For all his popular writing about psychoactive medicine, Michael Pollan supports prohibition. He believes it actually makes sense to outlaw Mother Nature's bounty. That's a strange position for a botanist living in a purportedly free country. Worse yet, Michael is hypocritical, because he believes that prohibition makes sense for you and I, but not for himself. That's why, in his lengthy book "How to Change Your Mind," he spends 400 pages telling of his personal experiences with psychedelics, only to confess on page 405 that he is not in favor of mushrooms being legal for mere human beings. Putting the elitist hypocrisy aside, I think this is an appalling position for a botanist to take.
But let's suppose for a moment that Mother Nature is so evil that outlawing her bounty makes sense - even though such measures would violate the natural law upon which America was founded and clash with Christian orthodoxy which tells us that people can be good or bad, not things. Even then, we have the proof of the last 100 years that prohibition causes civil wars overseas, militarizes police forces, creates inner-city violence, arms the gangs and the cartels, causes drive-by shootings, denies godsend medicines to the depressed and those in pain, and censors science. And what is Michael's argument in FAVOR of prohibition? A shroom might be misused by a young American kid.
Well, of course a shroom might be misused, Michael, but that's BECAUSE of the Drug War itself, which teaches Americans to fear drugs rather than to understand them. That's why the tellingly named National Institute for Drug Abuse publishes endless papers on misuse and abuse of drugs, but almost nothing on responsible use, which, as Dr. Carl L. Hart writes in "Drug Use for Grown-Ups," is by far the main way that psychoactive drugs are used in the real world, this despite the fact that the Drug Warrior does everything they can to keep Americans ignorant about drugs, since their goal is to make us fear rather than understand them.
And why do prohibitionists like Michael insist on thinking that young white American suburban kids are the only stakeholders in the prohibition debate? As a chronic depressive, I've been forced to go a lifetime now without godsend medicine that grows at my feet. Yet I've never heard of a Drug Warrior wringing their hands on my behalf. And there are hundreds of millions like me who suffer all so that we can protect Johnnie and Janie Whitebread from the politician-created boogieman called drugs. I'm not saying that Michael is racist himself, of course, but the prohibition that he supports (however lukewarmly) most definitely is. (See the book "Whiteout" for some of the many ways that this is so.)
The truth is that Michael is Jekyll and Hyde when it comes to drugs. The choice of his subject matter makes him sound progressive, but he occasionally lets slip a line which betrays a deep conservative streak as well. In supporting prohibition, for instance, in "How to Change Your Mind," Michael tells us that Nixon outlawed psychedelics in order to ensure the health of young men being recruited into the army. That's simply not true. Nixon didn't want the campus followers of Timothy Leary 123 to be fit for military service, he wanted them thrown in jail, preferably on felony charges to deny them the future right to vote.
He created drug laws in order to disenfranchise his opposition, a step that removed hundreds of thousands of blacks from the voting rolls and handed elections to Drug Warriors, and eventually to Donald Trump himself, who, if re-elected has voiced his determination to start executing those Black drug dealers that previous administrations had been satisfied with just throwing in jail.
If Michael is really excited about the psychoactive substances that he is studying, he should denounce the Drug War which keeps all those godsends from being used by his readers. Until then, Michael is treating those readers like Tantalus of the Greek myth, vividly exciting them about a host of substances that turn out to be just out of reach for everybody but Michael himself.
It's really an insurance concern, however, disguised as a concern for public health. Because of America's distrust of "drugs," a company will be put out of business if someone happens to die while using "drugs," even if the drug was not really responsible for the death.
America is an "arrestocracy" thanks to the war on drugs.
The drug war tells us that certain drugs have no potential uses and then turns that into a self-fulfilling prophecy by outlawing these drugs. This is insanely anti-scientific and anti-progress. We should never give up on looking for positive uses for ANY substance.
The confusion arises because materialists insist that every psychological problem is actually a physical problem, hence the disease-mongering of the DSM. This is antithetical to the shamanic approach, which sees people holistically, as people, not patients.
The idea that "drugs" have no medical benefits is not science, it is philosophy, and bad philosophy at that. It is based on the idea that benefits must be molecularly demonstratable and not created from mere knock-on psychological effects of drug use, time-honored tho' they be.
"All these anti-opium articles... are based upon the same model. They assume certain statements as existing and acknowledged facts which have never been proved to be such, and then proceed to draw deductions from those alleged facts." --William Brereton
David Chalmers says almost everything in the world can be reductively explained. Maybe so. But science's mistake is to think that everything can therefore be reductively UNDERSTOOD. That kind of thinking blinds researchers to the positive effects of laughing gas and MDMA, etc.
Pundits have been sniffing about the "smell" of Detroit lately. Sounds racist -- especially since such comments tend to come from drug warriors, the guys who ruined Detroit in the first place (you know, with drug laws that incentivized profit-seeking violence as a means of escaping poverty).
If drug war logic made sense, we would outlaw endless things in addition to drugs. Because the drug war says that it's all worth it if we can save just one life -- which is generally the life of a white suburban young person, btw.
I've been told by many that I should have seen "my doctor" before withdrawing from Effexor. But, A) My doctor got me hooked on the junk in the first place, and, B) That doctor completely ignores the OBVIOUS benefits of indigenous meds and focuses only on theoretical downsides.
(up)