The following is in response to today's Tweet by DA Brooke Jenkins calling for a crackdown on "rampant" drug dealing in open air markets. Does she not realize that America has already cracked down to the point that our nation is little more than a penal colony in the eyes of the world? Gee, thanks, prohibition. It's sad to see such a young and apparently bright individual believing so thoroughly in such a hateful policy, one that has ruined the lives of millions of poor people around the globe by entrapment: tempting them with fantastic sums and then turning around and arresting them for taking advantage of the opportunity: the opportunity that prohibition itself has foisted upon them. It's sad to see her supporting a policy that has destroyed the rule of law in Latin America and turned America's inner cities into shooting galleries.
Dear Ms. Jenkins:
I was saddened to see a Tweet in which you announced your determination to crack down on open air drug markets. Do you not realize that these markets are a direct result of prohibition? There was no opioid crisis when opium 1 was legal. People used the drug peaceably in their homes.
It is mindblowing to me that prohibitionists keep blaming "drugs" for the problems that prohibition itself is causing. It is a vicious circle that will never end until responsible people like yourself stop this tail chasing and shout: "Hey, wait, a minute folks, this policy is just not working!!!"
We do not need prohibition, we need RE-legalization 2 of Mother Nature. We do not need incarceration 3 , we need education.
They drive to their drug tests in pickup trucks with license plates that read "Don't tread on me." Yeah, right. "Don't tread on me: Just tell me how and how much I'm allowed to think and feel in this life. And please let me know what plants I can access."
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.
Anytime you hear that a psychoactive drug has not been proven to be effective, it's a lie. People can make such claims only by dogmatically ignoring all the glaringly obvious signs of efficacy.
I looked up the company: it's all about the damn stock market and money. The FDA outlaws LSD until we remove all the euphoria and the visions. That's ideology, not science. Just relegalize drugs and stop telling me how much ecstasy and insight I can have in my life!!
When we outlaw drugs, we are outlawing far more than drugs. We are suppressing freedom of religion and academic research.
It is consciousness which, via perception, shapes the universe into palpable forms. Otherwise it's just a chaos of particles. The very fact that you can refer to "the sun" shows that your senses have parsed the raw data into a specific meaning. "We" make this universe.
Americans have learned nothing but half-truths and lies about cocaine and opium thanks to the total censorship of drug benefits.
We might as well fight for justice for Christopher Reeves: he was killed because someone was peddling that junk that we call horses. The question is: who sold Christopher that horse?! Who encouraged him to ride it?!
If they're going to throw doctors in jail for prescribing too much pain medication, they should also throw them in jail for prescribing too LITTLE.
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.
Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.
(up)