Two and half decades ago, when posting comments was just becoming a "thing" online, my brother-in-law asked me the following question: "Why are you not soliciting comments on your web page?" The implication of his question was that I was being cowardly for failing to do so. I responded by pointing out that literally anyone in the world could use a comment form and that I had no interest in hearing the points of view of a serial killer in Kansas or a ten-year-old smart-aleck in Nova Scotia when it came to the philosophical questions that I was raising in my so-called 'blog' (a term, by the way, which always sounded pejorative to me as a struggling writer, despite its seemingly harmless etymology as a short form of 'web log'). I told him, moreover, that I could not picture my homeboy Arthur Schopenhauer pausing in the middle of his scathing critique of "Hegelians and similar ignoramuses" to ask his readers what they thought on the topic. As the so-called pessimist himself wrote in "The Four-fold Root of Sufficient Reason":
"I am not a professor of philosophy, forsooth, that I need bow to the folly of others."
In other words, the point of Schopenhauer's work was Schopenhauer's work, and so it is with myself. My goal is to publish my own philosophy of drug attitudes, not to create an ultra-democratic online community in which grade schoolers have the same publishing rights as professors emeriti -- although, to be sure, Schopenhauer did not have a high opinion of that latter class of pedants.
And yet I have changed my mind. Demonstrably clueless as I am about the fine art of search engine optimization and lacking an advertising budget, I have no choice but to solicit comments, in the hopes of reaching a wider audience. Besides, I just might learn something. Imagine that.
And my comment form is already helping. I have already garnered some useful advice. One reader has suggested that I compile my writings in book format -- while quite properly begging me not to create a silly title page for such a collection. Five years ago I published a book against drug prohibition containing 150 op-ed pics that demonstrated many downsides of drug prohibition which most westerners have never contemplated, let alone discussed. The point of the book was to throw these issues "in the face" of brainwashed westerners, perhaps as they gathered around a coffee table or library shelf, to more or less force them to discuss these issues. Unfortunately, I chose the poor title of Drug War Comic Book for my publication, causing my purchasers (or rather my non-purchasers) to conclude, naturally enough, that I had published a comic book, when in reality the point of my book was to get people talking about some very serious issues, indeed, like pharmacological colonialism, the destruction of inner-cities and the end of our time-honored right to take care of our own health as we see fit. So far, the number of sold copies can be counted on one maimed hand.
And some of the feedback has puzzled me. One reader tells me that he is in agreement with my philosophical arguments, except when it comes to the "useless liberal reforms" that I advocate. This puzzled me because I was not aware that I was advocating any reforms at all in my essays, let alone those of a useless liberal variety. I consider myself to be following more in the footsteps of Immanuel Kant, whose self-appointed philosophical mission late in life was to inform the thinkers of his time that they were fundamentally wrong about the way that they thought about the world. That is my mission as well. In Kant's case, he attempted to persuade mainstream thinkers that they were wrong about epistemology, and that this ignorance had deleterious consequences in the real world. In my case, I am attempting to persuade mainstream thinkers that they are wrong about drugs and that this ignorance too has deleterious consequences in the real world -- many of them so large as to be invisible to brainwashed westerners -- like the outlawing of the individual's right to heal, the destruction of inner cities around the globe, and the end of the rule of law in Latin America.
Another useful comment: a suggestion that I say more about the effect of U.S.-inspired drug prohibition on other countries.
And what about you? Any useful comments for me?
Help me grow this site so that I can become the Van Helsing of the Drug War and drive a philosophical stake through the ideological heart of drug prohibition. For merely re-legalizing drugs is not enough: we have to vanquish the selfish and counterproductive mindset of the prohibitionists that got us in this mess in the first place. For prohibition did not end in 1933. In fact, it grew enormously after that year, as America decided to outlaw virtually everything BUT alcohol when it comes to psychoactive medicine!
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.
Almost all addiction services assume that the goal should be to get off all drugs. That is not science, it is Christian Science.
I just asked New York Attorney General Letitia James how much she was getting paid to play Whack-a-Mole. I pointed out that the drug war created the gangs just as liquor prohibition created the Mafia.
There are endless ways that psychoactive drugs could be creatively combined to combat addiction and a million other things. But the drug warrior says that we have to study each in isolation, and then only for treating one single board-certified condition.
It is folly to put bureaucrats in charge of second-guessing drug prescriptions: what such bureaucrats are really doing is second-guessing the various philosophies of life which are presupposed by the way we use psychoactive drugs.
His answer to political opposition is: "Lock them up!" That's Nazi speak, not American democracy.
For those who want to understand what's going on with the drug war from a philosophical point of view, I recommend chapter six of "Eugenics and Other Evils" by GK Chesterton.
If MAPS wants to make progress with MDMA they should start "calling out" the FDA for judging holistic medicines by materialist standards, which means ignoring all glaringly obvious benefits.
Prohibitionists have blood on their hands. People do not naturally die in the tens of thousands from opioid use, notwithstanding the lies of 19th-century missionaries in China. It takes bad drug policy to accomplish that.
The formula is easy: pick a substance that folks are predisposed to hate anyway, then keep hounding the public with stories about tragedies somehow related to that substance. Show it ruining lives in movies and on TV. Don't lie. Just keep showing all the negatives.
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)