no access
America's Obsession with Fascist Drug War Movies
America's Obsession with Fascist Drug War Movies
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
April 7, 2021
Interesting. Most movie producers seem to be stuck in the '80s, determined to toe the party line that psychoactive medicine from Mother Nature is devil spawn, which is a lie scientifically, historically and cross-culturally speaking. In "Running with the Devil" from 2019, CIA agent Leslie Bibb tortures one "drug suspect" and murders another in cold blood, shooting him at point blank range while she's puffing the hell out of her ever-present cigarettes. If a Drug War makes sense, then she should be the first one to be shot, since her drug of choice (nicotine) kills far more than the stuff she's cracking down on. The message of these movies 12 is insidious: it says basically that America should declare martial law and simply kill everyone who dares to sell Mother Nature's psychoactive plants. Funny, I missed that part in the US Constitution, the part that calls on us to exact barbaric justice on folks who dare to use plant medicine of which politicians disapprove.
Then there's the 2022 film 'The Runner' in which the WASP hero (Detective Wall) calls a black teenager a "waste" and a "scumbag" because he's selling plant medicine that has been used responsibly by other cultures for millennia. And (spoiler alert) Wall gets a medal for killing the black kid later in a poorly conceived SWAT raid. But not to worry, the raid also killed the obligatory adult Hispanic drug dealer, so Wall can take credit for doing more than killing children.
The Links Police
Pull over to the side of the web page: topic-related links coming through viz. the media and the way they misunderstand the Drug War:
Prohibition turned habituation into addiction by creating a wide variety of problems for users, including potential arrest, tainted or absent drug supply, and extreme stigmatization.
Many people take antidepressants believing their depression has a biochemical cause. Research does not support this belief. --Dr. Noam Shpancer, Psychology Today
When people tell us there's nothing to be gained from using mind-improving drugs, they are embarrassing themselves. Users benefit from such drugs precisely to the extent that they are educated and open-minded. Loudmouth abstainers are telling us that they lack these traits.
The evidence has been in for well over a century now: people want to use psychoactive substances to transcend the rational mind. It's about time we stopped punishing them for that.
AI is like almost every subject under the sun: it takes on a very different and ominous meaning when we view it in light of the modern world's unprecedented wholesale outlawing of psychoactive medicine.
Scientists are so used to ignoring "drugs" that they don't even realize they're doing it. Yet almost all books about consciousness and depression (etc.) are nonsense these days because they ignore what drugs could tell us about those topics.
Was looking for natural sleeping aids online. Everyone ignores the fact that all the stuff that REALLY works has been outlawed! We live in a pretend world wherein the outlawed stuff no longer even exists in our minds! We are blind to our lost legacy regarding plant medicines!
Anytime you hear that a psychoactive drug has not been proven to be effective, it's a lie. People can make such claims only by dogmatically ignoring all the glaringly obvious signs of efficacy.
We drastically limit drug choices, we refuse to teach safe use, and then we discover there's a gene to explain why some people have trouble with drugs. Science loves to find simple solutions to complex problems.
The December Scientific American features a story called "The New Nuclear Age," about a trillion-dollar plan to add 100s of ICBM's to 5 states, which an SA editorial calls "kick me" signs. This Neanderthal plan comes from pols who think that compassion-boosting drugs are evil!
Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.
Pull over to the side of the web page: topic-related links coming through viz. the media and the way they misunderstand the Drug War:
(up)