There is nothing more despicable to me than a website that takes the DEA seriously, as if it were a valid institution in a democratic and freedom-loving society. Nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary, the DEA should be put on trial for crimes against humanity for lying about godsend medicines. The DEA promulgates the following lie: that a substance that can be misused, even in theory, by young white Americans when used at one dose for one reason must not be used by anybody at any dose for any reason, and that any and all viciousness is legitimate to enforce that anti-scientific rule. They are part of a militarized Drug War establishment that trashes and confiscates houses in furtherance of this inhumane doctrine.
Here is just one sample of such perfidy, as quoted from "Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State" by Richard Lawrence Miller:
"Relying solely on the word of a paid informant who later explained he had been so drunk he could not remember the right address, a Boston drug squad raided the home of a retired Methodist preacher and chased him into his bedroom, where three police officers pushed him to the floor:
'Boston's coroner said it was a heart attack, brought on by sudden and extreme stress. Rev. Accelyne Williams, a slender 75-year-old man, spent his final moments doubled over, vomiting, his hands bound behind his back with a tight strip of plastic, totally confused about what was happening to him. ... He had literally been scared to death by shouting, storming anti-drug troops.'
Of course, even had "drugs" been found, the raid would have been unconscionable Gestapo tactics. This fact would have been blazingly clear to Americans over a hundred years ago, but I actually have to explain why this is so to modern Americans, so brainwashed have they become thanks to the full-court press of cradle-to-grave Drug War propaganda, chiefly in the form of the almost complete media censorship of all reports of positive uses for the drugs that we have been taught to hate. Suffice it to say here that the Hindu religion owes its very existence to the use of a drug that inspired and elated2, from which single fact alone it follows that it is a crime against humanity to outlaw drugs that inspire and elate. Then, too, the fact is that drug use is fundamentally a kind of self-medication3, an attempt to manage one's own psychological health, and it is bizarre and hateful to destroy people's lives merely because politicians have decided to second guess our health decisions.
One despairs of teaching brainwashed westerners to understand the enormous consequence-riddled folly of the whole drug-war undertaking. It is not just wrong in parts -- it represents a wrong way of looking at the world. Should any bamboozled reader wish to deprogram themselves, however, I would recommend my four-essay series entitled After the Drug War4 -- in which I attempt to describe a peaceful and free post-prohibition world in which personal and academic freedom rules and in which the enemy is ignorance, not drugs.
Prohibition is the killer, and always has been. We think that prohibition ended in 1933, but that is not true. America never ended prohibition. Instead, we safeguarded liquor consumption with a Constitutional amendment, while giving the prohibitionists in the temperance movement the consolation prize of all time: the right to outlaw every single one of liquor's less dangerous competitors.
The failure of westerners to see through this ruse calls into question the ability of the ironically named species Homo sapiens to "progress," as philosophers have always tacitly assumed that it could and would. Could it be that the propaganda age, the Internet and the power of advertising have combined with oligarchy in such a way that human beings are mere puppets in the hands of those who control the flow of information? It is so easy for the powerful to do this. They do not even have to lie to us: they merely have to give pride of place to news stories and features that seem to portray drug use in a bad light -- and simply fail to publish any inconvenient truths, like the fact that the Hindu religion was inspired by a drug5, or that Benjamin Franklin and Marcus Aurelius enjoyed opium, or that phenethylamines can give the suicidal a reason to live6, or that even coca and opium can do so without necessarily addicting the user7, etc. etc. etc., and that dependence, when voluntary, is not the worst thing in the world in any case, as 1 in 4 American women tacitly admit by taking a Big Pharma med every day of their life8. And what if somebody should happen to find God in nature through the advised and safe use of morphine?9 "No problem," says the oligarch: "we simply will not publish such stories. Problem solved."
Conclusion? I fear that Schopenhauer "did not know from pessimism." He makes it clear in many an "aside" that he believes that truth will ultimately triumph, but that seems hard to believe in light of a Drug War whose corrupt principles and censorship have so Nazified American society, to the point that even the outrageous death of the Methodist preacher mentioned above fails to motivate us to abolish the DEA and to reboot drug policy in favor of education and common sense. If anybody has a right to pessimism, it is the rare individual who has seen through the lies and misdirection that constitute America's criminal war on godsend medicines, aka the Drug War, aka the Scorched Earth triumph of the fearmongering ideology of the prohibitionist -- that Chicken Little vampire whose Pyrrhic ideology is alive and well long after we assumed it had been vanquished by the vox populi of white beer drinkers.
This is why I believe that the only way to de-Nazify the world once and for all and to return self-agency to the individual is to drive a stake through the heart of the prohibition ideology itself, to acknowledge it as the absurd doctrine that it is. For it is based on a racist and anti-scientific lie: namely, the idea that a substance that can be misused, even in theory, by a white American young person when used at one dose for one reason must not be used by anybody at any dose for any reason -- no, not even for the purposes of religious insight and worship10, no, not even for the pain relief of kids in hospice in India who go without morphine thanks to our American demonization of that drug11. This is a mad doctrine that is destined to produce a police state in direct proportion as we act according to its absurd precepts12.
In an enlightened world, we would replace the fearmongering billboards that read "Fentanyl kills" and "Oxy kills" and "Crack kills" (etc. etc. etc.) with billboards that read "Prohibition kills" and "Ignorance kills13" and "Racist drug laws kill." In such a world, we would stop protecting the white suburban young people whom we refuse to educate about drugs by using minority children in inner cities as human shields: for that is precisely what we do when we incentivize gun violence with drug prohibition in the name of protecting white kids (see also The Bill Clinton Fallacy14).
Now drug warriors have nitrous oxide in their sights, the substance that inspired the philosophy of William James. They're using the same tired MO: focusing exclusively on potential downsides and never mentioning the benefits of use, and/or denying that any exist.
Outlawing substances like laughing gas and MDMA makes no more sense than outlawing fire.
If I beat my depression by smoking opium nightly, I am a drug scumbag subject to immediate arrest. But if I do NOT "take my meds" every day of my life, I am a bad patient.
Cocaine is not evil. Opium is not evil. Drug prohibition is evil.
In "The Book of the Damned," Charles Fort shows how science damns (i.e. excludes) facts that it cannot assimilate into a system of knowledge. Fort could never have guessed, however, how thoroughly science would eventually "damn" all positive facts about "drugs."
I'm told that science is completely unbiased today. I guess I'll have to go back and reassess my doubts about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
Psychedelic retreats tell us how scientific they are. But science is the problem. Science today insists that we ignore all obvious benefits of drugs. It's even illegal to suggest that psilocybin has health benefits: that's "unproven" according to the Dr. Spocks of science.
Drugs that sharpen the mind should be thoroughly investigated for their potential to help dementia victims. Instead, we prefer to demonize these drugs as useless. That's anti-scientific and anti-patient.
Ann Lemke's case studies make the usual assumptions: getting free from addiction is a morality tale. No reference to how the drug war promotes addiction and how banned drugs could solve such problems. She does not say why daily SSRI use is acceptable while daily opium use is not. Etc.
Big pharma drugs are designed to be hard to get off. Doctors write glowingly of "beta blockers" for anxiety, for instance, but ignore that fact that such drugs are hard -- and even dangerous -- to get off. We have outlawed all sorts of less dependence-causing alternatives.
Now drug warriors have nitrous oxide in their sights, the substance that inspired the philosophy of William James. They're using the same tired MO: focusing exclusively on potential downsides and never mentioning the benefits of use, and/or denying that any exist.