As a newcomer to Substack, I have been attempting to seek out Substack leaders in the realm of healthcare freedom and the field of so-called mental health. I am told that this is how one makes friends and grows one's Substack audience in one's chosen niche, by finding such movers-and-shakers and commenting usefully on their own posts and notes. "Fine," I think to myself, "let's get to work, then, shall we? We've got this." And yet in trying to stick to this sensical protocol, I am discovering a big problem. It seems that my outlook on these topics is so far ahead of the curve that any comments I might make on the work of my mainstream contemporaries are sure to "come off" as sounding like a reproach. This is because I have yet to find one psychiatrist or psychologist who sees -- or is willing to admit to seeing -- any connection between drug prohibition and the disempowerment of the depressed in the age of the psychiatric pill mill. Imagine that: no one can see why folks like you and I should have the right to take care of our own health as we see fit. Alas, Drug Warriors understood all too well that propaganda works, especially when the conglomerate media refuses to publish any stories about the wise, positive and beneficial use of demonized substances.
I personally hate beets and I could make a health argument against their legality. Beets can kill for those allergic to them. Sure, it's a rare condition, but since when has that stopped a prohibitionist from screaming bloody murder?
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.
Folks like Sabet accuse folks like myself of ignoring the "facts." No, it is Sabet who is ignoring the facts -- facts about dangerous horses and free climbing. He's also ignoring all the downsides of prohibition, whose laws lead to the election of tyrants.
There are times when it is clearly WRONG to deny kids drugs (whatever the law may say). If your child is obsessed with school massacres, he or she is an excellent candidate for using empathogenic meds ASAP -- or do we prefer even school shootings to drug use???
Scientists are responsible for endless incarcerations in America. Why? Because they fail to denounce the DEA lie that psychoactive substances have no positive medical uses. This is so obviously wrong that only an academic in an Ivory Tower could believe it.
In "Psychedelic Refugee," Rosemary Leary writes:
"Fueled by small doses of LSD, almost everything was amusing or weird." -- Rosemary Leary
In a non-brainwashed world, such testimony would suggest obvious ways to help the depressed.
This is why "rock stars" use drugs: not just for performance anxiety (which, BTW, is a completely UNDERSTANDABLE reason for drug use), but because they want to fully experience the music, even tho' they may be currently short on money and being hassled by creditors, etc.
There's a run of addiction movies out there, like "Craving!" wherein they actually personify addiction as a screaming skeleton. Funny, drug warriors never call for a Manhattan Project to end addiction. Addiction is their golden goose.
Drugs that sharpen the mind should be thoroughly investigated for their potential to help dementia victims. Instead, we prefer to demonize these drugs as useless. That's anti-scientific and anti-patient.
In 2017 alone, 1,632,921 drug arrests were made with 85.5 percent of those solely for possession. -- War On Us
(up)