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, 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."
Ten Tweets
against the hateful war on US
Being a lifetime patient is not the issue: that could make perfect sense in certain cases. But if I am to be "using" for life, I demand the drug of MY CHOICE, not that of Big Pharma and mainstream psychiatry, who are dogmatically deaf to the benefits of hated substances.
In "How to Change Your Mind," Michael Pollan says psychedelic legalization would endanger young people. What? Prohibition forces users to decide for themselves which mushrooms are toxic, or to risk buying contaminated product. And that's safe, Michael?
I'll never understand Americans. Most of them HATE big government -- and yet they have no problem with government using drug prohibition to control how and how much they can think and feel in this life. Talk about warped priorities.
When Rick Strassman and Michael Pollan call for continued prohibition to protect young people, they ignore the ENORMOUS fact that prohibition has destroyed inner cities around the world. Wake up, guys! Prohibition is evil, not drugs! Ignorance is evil, not education!
I might as well say that no one can ever be taught to ride a horse safely. I would argue as follows: "Look at Christopher Reeves. He was a responsible and knowledgeable equestrian. But he couldn't handle horses. The fact is, NO ONE can handle horses!"
How would we even KNOW that outlawed drugs have no positive uses? We first have to incorporate them in a sane, empathic and creative way to find that out, and the drug war makes such a sensible approach absolutely impossible.
Brits have a right to die, but they do not have the right to use drugs that might make them want to live. Bad policy is indicated by absurd outcomes, and this is but one of the many absurd outcomes that the policy of prohibition foists upon the world.
This is why it's wrong to dismiss drugs as "good" or "bad." There are endless potential positive uses to psychoactive drugs. That's all that we should ask of them.
A Pennsylvanian politician now wants the US Army to "fight fentanyl." The guy is anthropomorphizing a damn drug! No wonder pols don't want to spend money on education, because any educated country would laugh a superstitious guy like that right out of public office.
Almost all of today's magazine articles about human psychology should come with the following disclaimer:
"This article was written from the standpoint of Drug War ideology, which holds that outlawed substances can have no beneficial uses whatsoever."
Being a lifetime patient is not the issue: that could make perfect sense in certain cases. But if I am to be "using" for life, I demand the drug of MY CHOICE, not that of Big Pharma and mainstream psychiatry, who are dogmatically deaf to the benefits of hated substances.