In this third installment of my essays describing the weltanschauung of the ideal post-prohibition world, I would like to begin by identifying the unmentioned downsides of the reigning world view. I can then present my utopian world as the obvious counterfoil to the non-productive status quo to which we are wedded today by sheer unreflecting habit. And what is that reigning world view? For the sake of this essay, at least, I would describe that view as the belief that efficiency is the summum bonum of life, that it is the ultimate good for which human beings should strive. This seems to be the presumption upon which all our technological triumphalism is based: the idea that quicker and easier is always better. From this point of view, the technological revolution (and the capitalist age in general) is a godsend for humanity because it is forever cutting down on the number of steps to complete a task. Better yet, it is cutting down on the number of people required to complete any given task, with the apparent goal (one that we are told is now well within reach) of making people unnecessary for completing any tasks whatsoever, with the possible exception of performing certain bodily functions that we may have to put up with managing ourselves, at least until we are able to upload our brains onto Microsoft One Drive and be done with the material world altogether.
LET'S HEAR IT FOR INEFFICIENCY!
No one seems to have asked the question, however: why do we consider efficiency to be the summum bonum in life in the first place? The assumption behind this view seems to be that maximum efficiency results in maximum happiness, but this is clearly false. It is only true when we think of human beings as soulless widgets that have no interest in process, but only in final outcomes, no interest in the means, only in the ends. When luthiers carve violins out of carefully sourced templates of spruce and maple wood, they are not being very efficient. They could make the instruments far more quickly and easily with the help of an automated assembly line custom-built for such purposes. But, of course, the effort involved is the whole point: the whole point is that the violin makers roll up their shirt sleeves and get busy doing something, something with a human tradition and meaning behind it. In the capitalist west, I have to actually remind the reader of this basic truth because the economic orientation of our society causes us to focus only on outcomes. In the words of Dr. Spock of Star Trek, the whole existence of luthiers is "highly illogical" to us, given that machines are now able to do their job - at least to the satisfaction of Wall Street. And yet, even if we grant that machines could produce the precise end results that a luthier would achieve, that is no proof that efficiency is the summum bonum in life. For efficiency is beside the point when it comes to such crafts: the whole point is the process, the actual business of doing something and especially how that activity makes a conscious human being feel!
What does this have to do with drugs?
The utilitarian 123 weltanschauung that I have described above dismisses the psychological needs of human beings in the exact same way as do the Drug Warriors and their collaborators in the materialist ivory tower. What makes the luthier special has everything to do with their own personal psychology - and this is the one area in which the tech triumphalist has no expertise. If we lived in a world in which psychology were considered to be important (and I mean common sense psychology here, not the passion-free psychology of JB Watson 45), then human beings are once again what matters in life and the techie can only be quiet, sit back and try to learn something for a change. Moreover, once common-sense psychology matters, we realize that feeling good and inspired and patient with life are all GOOD things - and that if otherwise stress-frazzled people can achieve those states with the help of godsend medicines, then WE SHOULD LET THEM DO SO: nay, we should encourage them to do so. Why? So that they can "tend their garden" a la Voltaire and not be mere eternally dissatisfied denizens of planet earth, eager to hop on the hate-inspired bandwagons of demagog politicians. In such a world, the important thing would be to roll up one's shirt sleeves and get busy with something. Efficiency in the form of technical innovations would be neither good nor bad except to the extent that it promotes or hinders our ability to do meaningful things in life - as opposed to having them done FOR us.
"TELL ME WHEN I'M HAPPY, DOC!"
As has been already implied then, the ideal post-prohibition world would be one in which we take common-sense psychology seriously and stop pretending that we need a microscope to figure out if substances like laughing gas 6 really "work." Such substances are on record as giving users glimpses of heaven itself, so when scientists doubt their efficacy, they are expressing a biased world view of their own and not a scientific opinion. They are claiming that materialist reductionism is ontologically true and that no one is "really" happy until a materialist scientist has said so. This is how the Drug Warriors get away with promoting the truly criminal lie that psychoactive medicines have no known uses: our dogmatic scientists claim to agree with that absurd statement. They either agree that drugs have no positive uses or else they demand millions in funding before they would dare to confirm the existence of any of the glaringly obvious benefits that can be seen by a child. In reality, however, the positive uses for drugs are only limited by the human imagination, because guess what: drugs that make one feel good actually make one feel good. Imagine that! Whether a specific drug is good for any given person in any given circumstance is a completely different issue - but, of course, Drug Warriors hate specifics. They want us to believe that a substance that could be a problem for a white young person at one dose in one circumstance must not be used by anybody at any dose in any circumstance. That superstition would be laughed out of educated society in our post-prohibition world.
INVISIBLE DRUG BENEFITS
In my effort to convince you that common-sense psychology does matter, consider again the following description of morphine use by Edgar Allan Poe that I cited in the previous installment of this series of essays:
"In the meantime the morphine had its customary effect- that of enduing all the external world with an intensity of interest. In the quivering of a leaf- in the hue of a blade of grass- in the shape of a trefoil- in the humming of a bee- in the gleaming of a dew-drop- in the breathing of the wind- in the faint odors that came from the forest- there came a whole universe of suggestion- a gay and motley train of rhapsodical and immethodical thought."
Amazingly, I have never known anyone to cite this passage as proof of the wonderful powers of morphine 7 , not even an ecologist with a predilection for chastising the hoi polloi for their failure to appreciate the marvelous minutia of Mother Nature. Yet such drugs have huge and obvious benefits! The Drug Warriors have convinced us, however, that we can never use such substances wisely - which is precisely the paleolithic mindset behind the grunted statement "Fire bad!" Yes, fire and drugs both can be extremely dangerous, but that should not stop us from using the creativity of the human mind to find ways to use them as wisely and safely as possible given their immense benefits.
Recognizing, however, that the reader has only ever been allowed to hear horror stories about opiates, let us consider some accounts of the use of phenethylamines synthesized by chemist Alexander Shulgin as reported in his 1991 book entitled "Pihkal":
"I acknowledged a rapture in the very act of breathing."
"I feel that I can learn faster. This is a 'smart' pill!"
"I learned a great deal about myself and my inner workings."
Once again, we see thoroughly obvious drug benefits that Americans completely ignore. Why? Because of our utilitarian weltanschauung that blinds us to anything that cannot be quantified. Human consciousness yields mere subjective opinions, you see; to be scientific, we must ignore such testimony and look under a microscope to find out what is "really" going on with a human being.
It is actually funny. Thomas Nagel made waves when he published a paper in the Philosophical Review of October 1974 entitled "What is it like to be a bat?" What we really need today is a paper entitled "What is it like to be a human being?" We need a paper in which HUMAN consciousness is taken seriously, and not considered an epiphenomenon by behaviorist scientists who are determined to ignore common sense!
Finally, a quote from the Rig Veda:
"Flow on, Sage Soma, 8 with thy stream to give us mental power and strength."
Yet another report of glaringly obvious benefits of drug use, benefits completely unnoticed by modern society.
CONCLUSION
A recap seems to be in order here to make it clear how these various quotes and anecdotes tie together. I began, it will be remembered, by noting that the modern weltanschauung prioritizes efficiency, based on the unspoken assumption that efficiency produces happiness. I then showed how this conclusion was clearly false, using the example of the luthier whose happiness in life comes from making an object - making it as opposed to merely having it be made. I then faulted the existing world view for undervaluing - in fact ignoring - this crucial aspect of life: the psychological value of actually doing things in life, things that connect us with the rest of the real world around us. Then I pointed out that this indifference to particular human motives, to aspirations and intentions, was "all of a piece" with the materialist disregard for common-sense psychological considerations. I pointed out the irony in the fact that Thomas Nagel had made waves for asking "What is it like to be a bat?" and yet modern materialists have never bothered to ask themselves "What is it like to be a human being?"
I now conclude from these various considerations that the ideal post-prohibition world would be one in which common-sense psychology mattered, one in which the focus is not so much on the political party to which one belongs or the religion that one practices, but rather on the extent to which one feels at home "in their own skin," in the world, and with their fellow human beings.
I keep coming back to the quote from Voltaire to describe this world, for it seems to say it all, psychologically speaking: it would be a world in which we "tended our own gardens. "
AFTERWORD
I have elucidated the purblind inhumanity of the materialist mindset in this essay and unveiled the paleolithic reasoning of the many Americans who echo their superstitious forebears in shouting "Drugs bad!" Unfortunately, the hardcore Drug Warriors still have a few cards up their sleeve. They will no doubt be putting on their puritan hats right about now and accusing me of promoting a world of drug-induced idleness and debauchery. I will no doubt need an entire essay to put their fears to rest, assuming such a thing were possible. But I will end this essay with a brief response to such concerns, not just to satisfy doubters, but to better illustrate the common sense nature of the alternative weltanschauung that I am proposing: one that actually takes human consciousness seriously and believes that glaringly obvious psychological benefits are, in fact, benefits!
Be it known, then, that in the post-prohibition world of which I write, human beings would still be judged and ostracized for laziness and boorishness and aggression - and for all the actions for which we judge and ostracize today - with the big exception that no one - no one - would be judged and/or ostracized for merely possessing or using a so-called drug. Neither would the use of a drug be deemed an excuse for bad behavior. Indeed, the crackdown on bad behavior in our utopia - our crackdown on real crime of all kinds -- would naturally be more effective than it was under the old weltanschauung. Why? Because our officers would not be rushing about trying to stop people from using plant medicine or experiencing self-transcendence or worshiping God or Indra, etc., as they see fit. They would not be trying to stamp out drug cartels, nor playing whack-a-mole with the latest demonized substances. They would spend all their time combatting actual crimes. Imagine that!
And, of course, in such a world, Drug Warriors would finally get it through their thick heads that attempts to improve one's mind and mood are not crimes - that, to the contrary, attempts to stop people from so doing is the real crime: that, in short, prohibition is the problem 9 , not drugs!
In the next installment of this essay series, "After the Drug War," I will explain how we will save the taxpayer billions by abolishing the DEA and spending a fraction of their bloated budget on establishing a network of pharmacologically savvy empaths around the country to serve as advisors for safe drug use and to provide common-sense drug-assisted therapy as needed - thereby putting an end to the psychiatric pill mill 10 upon which 1 in 4 American women are now dependent for life.
Finally, a note to all those who think that young Americans will never be mature enough to use drugs wisely: Let us suppose that you are right. It follows then that there is something wrong with America, not with drugs! So why do you insist that all other countries in the world outlaw the drugs that America is unable to handle? Isn't that the mother of all denial?
And you wonder why I am complaining? What else can I do when you will not even let me vote with my feet?! You have strong-armed the entire world into denying me my birthright: Mother Nature's godsends and the substances inspired thereby. Scientists tell us there may be life now on another planet. Are you going to outlaw drugs there as well because American culture is immature?
The fact is Americans can handle drugs. The majority of drug users use safely despite the attempts of prohibitionists to make that impossible. It is the prohibitionist mindset that has put American young people - and indeed the entire world -- in harm's way. How? By refusing to teach safe drug use and refusing to regulate drugs as to quality and quantity. It cannot be said enough: young people were not dying on the streets when opiates were legal in America: it took drug prohibition to accomplish that.
We should start taking names. All politicians and government officials who work to keep godsends like psilocybin from the public should be held to account for crimes against humanity when the drug war finally ends.
Everyone's biggest concern is the economy? Is nobody concerned that Trump has promised to pardon insurrectionists and get revenge on critics? Is no one concerned that Trump taught Americans to doubt democracy by questioning our election fairness before one single vote was cast?
What prohibitionists forget is that every popular but dangerous activity, from horseback riding to drug use, will have its victims. You cannot save everybody, and when you try to do so by law, you kill far more than you save, meanwhile destroying democracy in the process.
I have dissed MindMed's new LSD "breakthrough drug" for philosophical reasons. But we can at least hope that the approval of such a "de-fanged" LSD will prove to be a step in the slow, zigzag path toward re-legalization.
Drug testing labs are the modern Inquisitors. We are not judged by the content of our character, but by the content of our digestive systems.
Daily opium use is no more outrageous than daily antidepressant use. In fact, it's less outrageous. It's a time-honored practice and can be stopped with a little effort and ingenuity, whereas it is almost impossible to get off some antidepressants because they alter brain chemistry.
We deal with "drug" risks differently than any other risk. Aspirin kills thousands every year. The death rate from free climbing is huge. But it's only with "drug use" that we demand zero deaths (a policy which ironically causes far more deaths than necessary).
In the 19th century, author Richard Middleton wrote how poets would get together to use opium "in a series of magnificent quarterly carouses."
Wade Davis writes that cocaine was outlawed because 400 people consumed toxic doses worldwide. What about the 49,000 that commit suicide every year because we have outlawed drugs that could cheer them up!!!
In the 2015 movie "No Escape," the only place that was safe from anti-American hysteria was an opium den. How ironic that the U.S. forced Iran to outlaw opium.
(up)