Having just begun my study of Michel Foucault, I must resist the temptation to make any criticisms of his philosophy that may conceivably be addressed to my satisfaction after future study on my part. I was startled, for instance, to learn that Foucault essentially champions the views of Thrasymachus over those of Socrates when it comes to the definition of justice. Justice, Foucault tells us, is a matter of power politics, not some transcendent ideal toward which we all must strive. What we call justice, he says, is just a system of social arrangements designed to produce outcomes that, collectively speaking, serve to benefit the powers-that-be. But this conclusion runs counter to everything that I've been taught in my academic career. My temptation is to "fire back" in defense of my university professors who always told me that Socrates was right on this subject, that Justice was a great objective ideal, and that our goal in politics is to create institutions that accord with that understanding. But I will hold my fire for now, in part because my gun is almost empty. It had never occurred to me that this topic was even up for debate and so Foucault has caught me unarmed as to a response. I suspect that an intelligent response could be formulated, but that will have to wait for a future essay after I have upgraded my arsenal by dint of more reading on this topic.
The FDA is not qualified to tell us whether holistic medicines work. They hold such drugs to materialist standards and that's pharmacological colonialism.
My approach to withdrawal: incrementally reduce daily doses over 6 months, or even a year, meanwhile using all the legal entheogens and psychedelics that you can find in a way likely to boost your endurance and "sense of purpose" to make withdrawal successful.
America takes away the citizen's right to manage their own depression by making opium and cocaine illegal. Then psychiatrists treat the resulting epidemic of depression and anxiety by damaging the patient's brain with shock therapy.
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.
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.
This is the problem with trusting science to tell us about drugs. Science means reductive materialism, whereas psychoactive drug use is all about mind and the human being as a whole. We need pharmacologically savvy shaman to guide us, not scientists.
Clearly a millennia's worth of positive use of coca by the Peruvian Indians means nothing to the FDA. Proof must show up under a microscope.
Even if the FDA approved MDMA today, it would only be available for folks specifically pronounced to have PTSD by materialist doctors, as if all other emotional issues are different problems and have to be studied separately. That's just ideological foot-dragging.
It's no wonder that folks blame drugs. Carl Hart is the first American scientist to openly say in a published book that even the so-called "hard" drugs can be used wisely. That's info that the drug warriors have always tried to keep from us.
Drug warriors are full of hate for "users." Many of them make it clear that they want users to die (like Gates and Bennett...). The drug war has weaponized inhumanity.
(up)