"The substantial reason for rejecting a philosophical theory is the 'absurdum' to which it reduces us." --Alfred North Whitehead, Concept of Nature3
My argument here can best be summed up by the following dictum: that saying things like "Fentanyl 4 kills" -- the superstitious claim with which Philadelphia billboards5 are plastered even as we speak -- is philosophically equivalent to saying things like "Fire bad!" as did our paleolithic forebears. Both statements would have us fear dangerous substances rather than learn how to use them as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity."The right to chew or smoke a plant that grows wild in nature, such as hemp (marijuana), is anterior to and more basic than the right to vote." --Thomas Szasz, Our Right to Drugs --p xvi14
"Imagine how many people would have benefited during the past half-century had the government respected their autonomy and their right to self-medicate." --Jeffrey A. Singer, Your Body, Your Health Care --p. 9715
"Lacking the usual grounds on which people congregate as a nation, we [Americans] habitually fall back on the most primitive yet most enduring basis for group cohesion, namely, scapegoating." --Thomas Szasz, Our Right to Drugs --p 3218
This is why so many smart Americans are ignorant about the Drug War. They sense at some level that a critical investigation of that inherently racist project would reveal lie after lie, as in the peeling of an onion, and they do not want to go down that rabbit hole. They know that to do so would make them an outsider in brainwashed America -- a minority of one -- and probably piss them off into the bargain. Who needs that agony? Better to simply play along with the injustices of the Drug War -- like, for instance, mandatory urine testing for employment19, which has nothing to do with impairment but is rather all about "outing" those workers who dare to use substances of which our beer-swilling and gun-toting politicians disapprove. Strategic ignorance about such things makes life easier for Americans. Were they to allow themselves to think critically, they would soon come to the infuriating conclusion that drug prohibition has thoroughly censored academia, to the point that most authors today pretend that outlawed drugs do not even exist, and therefore ignore all the inconvenient truths about which drug use could inform them -- like the fact that cocaine 20 is a cure for depression (as Freud well knew21) and that it causes infinitely less dependencies than those fostered by Big Pharma drugs -- or that only 5% of American soldiers who used heroin in Vietnam had trouble getting off the drug when they returned to the States22. 5%. Consider that statistic in light of the fact that Big Pharma drugs like Effexor cannot be kicked AT ALL by the long-term user, not AT ALL!23 Okay, maybe 5% can manage to stay off the drug for three years, but only at the price of their ability to think straight (thanks to the way the drug irreversibly scrambles brain chemistry).
There are plenty of "prima facie" reasons for believing that we could eliminate most problems with drug and alcohol withdrawal by chemically aided sleep cures combined with using "drugs" to fight "drugs." But drug warriors don't want a fix, they WANT drug use to be a problem.
All drugs have potential positive uses for somebody, at some dose, in some circumstance, alone or in combination. To decide in advance that a drug is completely useless is an offense to reason and to human liberty.
"Everything one does in life, even love, occurs in an express train racing toward death. To smoke opium is to get out of the train while it is still moving. It is to concern oneself with something other than life or death." -Jean Cocteau
I can think of no greater intrusion than to deny a person autonomy over how they think and feel in life. It is sort of a meta-intrusion, the mother of all anti-democratic intrusions.
Imagine if there were drugs for which dependency was a feature, not a bug. People would stop peddling that junk, right? Wrong. Just ask your psychiatrist.
The drug war is is a multi-billion-dollar campaign to enforce the attitude of the Francisco Pizarro's of the world when it comes to non-western medicine. It is the apotheosis of the colonialism that most Americans claim to hate.
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.
What is the end game of the drug warrior? A world in which no one wants drugs? That's not science. It's the drug-hating religion of Christian Science. You know, the American religion that outsources its Inquisition to drug-testing labs.
The line drawn between recreational and medical use is wishful thinking on the part of drug warriors. Recreation, according to Webster's, is "refreshment or diversion," and both have positive knock-on effects in the lives of real people.
The Drug War treats doctors like potential criminals and it treats the rest of us like children. Prohibition does not end drug risks: it just outsources them to minorities and other vulnerable populations.
