In "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out," physicist Richard Feynman professes his disdain for (or at least his frustration with) the vast majority of Americans who have no concept of the scientific way of thinking. And he has a point, of course. One has only to think of the "Madonna of the Toast" or the "Virgin of the Cheese Sandwich" to agree that some people simply do not have a clue when it comes to looking at phenomena logically. But what Feynman does not realize (or at least does not admit) is that a dogmatic reliance on logic and the scientific method leads to absurdities every bit as bizarre as those produced by superstition and ignorance. Take animal sentience, for instance. Descartes believed, based on seemingly dispassionate and logical analysis (based on "science," that is) that animals had no feelings, notwithstanding, for instance, the obvious screams of our fellow mammals when they are subjected to torture. And this belief had consequences, for it cleared the path, ethically speaking, for scientists to vivisect animals at will and without scruple in the name of "advancing science."
It's interesting to ask, of course, why the seemingly pain-induced screams of animals did not count as evidence against Descartes' theory. The answer seems to be that scientists (especially in Descartes' time), considered "feelings" to be a "touchy-feely" subject about which no "hard figures" were to be had, and therefore a topic unworthy of a true scientist, who deals only in verifiable facts. Besides, animals were presupposed to be machines in the 17th century, existing in a universe that itself was thought to be 'clock-like' in its predictability. Of course, today, most scientists will gladly agree that animals have feelings -- but only because these scientists believe that they can clearly demonstrate that fact scientifically through logical experiment, not because they have latterly developed some newfound instinctive empathy with their fellow creatures. In other words, science has not yet freed itself of the problematic assumptions and methodologies that motivated Descartes to deny sentience to the "lower animals" -- instead, it has simply caught up with emotional reality viz the animal world, but on its own nerdy and didactic terms.
This, I believe, is what the Poet Rimbaud meant when he said that "science is too slow for us." And why is it too slow? Because as Pascal told us: "The heart has its own reasons that reason can't understand." Of course, Feynman may have never encountered these quotes, given his self-confessed disinterest in the humanities in his school days, but the glacial advancement of science when it comes to human psychology is evident even (indeed especially) today.
Consider the 2021 article in Forbes magazine entitled "Can Laughing Gas Help People With Treatment-Resistant Depression?"
As someone who has suffered from depression for 40-plus years, this headline made me laugh! Of course nitrous oxide would help -- in the same way that MDMA and psilocybin would help, not to mention the occasional use of opium and coca. And why would they help? Because they would improve my mood in two ways: first because the use itself would bring joy, and second because I would look forward to that use, and that anticipation would naturally improve my mood. This is not rocket science, folks; it's something that even a child naturally understands, notwithstanding their obvious inability to put these concepts into words. It's an obvious psychological truth that laughing gas would help the depressed. It would have to help, by definition.
Why then is the author, Dr. Robert Glatter, scratching his head over this matter?
Answer: Because, like Descartes, he wants to ignore subjective feelings entirely. And so while Descartes considered the screeching of animals to be irrelevant to science in the 17th century, so Glatter considers the laughing of formerly depressed patients to be irrelevant in the 21st century. Like Descartes, Glatter wants to know what's "really" going on, without regard for the mere unverifiable evidence of his own eyes and ears. Descartes didn't care how much bestial screaming he heard: he needed documented logical proof before he could sign off on animal sentience. Glatter, for his part, doesn't care how much laughter he hears from depressed patients who are using laughing gas: he needs documented logical proof before he can admit that laughing gas works for the depressed.
Of course, it could be that Dr. Glatter has physics envy and wants to refer depression to a chemical imbalance and will deny the efficacy of any drug that does not fix his own supposititious biochemical "cause" of depression. And so, spurred on by emotionally purblind science, Glatter wants to find and treat the "real" cause for depression, rather than merely making a patient happy.
The result? Hundreds of millions of depressed around the world must suffer while materialists like Glatter try to get their head around the fact that "the proof is in the pudding," that rendering a depressed person happy is indeed rendering a depressed person happy.
As for myself, I want to tell scientists like Glatter: Just approve the damn laughing gas, for the love of God, and then carry on with your task of trying to find a "real" cure for depression. Personally, I don't want your "real" cure, because I know what science means by a "real" cure. Modern antidepressant SSRIs were touted as "real" cures because they were said to fix a chemical imbalance in the brain -- whereas it turned out that they actually caused the chemical imbalances that they were purported to fix -- and turned the user into a patient for life thanks to the extreme chemical dependencies that they induced. Besides, if you are going to give me a pill that cures my depression, I need to know what you mean by "cure." And if you mean that you're going to make me a good capitalist consumer who does not consider suicide, then I do not want your pill. A "cure for depression," as I would define it, would enable me to see the world in living color, close up, and feel a newfound empathy with my fellows while allowing me to attain some measure of self-fulfillment in life rather than merely surviving, because for many of us, survival comes in second place to self-fulfilment on our priority lists, a fact to which the Pollyanna psychology of the 21st century pays little or no shrift.
Rimbaud was right. Science is too slow for us (for we the depressed). And this slowness has consequences, for it gives a green-light for scheming politicians to outlaw godsend psychoactive substances. "After all," they say,: "science has yet to figure out that even laughing gas can be useful for the depressed." Thus modern science gives the DEA a pretense (albeit a feeble one) to say that medicines which have inspired entire religions have no known therapeutic benefits whatsoever -- this despite the fact that botanical medicine can never be justifiably criminalized in the first place under natural law, even if said plants truly did have no therapeutic uses whatsoever -- which, if true, by the way, would be an unprecedented sort of 'anti-miracle' in itself: the fact that there should exist a psychoactive substance for which creative humanity can find no therapeutic use whatsoever. Indeed, some nature lovers find it therapeutic merely to gaze on nature's creations and contemplate them, for which activity they should not be required to get a special permit from Congress.
This is why I find Feynman's view of science to be far too rosy -- and I say this without even referencing the fact that the "bomb" that scientists like Feynman helped develop will likely someday destroy the world, a fact that even Feynman himself admits. For I have personally suffered from science's willful blindness to "mere feelings" (whether those of lower animals or of human beings). How? Because science's dogmatic devotion to Galileo's method of dispassionate analysis for finding truth has forced me to treat my depression with "scientific" Big Pharma drugs for which addiction is a feature not a bug, at the same time that almost all of mother nature's psychoactive godsends have been placed off limits to me. And why are they off-limits to me? Because scientists refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact, that drugs that make a person happy are drugs that make a person happy, even if they fail to satisfy the scientist's desire to achieve those results in some predictable, repeatable and materialistic way.
Author's Follow-up: August 7, 2022
I have argued above via reductio ad absurdum against those who feel that the scientific method is a self-sufficient way of looking at the world, one full of quantifiable certainties, and that scientists therefore wrongly believe that they have no need to dirty their hands with the touchy-feely subject of human (or indeed animal) emotions. But this tendency to scientific hubris can also be rebuked by logical argument, ironically enough, as Kurt Godel of the Vienna School discovered after reading Bertrand Russell's Principia. Here is the gist of Godel's game-changing conclusion as summarized by Hans Rosling in his documentary series "The Joy of Logic":
"In any logical system, you could either be consistent or complete, but you couldn't have both at the same time... This means that, in mathematical logic, there are going to be some truths which, although true, can never be proven to be so."
In short, you can despise metaphysics and subjectivity all you want, but you cannot get rid of either of them even when you limit yourself to cold, hard science. Some assumptions are always implicit in the scientific method insofar as it depends on logic and mathematics.
Author's Follow-up: August 8, 2022
I feel obliged to unload on Richard Feynman here because he seems to be the standard bearer, so to speak, for the materialistic world view that causes doctors like Mr. Glatter to ask absurd questions like, "Can laughing gas help the depressed," questions which have the real-world effect of denying depressed folks like me access to godsend substances. The problem is that Feynman is so focused on his disdain for nonscientific methods -- as understandable as that disdain usually is -- that he has left the impression among his vast ideological following that science can legitimately stand in the way of what would otherwise be no-brainer solutions to modern problems merely by declaring that the efficacy of a given solution has not yet been proven scientifically. I would counter that certain potential solutions (like the idea that pets have feelings or that laughing gas can help the depressed) are so prima facie sensible (dare I say to the human heart?) that scientists should not have the power to veto them on the grounds that they have not yet been proven scientifically. According to this viewpoint, folks living in the 17th century need not have been kind to their pets because science had not yet found any way to prove that they actually had feelings.
Do we really need to prove scientifically that it helps to laugh -- and that merely looking forward to the intermittent use of nitrous oxide would be a morale boost for the depressed? We know these things by virtue of being human, and we should not have to put that knowledge "on hold" (or apologize for it as "intuition") while we grope about for a way to make it obvious to number-crunching scientists.
The problem with Feynman is that he's too categorical. He finds problems with ESP therapies, and he discounts ESP entirely. But what are pheromones but an extra-sensory way for animals, like human beings, to communicate? ESP, in this case, is not non-scientific, but rather a realm of science of which humans were not even aware until 1959. Presumably, if you had told Feynman that animals (including humans) could communicate in this extrasensory way in 1950, he would have called you a pseudoscientist -- or worse yet, a member of the South Pacific Cargo Cult. Moreover, he implies that, because obvious cases of ESP seem to be nonexistent in his time (Uri Geller didn't succeed in bending a spoon for Feynman), that we can safely discount any more modest claims of ESP communication. But viewed philosophically, it would be ground-shaking news if an experiment could prove ANY statistically significant ESP effects, no matter how small. And there is reason to believe that such effects have been found already at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab, where human beings have been shown to mentally affect the roll of dice (or random event generators) to a small but statistically significant degree. In other words, the effect may have no immediate practical use, being so small, but the fact that there IS an effect should by rights open up a whole new field of scientific inquiry -- were hardcore scientists like Feynman not apparently opposed in principle to even acknowledging such results.
Again, why do I mention this in the context of drugs? Because it is Feynman's disdain for apparently non-physical things (like ESP or indeed I would almost say human emotions) that informs our approach to approving (or rather NOT approving) medicines today, for those who approve mind drugs never ask, "Does this make the user happy?" but rather, "Do we have scientific charts that can show that the user is made happy?" That's a huge bar for any medicine to jump, since we're asking scientists to measure a subjective quality like happiness -- which is really not their field, and certainly should not be their field in a sane world. This is why it's so problematic for Big Pharma scientists to cure my depression with pills, because it begs the question: what is Big Pharma's definition of "a cure for depression"? If their cure is to make me a good consumer, then I have a different view than they have as to what constitutes the good life and I would not want to take their pill even if it "worked" according to their non-ambitious definition of that term. I personally want the kind of pill that Big Pharma will probably never make, i.e. one that will help me 'live large,' be open to opportunities, see a world in a grain of sand, and feel compassion for my fellow human being.
Actually, such medicines already exist, but the Drug Warriors are doing everything they can to disguise that fact by criminalizing and demonizing the substances in question -- a crime that they get away with, in part, by parroting the scientific line that such medicines have not yet been "proven" to truly make someone happy -- as if government or science should be in the business of defining happiness, let alone deciding when and where it actually exists.
Author's Follow-up: August 9, 2022
Towards the end of "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out," Richard Feynman warns us that one of the greatest perils threatening America in the future (other than nuclear Armageddon, of course) is the use of biochemistry to control humankind. What, he asks, would happen if we found a way to design human beings so that they were more -- or less -- ambitious? Feynman finds it horrible that a government should regulate how ambitious a citizen is allowed to be.
What Feynman fails to realize is that America is already doing precisely that. How? By outlawing substances like the coca leaf which help one live an ambitious life.
Likewise, government already tells us how religious we can be by outlawing all the plant medicine which, in previous millennia, inspired the creation of entire religions, medicines like psychoactive mushrooms and the coca plant.
As I increasingly expose the false premises upon which the Drug War is based, I find myself doing much more than writing about "drugs." I am, it seems, tacitly advancing a new philosophy of life. Nor is this surprising, since our attitude about "drugs" presupposes basic stances toward life, such as what constitutes the good life, whether naturally occurring medicines -- and nature in general -- is a friend or foe, and whether one should seek safety first (doing everything possible, say, to avoid possible side effects of "drugs," for instance) or whether one should rather prioritize self-actualization and put one's safety in second place. For some of us still believe with Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living, and when government controls our mental ability to examine life from every angle and to be all that we can be psychologically speaking, then it is interfering with our power to examine our life. But more on this in another essay.
August 16, 2022
We are today on the verge of discovering that
physics--so far from being "the science of everything"--is in truth the
science of the inorganic, which is to say that even the simplest living
organism transcends its scope. -- Wolfgang Smith
This is why a doctor today can doubt that laughing gas will help the depressed, because the medical field, informed as it is by reductionism, doesn't particularly care how hard I laugh -- to judge my "real" happiness they want to be able to quantify that happiness, for they operate in the realm of quantities, not qualities. For the "real" world, in their particle-based ontology, is the quantitative one.
The Drug War is a bipartisan effort, hence its staying power, but if the Republicans have their way, we will have an insurrection to install a president who wants to carry out "the final solution" for the drug war, by executing those who dare to traffic in botanical godsends of which racist politicians disapprove. Yes, Joe Biden himself is part of the problem with his belief in prioritizing fear over facts and incarceration over education. Moreover, he just doesn't "get" the simple fact that prohibition causes violence, it's as simple as that. But the openly traitorous republicans, with the help of Fox News, want to take the drug war to "a whole new level" -- while turning America into a Banana Republic, by getting rid of free elections and installing demagogues by force. Surely the least we can ask of American corporations is that they do not attempt to profit from the peddling of the lies that support this ongoing effort at insurrection. Sign the petition today to tell American businesses that they will be held responsible for supporting networks that openly support insurrection.
*"Without the War on Drugs, the level of gun violence that plagues so many poor inner-city neighborhoods today simply would not exist." -- Heather Ann Thompson, The Atlantic, 2014.
The above numbers may represent undercounts since some of these totals were compiled in late 2021.
The news media just doesn't get it -- or doesn't want to get it. Most stories about the deaths of blacks in inner cities never mention the drug war, as if the fact that prohibition led to armed gangs had nothing to do with the skyrocketing gun deaths that they're reporting on today. For a case in point, check out the article by Micaela A Watts in CommercialAppeal with the headline: "Following 346 homicides in Memphis in 2021, officials consider what's driving the violence."
Yes, that's a real poser, Micaela. The city fathers must really be scratching their heads!
The author notes three major theories for the violence, all of which have nothing to do with the drug war: "Lack of conflict resolution skills," a lack of "fair wages," and (get this) poor mental health.
Looks like the city officials failed to ask themselves why city residents were armed to the teeth in the first place. Hello? That was due to the drugs warriors' substance prohibition which incentivized the poor and poorly educated young people to get into the fantastically profitable business of selling drugs!!!
Substance prohibition created drug gangs and cartels just as surely as liquor prohibition created the Mafia.
Yes, drug warrior, YOU are responsible for these deaths. You! It's a natural result of your ban on medical godsends, some of which have inspired entire religions and have the potential for treating (if not curing) such diverse conditions as Alzheimer's, autism, and depression.
Drug War Victim of the Day
killed in Prince Georges County, Maryland on August 15, 2022
Southeast Washington DC remains a no-go zone, even for UPS drivers, as this latest shooting incident points out, which is 1 in 6 shootings that have taken place in the last week, two of them fatal. If this were happening in Hollywood, California, it would be a scandal. But movie stars are people, and victims of the drug war, especially when poor and black, are what Noam Chomsky calls 'unpeople.'
Yes, even the director of "Bamboozled" is bamboozled about drugs. He agrees with the drug warrior lie that there are psychoactive substances in nature that have no positive uses whatsoever, in any place, any time, any context. This superstitious way of thinking has forced me to go without godsend medicine my entire life. Thanks, Spike. Why do you want people to become drug-hating Christian Scientists, exactly? These things that you call "drugs" have inspired entire religions. The conservatives are laughing as they rush to the polls to elect fascists, because they have bamboozled Spike Lee himself to sign off on the drug war which brings death and incarceration to inner city blacks. Throw away that "just say no" teddy bear with which you were bribed in childhood, Spike, and open your eyes.
Mangual is the author of 'Cities got deadlier in 2020: What's behind the spike in homicides?' in which he never once mentioned the drug war!
Here's my letter to his website:
Hi, Rafael. Just wanted to suggest that you start holding the drug war responsible for inner-city violence -- since substance prohibition incentivized 'dealing' in poor neighborhoods and the guns soon followed. Because no one mentions this 64,000-pound Gorilla, Trump is able to blame the deaths on Democrats, so that, rather than ending the violence-causing drug war, he can begin executing the blacks that drug warriors were previously happy with merely incarcerating.
The Secret World: A History of Intelligence.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.
All warfare is based on deception, said Sun Tzu. Yes, but what is all deception based on? A mistrust of one's fellows. And how do you combat that, Chris? With empathogens like MDMA and psilocybin.
London: East India Publishing Company, 2021.
Pious drug warriors have usually thought of Marcus Aurelius as the perfect replacement for bad evil drugs -- but Marcus had his cake and ate it too. He philosophized under the influence of opium (but don't tell the kids!)
Alice in Wonderland: The Original 1865 Edition With Complete Illustrations By Sir John Tenniel.
New York: Amazon, 2021.
Alice's shroom-powered adventures are a standing reproach to glum-faced drug warriors, who closely resemble the Queen of Hearts, shouting: "Off with their heads, for using godsend medicines of which I disapprove!"
De Quincey, Thomas.
Confessions of an English Opium Eater.
New York: Dover, 1995.
During De Quincey's informed opium use, he "partook" only weekly in order to better enjoy the opera, making his weekday life happier as well, however, thanks to anticipation of use, a benefit of which materialist science takes no account.
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner .
New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018.
A stark reminder that the world is living under a nuclear sword of Damocles. And why? Because it demonizes all the godsend medicines (like MDMA and shrooms) that could bring humanity together in universal harmony.
The Psychedelic Explorer's Guide: Safe, Therapeutic, and Sacred Journeys .
New York: Park Street Press, 2011.
First-hand accounts of psychological breakthroughs achieved with the guided use of entheogens, suggesting that one-time givens like "character" and "human nature" are far more susceptible to improvement than we thought.
A Disease in the Public Mind: Why We Fought the Civil War.
New York: Da Capo Press, 2014.
The late historian Fleming cites the popular mob-led public "diseases" of Witch-Hunting, Liquor Prohibition, and Communism -- yet says nothing about the Drug War, which was the great disease in the public mind of his own time!!!
Liberalism and Its Discontents.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2022.
Great bipartisan insights, BUT... Francis reckons without the drug war, so, like a good drug warrior, he blames all the ills caused by prohibition on the politically created boogieman called "drugs."
The Dream of Enlightenment: the Rise of Modern Philosophy.
New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2016.
The author seems unaware of the increasingly clear ability of empathogens like MDMA and shrooms to improve the very human nature which grumps like Hobbes portray as being so irrevocably fixed.
Good Chemistry: The Science of Connection, from Soul to Psychedelics.
New York: HarperWave, 2020.
Julie claims that Nixon criminalized psychedelics for health reasons. What? That's not the Nixon I know. He said himself that Leary was enemy #1. He was removing "users" from the voting rolls, not protecting them.
The Doors of Perception / Heaven and Hell.
New York: Penguin Books, 1970.
Huxley's speculations about perception jibe with modern science, which finds that human beings see what is presumably useful to them, not necessarily what is "really there" in the sensory-rich physical world.
The Birth of the Modern.
New York: Harper Collins, 1991.
Johnson says that opium caused Samuel Taylor Coleridge's problems. Nonsense. Lack of education and irresponsibility causes problems. As Johnson himself says, most Brits used opium as needed without trouble.
The Psychedelic Experience: A Manual Based on the Tibetan Book of the Dead .
New York: University Books, 1964.
Americans have been primed by the drug-war zeitgeist to consider everything Leary writes as nonsense. But he was the first one to announce loudly and clearly that what's really nonsensical is to outlaw plant medicine.
The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath.
New York: Del Rey Books, 1970.
Lovecraft's work is full of opiate imagery that drug warriors want to render impossible for artists to feel: "I would often drift in opiate peace through the valley and the shadowy groves..." (Ex-Oblivione)
In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction.
Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2009.
Gabriel moralizes "addiction." Addiction, however, is a political term. One can use psychoactive Big Pharma meds every day and be a good patient -- use heroin every day, however, and you're just escaping "inner pain." What?
Maupassant, Guy de.
Le Horla et autres contes fantastiques - Guy de Maupassant: Les classiques du fantastique .
Paris: , 2019.
In "La Horla," Maupassant anticipates Huxley by speculating that our perceptual habits blind us to a world of wonders. Many of today's demonized drugs, it appears, can at least partially open our eyes to that world.
Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge A Radical History of Plants, Drugs, and Human Evolution .
New York: Bantam, 1992.
This was the book that reminded me of what I already vaguely knew: that it is tyrannical insanity for a government to outlaw plants. McKenna's philosophical speculations on why we criminalize inspired me to create abolishthedea.com.
Miller, Richard Louis.
Psychedelic Medicine: The Healing Powers of LSD, MDMA, Psilocybin, and Ayahuasca Kindle .
New York: Park Street Press, 2017.
Informative interviews with movers-and-shakers in the field, including Rick Doblin, Stanislav Grof, James Fadiman, David Nichols and Robert Whitaker. Packed with eye-opening one-liners about godsend meds.
Out of our Heads.
New York: HiII&Wang,, 2010.
Noe reveals how patients with "locked-in" syndrome have reported being supremely aware of their surroundings during their supposedly brain-dead coma, a fact that puts in question our materialist assumptions about consciousness.
When Plants Dream.
New York: Watkins Publishing, 2019.
I find philosophical problems with most of the books that I read on the subject of psychoactive medicine, but Daniel Pinchbeck is one of the few authors who could teach me a few things on this topic.
Poe, Edgar Allan.
The Essential Poe.
New York: Warbler Classics, 2020.
Because drug warriors never mention the good side of "drugs," we must turn to Poe to learn, for instance, that morphine can bring a surreal appreciation of Mother Nature (see "A Tale of the Ragged Mountains").
How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science of Psychedelics Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence .
New York: Penguin Books, 2018.
Pollan has yet to realize that the very term "drugs" is just a modern pejorative epithet for "plant medicine of which botanically clueless politicians disapprove. "
Reynolds, David S..
Beneath the American Renaissance: The Subversive Imagination in the Age of Emerson and Melville .
New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Exhaustively researched account of the 19th-century zeitgeist, and yet the word "drugs" (as defined, or rather derided, by today's drug warrior) is never even used. Last century's boogieman was liquor, it seems, not "drugs."
Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experiences Hardcover.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2015.
The psychedelic experience was once characterized as pharmacologically induced madness. Richards shows how the properly guided experience can lead to sanity instead -- and a way of life that is not self-destructive.
Diary of a Dirty Little War: The Spanish-American War of 1898 .
Connecticut: Praeger, 2000.
The war took place 16 years before anti-Chinese Drug Warriors criminalized the poppy plant, and yet opium is only mentioned with regard to a group of unimaginative volunteers who smoked some and "couldn't see the point."
Edmund Burke: A Genius Reconsidered.
New York: Arlington House, 1967.
Burke was a conservative in a sense, but he would not recognize America's Republican party of today. He would surely have seen that prohibition causes all the problems we ascribe to "drugs," and then some.
Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety.
New York: Penguin, 2014.
In 1980, the Air Force nearly blew up Arkansas and irradiated half the country. When Reagan took office the next year, what was his priority? Outlawing plant medicine that could make our species less warlike.
Red Star Rogue: The Untold Story of a Soviet Submarine's Nuclear Strike Attempt on the U.S. .
New York: Pocket Star, 2006.
On March 7, 1968, a rogue Soviet submarine nearly blew up Pearl Harbor with a thermonuclear bomb. Instead of launching a war on nukes, then-President Nixon launched a war on medicines that could inspire peace, love and understanding.
The Rise and Fall of Adolf Hitler.
New York: RosettaBooks, 2011.
Paraphrase from book: "No one who has not lived for years in a DRUG WAR SOCIETY can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime's calculated and incessant propaganda."
Blue Dreams: The Science and the Story of the Drugs that Changed Our Minds.
Back Bay Books: Boston, 2019.
Despite griping about the weight she's put on from taking her daily 'meds,' Slater gives Big Pharma a big fat mulligan for consigning 1 in 4 American women like herself to a lifetime of chemical dependency on SSRI antidepressants.
DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences .
New York: Park Street Press, 2001.
Rick doubts DMT's therapeutic usefulness, but common sense psychology suggests that any break from full-on introspection would be a treat, notwithstanding materialists who aren't even sure that laughing gas could help the depressed!!!
Ceremonial Chemistry: the ritual persecution of drugs, addicts, and pushers.
New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1974.
Filled with inconvenient truths that critics ignore rather than refute, including how politicized science tells us a la God: "Eat of the fruit and you shall die," ignoring the fact that education tells us how to eat of that fruit safely.
Our Right to Drugs: The case for a free market.
New York: Praeger, 1992.
Chock-a-block with all-too-rare common sense: "Doctors, lawyers and politicians started the War on Drugs and continue to wage it, and they are its real beneficiaries -- the drug war's ostensible beneficiaries... are its victims."
Tyler, George R..
Billionaire Democracy: The Hijacking of the American Political System.
Michigan: Pegasus Books, 2016.
Doesn't mention drugs, but illustrates how drug reform can be stymied by just 3% of the public: namely, those holding stock in Big Pharma, etc., especially when these elites can bribe politicians to retain the status quo.
Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America .
New York: Crown, 2010.
Prohibition has facilitated the creation of a psychiatric pill mill upon which 1 in 4 American women are dependent for life. Moreover, these pills cause the chemical imbalances that they purport to fix.
Zuboff , Shoshana.
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power.
New York: Public Affairs, 2019.
Surveillance capitalists and drug warriors share the same goal: to keep human beings predictable: one by rendering us more robot-like and the other by denying us the mind-improving blessings of psychoactive medicine
There are an absolute LEGION of online articles and newspaper stories that get it wrong about so-called drugs. Even those in favor of drug law reform have been subject to drug war propaganda from childhood (and they probably have a DARE teddy bear to prove it!) so speak truth to nonsense and comment on the articles that get it wrong.
Bloody disgusting fact: The Drug War brought almost 800 deaths to Chicago in 2021 by incentivizing the hugely profitable sale of psychoactive medicine in poor communities. And now Trump and his fellow fascist drug warriors want to use that violence as an excuse to KILL drug dealers via execution! Any community leaders supporting the drug war are complicit in this genocide. For as Heather Ann Thompson wrote in The Atlantic in 2014: "Without the War on Drugs, the level of gun violence that plagues so many poor inner-city neighborhoods today simply would not exist."
How America can end inner-city homicides overnight in three easy steps:
Re-legalize Mother Nature's plant medicines
Treat substance abuse as a health problem
Buy back inner-city guns at double their purchase price (even triple the price would be a huge bargain in the long run)
This will, of course, be a huge sacrifice for everyday Americans, who do love their drug war, bless them.