Science News continues to reckon without the Drug War. We live in an age in which we have outlawed almost all the psychoactive medicines with which humankind has improved its mood in the past. And yet the magazine continues to publish articles about human psychology without even mentioning this fact.
Of course, Science News can be forgiven, in a way, for when it comes to psychology, they are writing about a field which itself has failed to acknowledge the very existence of the Drug War, let alone the many ways in which its ideology of substance demonization limits our concept of how we might best treat mood and mind problems.
Take your January 28 article about human flourishing. Author Sujata Gupta tells us that "positive psychologists tend to believe that anyone can flourish." If all drugs were legal, as has been the status quo of humanity until 1914, this statement could be judged on its own terms; but in the age of the Drug War, such a statement represents a tacit endorsement of the belief of Mary Baker Eddy, that we do not need drugs - indeed, that drugs are so superfluous to human happiness that prominent psychologists need not even acknowledge their existence, much less the fact that they have been outlawed by one's own government. This silence on the part of psychologists is both disappointing and anti-scientific, for in outlawing time-honored psychoactive medicine, the government has effectively dictated the direction in which psychologists are allowed to go when seeking answers to psychological issues, namely, in a direction that conforms with the anti-drug prejudices of Christian Science.
In the same article, psychologist Oksana Yakushko tells us that she is "troubled by the sociopolitical implications of selling this positive psychology ideology in a world where human beings are consistently abused, traumatized and stressed because they are not white, wealthy, able-bodied, Western, heterosexual, etc." One thing that does not seem to trouble her, however, is the fact that the Drug War has outlawed all the medicines which could obviate the need for this self-help positive psychology in the first place.
Did HG Wells and Jules Verne need to learn how to flourish in the abstract in order to write great stories? No, they relied on the inspirational power of coca wine. Did the Peruvian Indians need to learn how to flourish in the abstract in order to survive for millennia as a unique culture? No. They found social cohesion and inner strength through the daily chewing of the coca leaf.
The Drug War exists and continues to outlaw psychoactive medicine to this day. Until Science News recognizes that fact in its articles, it is going to continue giving its readers the false impression that today's modern psychologists are working from a natural baseline.
There would be almost no recidivism for those trying to get off drugs if all drugs were legal. Then we could use a vast variety of drugs to get us through those few hours of late-night angst that are the bane of the recidivist.
MDMA legalization has suffered a setback by the FDA. The FDA: these are the people that think Electro Shock Therapy cannot be used often enough! What sick priorities.
Opium is a godsend, as folks like Galen, Avicenna and Paracelsus knew. The drug war has facilitated a nightmare by outlawing peaceable use at home and making safe use almost impossible.
We deal with "drug" risks differently than any other risk. Aspirin kills thousands every year. The death rate from free climbing is huge. But it's only with "drug use" that we demand zero deaths (a policy which ironically causes far more deaths than necessary).
I can't believe people. Somebody's telling me that "drugs" is not used problematically. It is CONSTANTLY used with a sneer in the voice when politicians want to diss somebody, as in, "Oh, they're in favor of DRUGS!!!" It's a political term as used today!
"In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the peyote tells us where to find it." --Antonin Arnaud
Getting off antidepressants can make things worse for only one reason: because we have outlawed all the drugs that could help with the transition. Right now, getting off any drug basically means becoming a drug-free Christian Scientist. No wonder withdrawal is hard.
Ann Lemke's case studies make the usual assumptions: getting free from addiction is a morality tale. No reference to how the drug war promotes addiction and how banned drugs could solve such problems. She does not say why daily SSRI use is acceptable while daily opium use is not. Etc.
I'm told antidepressant withdrawal is fine because it doesn't cause cravings. Why is it better to feel like hell than to have a craving? In any case, cravings are caused by prohibition. A sane world could also end cravings with the help of other drugs.
Someone tweeted that fears about a Christian Science theocracy are "baseless." Tell that to my uncle who was lobotomized because they outlawed meds that could cheer him up -- tell that to myself, a chronic depressive who could be cheered up in an instant with outlawed meds.
Buy the Drug War Comic Book by the Drug War Philosopher Brian Quass, featuring 150 hilarious op-ed pics about America's disgraceful war on Americans
You have been reading an article entitled, How Science News Reckons Without the Drug War published on January 28, 2023 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
You have been reading an article entitled, How Science News Reckons Without the Drug War published on January 28, 2023 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)