes with the principles of private flexibility and sovereignty. His overarching argument is that supporting the war on drugs in its present format contrasts a real dedication to individual freedom and private rights.

The phrase "paying lip-service" suggests that those who declare to maintain flexibility while supporting existing drug policies might not totally comprehend or commit to the principles they uphold. It suggests a superficial recommendation that does not have depth or real conviction. This is because conventional drug policies often involve stringent guideline, criminalization, and enforcement steps that can infringe upon personal liberties. Individuals undergo punitive legal consequences for individual options, often without factor to consider for the wider social or economic elements contributing to substance abuse. This method raises concerns about autonomy and self-determination, essential components of private sovereignty.

Boortz's declaration challenges us to re-evaluate the balance between law and individual flexibility. Sovereignty suggests having authority over one's own life and choices, as long as they do not harm others. The war on drugs, through this lens, can appear as an overreach of governmental control, preventing individual option without always solving the root issues connected with drug use and addiction. Critics of the war on drugs argue for damage reduction, education, and rehab as alternatives that appreciate individual sovereignty while dealing with public health issues.

Ultimately, Boortz's quote invites an argument about the moral and philosophical foundations of drug policies. It requires a nuanced understanding of freedom, advising people to seriously consider whether existing methods genuinely serve the suitables of liberty and personal autonomy, or if they perpetuate a system that undermines the extremely liberties they purport to protect.