With all due respect Cory, you are like all Drug Warriors: you judge drugs based on their worst possible use. This is anti-scientific. It makes such drugs unavailable for any use at any dose for any reason ever. And please stop confusing the issue: there IS such a thing as safe supply. To claim otherwise is at best to misuse words and at worst to lie. The dangers of meth are caused by prohibitionists who insist that we teach fear rather than safe use. Those who are "thin as a rail" need medical help and education: not a multi-billion-dollar military campaign that turns inner cities into shooting galleries and destroys the rule of law in Mexico and knocks down the doors of American grandmothers with stormtroopers shouting GO GO GO on a highly choreographed scene for the six o'clock news.
It is fearmonger attitudes like yours that have forced me to go a lifetime without godsend medicines, shunting me off onto dependence-causing Big Pharma 1 2 drugs that turn me into an eternal patient.
Please stop the anti-scientific practice of judging drugs based on their worst possible use. That practice has stopped us from finding treatments for Alzheimer's 3 and autism by outlawing drugs that grow new neurons in the brain. It has turned America into an anti-scientific country and censored scientists.
"Vie did you really come to Montreal?! Vie? Vie? Vie?"
Harm Reduction is not enough. We need Benefit Production as well. The autistic should be able to use compassion-enhancing drugs; dementia patients should be able to use drugs that speed up and sharpen mental processes.
Prohibitionists have nothing to say about all other dangerous activities: nothing about hunting, free climbing, hang-gliding, sword swallowing, free diving, skateboarding, sky-diving, chug-a-lug competitions, chain-smoking. Their "logic" is incoherent.
We throw people out of jobs for using "drugs," we praise them for using "meds." The categories are imaginary, made up by politicians who want to demonize certain substances, but not cigs or beer.
The Shipiba have learned to heal human beings physically, psychologically and spiritually with what they call "onanyati," plant allies and guides, such as Bobinsana, which "envelops seekers in a cocoon of love." You know: what the DEA would call "junk."
Antidepressants might be fine in a world where drugs were legal. Then it would actually be possible to get off them by using drugs that have inspired entire religions. In the age of prohibition, however, an antidepressant prescription is usually a life sentence.
Drug prohibition fails even on its own terms. Instead of protecting white American young people, it has exiled them to the city streets where they are sacrificed on the altar of the American religion of substance demonization.
The idea that "drugs" have no medical benefits is not science, it is philosophy, and bad philosophy at that. It is based on the idea that benefits must be molecularly demonstratable and not created from mere knock-on psychological effects of drug use, time-honored tho' they be.
It wasn't until western prudery and racism came along that we started to judge people by the substances that they chose to ingest, rather than by their actual behavior in the world.
As great as it is, "Synthetic Panics" by Philip Jenkins was only tolerated by academia because it did not mention drugs in the title and it contains no explicit opinions about drugs. As a result, many drug law reformers still don't know the book exists.
Freud had the right idea: He noticed that cocaine use actually ended depression in his patients. Unfortunately, he was ambitious and was more interested in making a name for himself than in pushing back against the statistically challenged fear mongering of prohibitionists.
(up)