
In yesterday's essay, I reached out to overseas readers, asking them to update me on how drug prohibition is playing out in their home countries.1 I did so in order to demonstrate that the prohibitionist mindset knows no boundaries. Everywhere we look, it has empowered logically challenged bureaucrats, judges, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel to behave inhumanely in the name of "fighting drugs." In doing so, such professionals demonstrate their embarrassing ignorance of world history. They do not realize that drug use has inspired entire religions, as in the case of the Vedic and hence the Hindu religion.2 They have apparently never heard of William James, the Father Of American Psychology, who was convinced of the philosophical significance of so-called altered states.3 They have apparently never heard of ethnobotanist Richard Schultes4 or chemist Alexander Shulgin5 or drug researchers like Stanislav Grof6 and James Fadiman.7 And so they set forth in ignorant bliss on a superstitious campaign to destroy basic freedoms under the supposition that "anything goes" in our efforts to push back against the inanimate scapegoat called "drugs." This is especially true in the legal realm. A modern society's legislative ability to punish a drug user seems to be limited only by the imagination of their prosecutors. The M.O. is always the same, however: come up with any punishment that you please for a drug user, and then retroactively give that punishment the fig leaf of propriety with the choplogic of your choice. The judge will be sure to see things your way provided only that your goal is to "send a message" to those "evil" users of psychoactive substances.
Imagine someone starting their book about antibiotics by saying that he's not trying to suggest that we actually use them. We should not have to apologize for being honest about drugs. If prohibitionists think that honesty is wrong, that's their problem.
Americans outlaw drugs and then insist that those drugs did not have much to offer in any case. It's like I took away your car and then told you that car ownership was overrated.
This is the mentality for today's materialist researcher when it comes to "laughing gas." He does not care that it merely cheers folks up. He wants to see what is REALLY going on with the substance, using electrodes and brain scans.
M. Pollan says "not so fast" when it comes to drug re-legalization. I say FAST? I've gone a whole lifetime w/o access to Mother Nature's plants. How can a botanist approve of that? Answer: By ignoring all legalization stakeholders except for the kids whom we refuse to educate.
Everyone's biggest concern is the economy? Is nobody concerned that Trump has promised to pardon insurrectionists and get revenge on critics? Is no one concerned that Trump taught Americans to doubt democracy by questioning our election fairness before one single vote was cast?
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.
The goal of drug-law reform should be to outlaw prohibition. Anything short of that, and our basic rights will always be subject to veto by fearmongers. Outlawing prohibition would restore the Natural Law of Jefferson, which the DEA scorned in 1987 with its raid on Monticello.
The best long-term treatment for OUD would be to normalize the nightly smoking of opium at home, not to addict the user to government-supplied drugs that render them impervious to the benefits of the poppy plant.
I should have added to that last post: "I in no way want to glorify or condone drug demonization."
We need to stop using the fact that people like opiates as an excuse to launch a crackdown on inner cities. We need to re-legalize popular meds, teach safe use, and come up with common sense ways to combat addictions by using drugs to fight drugs.

(up)