The Drug War is a godsend for conservatives. Whenever social policy results in disenfranchisement and anger in leftist and liberal quarters, conservatives can completely ignore a frank discussion of the policies that caused it by focusing instead on the illicit substance use to which the despair in question naturally gave rise. Does a failure to focus on childhood education result in semi-literate adult populations with no respect for human life? No problem. Conservatives merely focus their attention on the problematic substance use that resulted from that same abnegation of government responsibility. By thus framing the public debate in terms of substance abuse, conservatives not only avoid having to discuss the topic of equitable social arrangements, but they can blame the downsides of their selfish social policies on the victims of that policy themselves.
June 4, 2022
Fast-forward two years and conservatives now have a lock on the Supreme Court, Lord help us. The good news is, these conservatives have a penchant for so-called "state's rights," which, when it comes to drugs, may facilitate continued drug decriminalization on the state level, especially after the fashion of Oregon. Also, the court is clearly open to the idea that the ritual use of psychoactive medicine in a religion cannot be infringed, as shown in its 9-0 ruling in favor of the UDV Church re: its use of ayahuasca. What we need now are some would-be religion founders to come forward, to announce the sincere creation of various new churches in which various currently illegal drugs are used ceremonially. Let's see how this court then reacts to the DEA's attempt to shut down, say, Our Lady of Psilocybin or The First Baptist Church of Ecstasy. For the criminalization of all psychoactive medicines (but entheogens in particular) is necessarily an attack on the freedom of religion 1, insofar as these kinds of substances (from coca to mushrooms) have inspired entire religions in the past. Given that back story, in fact, the criminalization of these drugs is more than just an attack on specific religions: it is an attack on the religious impulse itself and an attempt to quash the propensity for psychospiritual growth and improvement in humankind, as who should say, "We've got Christianity now, folks -- we're all good now, religiously speaking. The world does not need any more religions, thank you very much."
Scientists cannot tell us if using drugs is worth the risk any more than they can tell us if free climbing is worth the risk, or horseback riding or parkour.
I've always wondered why we don't just let heroin users be -- or better yet, re-legalize drugs and give them choices. Why are they punished for using heroin daily while we praise 1 in 4 women for taking an even more dependence-causing drug every day of their life?
We give kids drugs to improve their concentration -- but if adults use drugs to concentrate, we call them names and throw them in jail.
The International Observer says the "core issues" causing Mexican drug violence are: "corruption, inequality, and the demand for narcotics in the U.S." Wrong, wrong, wrong. The core issue is DRUG PROHIBITION.
I'm told antidepressant withdrawal is fine because it doesn't cause cravings. Why is it better to feel like hell than to have a craving? In any case, cravings are caused by prohibition. A sane world could also end cravings with the help of other drugs.
Any self-respecting mycologist should denounce the criminalization of mushrooms.
I don't believe in the materialist paradigm upon which SSRIs were created, according to which humans are interchangeable chemical robots amenable to the same treatment for human sadness. Let me use laughing gas and MDMA and coca and let the materialists use SSRIs.
The Drug War is a crime against humanity.
The problem for alcoholics is that alcohol decreases rationality in proportion as it provides the desired self-transcendence. Outlawed drugs can provide self-transcendence with INCREASED rationality and be far more likely to keep the problem drinker off booze than abstinence.
In a sane world, we would learn to strategically fight drugs with drugs.
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)