A friend of mine told me yesterday that he believed we should have the right to assisted suicide in cases in which pain has grown unbearable.
I told him I agreed with him, sort of, but...
Assisted suicide is just like shock therapy and antidepressant use: it cannot be discussed meaningfully without first acknowledging the role that substance prohibition plays in shaping our views on the topic.
Shock therapy for depression, for instance, makes no sense whatsoever in a society that outlaws hundreds of godsend medicines (natural and synthetic) that could make the depressed happy without damaging one's brain1. Indeed, it shows a kind of Nazified2 Christian Science materialism 3 to fry the brain4 of the depressed5 (while they bite down on a stick) in preference to letting the 'patient' use the plant medicines that grow at their very feet, or in preference to letting them use laughing gas , or in preference to letting them chew the coca leaf, or in preference to letting them use any of the hundreds of godsend mind-opening synthetics formulated by Alexander Shulgin0054.
Surely American society is clinically ill for legislating such a cruel state of affairs.
Likewise, the use of dependency-forming anti-depressants makes no sense in a world in which we have outlawed hundreds of godsend pick-me-ups that cause far less (or even no) dependence and which inspire rather than tranquilize.
Yet psychiatric pundits continue to this day to laud shock therapy6 and anti-depressant use7, as if the Drug War does not exist and such therapies were the only conceivable way to treat depression: that is, either by damaging the brain of the depressed or else by tranquilizing them until they no longer complained of their situation in life, meanwhile turning them into a lifetime ward of the healthcare state.
For the same reason, it makes no sense to discuss assisted suicide in the abstract, without first acknowledging the role that prohibition plays in shaping our views on the topic.
For the fact is that most people would not need assistance to commit suicide if prohibition were ended. A large dose of morphine could dispatch the user peacefully. Seen in this light, one wants to ask, why should we ask for the assistance of bureaucrats or medical staff to exercise such a supposed right?8
The question is: when should a reasonable person believe that it is no longer worthwhile to live? After how much pain, for instance? After what dreary prospects?*
Yes, this must be a personal decision, but it should also be a fully informed decision, based on the fullest possible leveraging of the power of uncensored psychoactive medicine to help one endure, psychologically speaking, if not to thrive. The suicidal should know what's possible, not simply in the physical realm, but in the mental - and they can only know that once we start learning about psychoactive medicines rather than demonizing them.
The fact is, we do not know how much a human being can bear because we have never actively researched the psychoactive medicines that could help them to buck up, become more insightful, to see life (and pain) in a new way, etc. We know that morphine can give the intellectually inclined user a deep appreciation of Mother Nature. We know that Ecstasy can give the callous a feeling of love for their fellow human being.
We know that opium 9 can provide metaphorical dreams in which tooth pain, for instance, can be objectified as the pounding of the sea and thus separated from the sufferer's own experience, essentially turning them into one of those legendary mountain-dwelling yogis with astonishing mental powers10.
So, yes, we should have the right to 'assisted suicide' - but only in a world in which we have leveraged the mind-improving power of psychoactive medicine to the hilt - and we cannot do this until we renounce our nature-hating materialist outlook and start seeking out the endless wise and safe uses of psychoactive substances - though not with the help of those reductionist scientists who brought us the psychiatric pill mill 11 . Instead, we need what I call pharmacologically savvy empaths to whom any human on earth can resort12 (humans, mind, not 'patients'), not just to treat supposed pathologies like depression but simply in order to make sure that one is living the life that they desire, and not the life that Mary Baker Eddy would have them lead according to her drug-hating religion known as Christian Science.
My friend countered that some folks may not want to use morphine - and that's fine. Indeed, some pain is beyond the power of morphine 13 to overcome. But my point is that the suicidal should have all sorts of pharmacological options available to them from the world of psychoactive medicine: hundreds of medicines, for surely a drug-using American is better than a dead American (and sometimes MUCH better) - and yet right now the suicidal have almost zero pharmacological options thanks to the materialistic and puritanical mindset of modern prohibitionists - those who, not content to kill Latinos in Latin America, are just as happy to make sure that suicidal Statesiders have as little to look forward to as possible.
*The endurance level of human beings is fantastically variable, even without the help of psychoactive medicine. There's the case of a former editor of Elle magazine who suffered locked-in syndrome and full-body paralysis and yet, instead of choosing suicide, wrote an entire book about his situation by blinking his eye in such a way as to dictate the text.
Author's Follow-up: April 21, 2023
Prohibitionists will say that I'm 'glorifying drugs14,' but unlike them, I'd rather see a suicide 15 risk addiction and arrest than to kill themselves. Moreover these risks, both of addiction and arrest, are products of the Drug War, not of drugs. And a person can stage a comeback from addiction -- at least if Mother Nature is free again and we leverage her mind-healing powers to the hilt -- whereas no one has yet staged a comeback from suicide16.
Author's Follow-up: January 30, 2024
Even when effective psychoactive drugs are still technically legal, psychiatrists never think of employing them, partly due to the stigma that is attached to them thanks to the Drug War ideology of substance demonization and partly thanks to a materialist dogma which tells them they must treat 'the real problem,' not merely make the client happy -- which in practice means a laborious, lengthy, expensive and failure-prone process. Moreover such therapists completely ignore the therapeutic value of happiness -- and anticipation of happiness -- that drug use can provide, not to mention the virtuous circle that this can create: drug use increases happiness and contentedness, which increase one's performance levels in life, which increases one's happiness, etc. Depression is stubborn in the States only because therapists are blind to common-sense psychology.
For even though most psychoactive drugs have been outlawed, there are still a few that the DEA has yet to deprive us of: like laughing gas and coca wine -- although the DEA's job appears to be to remove every decent mind improving drug from the market -- and indeed, as I write, the feds are trying to treat laughing gas 17 as a 'drug' -- which means a politically damned substance.
Author's Follow-up:
April 20, 2025
Speaking of glorified drug use, streaming channels are full of Jim Beam commercials, purposefully targeted at young people.
"I can take this drug that inspires me and makes me compassionate and teaches me to love nature in its byzantine complexity, or I can take Prozac which makes me unable to cry at my parents' funeral. Hmm. Which shall it be?" Only a mad person in a mad world would choose SSRIs.
Another problem with MindMed's LSD: every time I look it up on Google, I get a mess of links about the stock market. The drug is apparently a godsend for investors. They want to profit from LSD by neutering it and making it politically correct: no inspiration, no euphoria.
To oppose the Drug War philosophically, one has to highlight its connections to both materialism and the psychiatric pill mill. And that's a problem, because almost everyone is either a Drug Warrior or a materialist these days and has a vested interest in the continuation of the psychiatric pill mill.
We might as well fight for justice for Christopher Reeves: he was killed because someone was peddling that junk that we call horses. The question is: who sold Christopher that horse?! Who encouraged him to ride it?!
There are definitely good scientists out there. Unfortunately, they are either limited by their materialist orthodoxy into showing only specific microscopic evidence or they abandon materialism for the nonce and talk the common psychological sense that we all understand.
In the 19th century, author Richard Middleton wrote how poets would get together to use opium "in a series of magnificent quarterly carouses."
What I want to know is, who sold Christopher Reeves that horse that he fell off of? Who was peddling that junk?!
New article in Scientific American: "New hope for pain relief," that ignores the fact that we have outlawed the time-honored panacea. Scientists want a drug that won't run the risk of inspiring us.
William James claimed that his constitution prevented him from having mystical experiences. The fact is that no one is prevented from having mystical experiences provided that they are willing to use psychoactive substances wisely to attain that end.
It is actually illegal to be a Ben Franklin in 21st century America. To put this another way: we outlaw far more than drugs when we outlaw mind and mood medicine.
(up)