
The above review was uploaded to Downpour.com today. At least I think it was. After I clicked "submit," the form page cleared my data and reloaded with the words "Be the first to submit a review." I assume that this is just their ham-fisted way of implying that my review must be "vetted" before being posted, but who knows? I fear that Downpour is going to censor my philosophical criticism of the book. That would be all too typical.
This is the fate that my reviews suffer at the hands of the philosophically challenged techies at Archive.org, who refuse to allow me to criticize the raison d'etre for the National Institute on Drug Abuse -- which, in a sane country, would either not exist or else be called the National Institute on Drug Use, in which case they would teach safe and beneficial drug use and stop their politically motivated attempts to prove that psychoactive substances can lead to nothing but death and sorrow. NIDA 2 dogmatically ignores all positive effects of drug use and all negative effects of drug criminalization.

The goal of rehab should not be to get people off of all drugs, it should be to teach them to be in control of their drug use and to use drugs wisely for beneficial purposes.
We need to start thinking of drug-related deaths like we do about car accidents: They're terrible, and yet they should move us to make driving safer, not to outlaw driving. To think otherwise is to swallow the drug war lie that "drugs" can have no positive uses.
It's amazing. Drug law is outlawing science -- and yet so few complain. Drug law tells us what mushrooms we can collect, for God's sake. Is that not straight-up insane? Or are Americans so used to being treated as children that they accept this corrupt status quo?
Healthline posted an article in 2021 about the benefits of getting off of antidepressants. They did not even mention the biggest benefit: NO LONGER BEING AN ETERNAL PATIENT -- no longer being a child in the eyes of an all-knowing healthcare system.
Drug prohibition is a caustic lye that destroys every democratic freedom that it comes in contact with.
It is far better to "treat the symptoms" than to irreversibly modify brain chemistry in one particular way based on the theories of a financially-motivated biochemical determinist working for a pharmaceutical company.
The proof that psychedelics work has always been extant. We are hoodwinked by scientists who convince us that efficacy has not been "proven." This is materialist denial of the obvious.
Proof that materialism is wrong is "in the pudding." It is why scientists are not calling for the use of laughing gas and MDMA by the suicidal. Because they refuse to recognize anything that's obvious. They want their cures to be demonstrated under a microscope.
We should not be talking about the potential harm of drugs -- we should be talking about the well-established harm of drug PROHIBITION.
I never said that getting off SSRIs should be done without supervision. If you're on Twitter for medical advice, you're in the wrong place.

(up)