If the WHO really wanted to improve public health, they would shutter their business, at least as far as psychoactive substances are concerned. We do not need an international organization that was designed to normalize repressive drug policies by focusing only on the downsides of psychoactive substances. Indeed, the very existence of WHO is a disgrace, insofar as it implies that we need an international overseer to decide for us as individuals whether we should use substances that can improve our minds, improve our appreciation of music, improve our appreciation of Mother Nature, and even motivate us to create a whole new religion. It is not the job of medical "experts" to make such decisions for us, no matter how many academic letters they may append beside their name, as who should say, "My ideas count more than yours do!" If there are risks of use in any given case, these experts should tell us so and then butt out, for that is where their expertise comes to an end. They have no expertise whatsoever in deciding whether use of a given drug makes sense for any given person given the abstract risks that they have discovered. To say otherwise is to suggest that the Rishi of the Punjab in 1500 BC should have received the approval of materialist doctors before founding a religion based on the insights provided by the consumption of the psychoactive Soma juice. To say otherwise is to suggest that the creation of the Vedic religion, and hence Hinduism itself, should have been subject to the veto power of materialist doctors. Had such vetting actually transpired, there would be no Hindu religion today, insofar as Drug Warriors think that the existence of one potential downside of use qualifies a substance for criminalization, this despite the fact that every substance in the world has downsides when used in some context, at some dose, for some reason.
Prohibitionists are responsible for the 200,000-plus killed in the US-inspired Mexican drug war in the 21st century.
The FDA says that MindMed's LSD drug works. But this is the agency that has not been able to decide for decades now if coca "works," or if laughing gas "works." It's not just science going on at the FDA, it's materialist presuppositions about what constitutes evidence.
And where did politicians get the idea that irresponsible white American young people are the only stakeholders when it comes to the question of re-legalizing drugs??? There are hundreds of millions of other stakeholders: philosophers, pain patients, the depressed.
That's how antidepressants came about: the idea that sadness was a simple problem that science could solve. Instead of being caused by a myriad of interrelated issues, we decided it was all brain chemistry that could be treated with precision. Result? Mass chemical dependency.
When psychiatrists write about heroin, they characterize dependency as enslavement. When they write about antidepressants, they characterize dependency as a medical duty.
The scheduling system is a huge lie designed to give an aura of "science" to America's colonialist disdain for indigenous medicines, from opium, to coca, to shrooms.
Endless drugs could help with depression. Any drug that inspires and elates is an antidepressant, partly by the effect itself and partly by the mood-elevation caused by anticipation of use (facts which are far too obvious for materialists and drug warriors to understand -- let alone materialist drug warriors!).
Cocaine is not evil. Opium is not evil. Drug prohibition is evil.
If religious liberty existed, we would be able to use the inspiring phenethylamines created by Alexander Shulgin in the same way and for the same reasons as the Vedic people of India used soma.
I'm told that most psychiatrists would like to receive shock therapy if they become severely depressed. That's proof of drug war insanity: they would prefer damaging their brains to using drugs that can elate and inspire.
(up)