As I was adding my Drug War Comic Book to Kindle marketplace today, I was prompted for a category. Naturally, I looked for a category about the Drug War, since my book is all about that abominable Christian Science war on psychoactive medicine. Much to my surprise, however, there were no such categories proposed. There were categories about LGBT rights, pornography, and feminism, but nothing about the Drug War.
You do realize what this means, don't you? It means that America takes the Drug War status quo as a sort of natural baseline. Drug War assumptions have become so mainstream that their downsides are invisible to us. It's just life. We now consider it natural that we should have to urinate in order to qualify for a job and that we can be sentenced to life in prison for possessing plant medicines that were considered godsends by other cultures for thousands of years.
This is no surprise, however. Scientific authors have been doing the same thing for the past five decades. They write apparently authoritative articles on subjects like the supposed intractability of depression, never once mentioning the fact that outlawed plant medicines have the potential of working near miracles for the chronically depressed. Meanwhile self-help authors fell whole forests worth of trees to publish their five- six- or ten-step plans to happiness, remaining absolutely silent about the ability of properly administered plant medicine to help us work through the mental cobwebs and the vicious circular mental prisons that we build for ourselves.
Why? Because the western world has been duped by bigoted politicians into demonizing plant medicines instead of learning to live with them safely and benefit from their wise use.
The Drug War is based on two HUGE lies: 1) that prohibition has no downsides, & 2) that drug use has no upsides.
In "The Book of the Damned," Charles Fort writes about the data that science has damned, by which he means "excluded." The fact that drugs can inspire and elate is one such fact, although when Fort wrote his anti-materialist broadside, drug prohibition was in its infancy.
Drug prohibition is the biggest tyranny imaginable. It is the government control of pain relief. It is government telling us how and how much we are allowed to think and feel in this life.
Yeah. That's why it's so pretentious and presumptuous of People magazine to "fight for justice" on behalf of Matthew Perry, as if Perry would have wanted that.
Drug warriors have harnessed the perfect storm. Prohibition caters to the interests of law enforcement, psychotherapy, Big Pharma, demagogues, puritans, and materialist scientists, who believe that consciousness is no big "whoop" and that spiritual states are just flukes.
America legalizes alcohol and then outlaws all the drugs that could help prevent and cure alcoholism.
Wonder how America got to the point where we let the Executive Branch arrest judges? Look no further than the Drug War, which, since the 1970s, has demonized Constitutional protections as impediments to justice.
Properly speaking, MDMA has killed no one at all. Prohibitionists were delighted when Leah Betts died because they were sure it was BECAUSE of MDMA/Ecstasy. Whereas it was because of the fact that prohibitionists refuse to teach safe use.
Guess who's in charge of protecting us from AI? Chuck Schumer! The same guy who protected us from drugs -- by turning America into a prison camp full of minorities and so handing two presidential elections to Donald Trump.
The term "drugs" is no more objective than the term "scabs." Both are meant to defame the things that they denote.
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)