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?"
Drug Warriors never take responsibility for incentivizing poor kids throughout the west to sell drugs. It's not just in NYC and LA, it's in modest-sized towns in France. Find public housing, you find drug dealing. It's the prohibition, damn it!
David Chalmers says almost everything in the world can be reductively explained. Maybe so. But science's mistake is to think that everything can therefore be reductively UNDERSTOOD. That kind of thinking blinds researchers to the positive effects of laughing gas and MDMA, etc.
Drug prohibition is a caustic lye that destroys every democratic freedom that it comes in contact with.
Until we legalize ALL psychoactive drugs, there will be no such thing as an addiction expert. In the meantime, it's insulting to be told by neuroscience that I'm an addictive type. It's pathologizing my just indignation at psychiatry's niggardly pharmacopoeia.
Two of the biggest promoters of the psychedelic renaissance shuffle their feet when you ask them about substance prohibition. Michael Pollan and Rick Strassman just don't get it: prohibition kills.
The best step we could take in harm reduction is re-legalizing everything and starting to teach safe use. Spend the DEA's billions on "go" teams that would descend on locations where drugs are being used stupidly -- not to arrest, but to educate.
We live in a make-believe world in the US. We created it by outlawing all potentially helpful psychological meds, after which the number-one cause of arrest soon became "drugs." We then made movies to enjoy our crackdown on TV... after a tough day of being drug tested at work.
When it comes to "drugs," the government plays Polonius to our Ophelia:
OPHELIA: I do not know, my lord, what I should think.
POLONIUS: Marry, I'll teach you; think yourself a baby!
The government causes problems for those who are habituated to certain drugs. Then they claim that these problems are symptoms of an illness. Then folks like Gabriel Mate come forth to find the "hidden pain" in "addicts." It's one big morality play created by drug laws.
John Halpern wrote a book about opium, subtitled "the ancient flower that poisoned our world." What nonsense! Bad laws and ignorance poison our world, NOT FLOWERS!
(up)