Any faithful reader of my site will have noticed my penchant for denouncing drug prohibition as a stealth and subconscious move on the part of fearful conservative politicians to establish drug-hating Christian Science as the de facto state religion in America1. There are, of course, other more palpable motivations for the Drug War, above all the attempt to disempower minorities by creating laws specifically for that purpose2. But the fact that such laws appear reasonable to Americans across a wide political spectrum implies for me an implicit and widespread belief in the Christian Science metaphysic, the idea that drugs are both unnecessary and immoral, at least when it comes to improving the psychological condition of the human mind. So, while the Christian Science mentality may not have caused the Drug War, properly speaking, it yet gives the Drug War staying power by making its antiscientific tenets appear plausible to the American people, especially since, as westerners, we lack the universal indigenous habit of using psychoactive medicines for religious and divinatory purposes. (To the contrary, we look with suspicion on such drug use, as might be guessed from our persecution of the generally female witches of the past who begged to differ with the western mainstream on this subject.3)
Hello
And yet it occurred to me last night that Mary Baker-Eddy was "on to something," as we say, even if she herself did not realize what that "something" was. This is clear when we extract the sectarian religious element from Eddy's belief and recast her apparent hatred for drugs as a hatred for materialist cures that are uninformed by the powers of the human mind - by what we might call the powers and insights that come from "higher consciousness." Seen in this light, Eddy and I are on the same page, for we both attack the presumption inherent in placing materialist scientists in charge of mind and mood conditions4. We both believe that the human mind has powers that have never been properly leveraged and which we can use to fight so-called emotional disorders. The difference is that Eddy believed that the powers of the religious mind (of "higher consciousness") were up to the task of combatting ALL illness, and not just those metaphorical illnesses that are of a mental and emotional nature.
I can even agree with this latter extreme statement to a point. For the fact is that we do not yet know of what the human mind is capable for the simple reason that we have outlawed the quest to find out: we have outlawed all the drugs that show obvious potential in leveraging human consciousness for beneficial purposes. We have therefore outlawed the research that would be necessary to prove Eddy's thesis, or at least to tell us to what extent it is true and in what circumstances. Eddy's problem is that she declares her belief to be true in advance of performing the necessary research to prove that it is so. The mind (or consciousness) clearly has great power when it comes to treating psychological conditions, for the proof is extant, assuming that we do not make Eddy's mistake of ruling out the use of all drugs a priori based on metaphysical prejudices. The Hindu religion exists today thanks to the use of a drug that inspired and elated5. The use of coca inspired the Inca of Peru6. And the drug-user reports from Pihkal demonstrate that psychoactive drugs can produce extraordinary psychological improvements when used wisely and with intention by motivated individuals7. But the precise extent to which mental powers (drug-aided or otherwise) can alter so-called physical conditions remains unclear because untested - again, thanks to anti-scientific drug law.
It seems to me that our discussion of Eddy's thesis as westerners is rendered unnecessarily complicated, however, thanks to our Cartesian tendency to consider mind and matter as separate categories in the first place8. The truth seems to be that matter and mind are hopelessly entangled when it comes to cause and effect and that our attempts to deal with them as two ontologically separate categories can only lead to confusion. This is one of the many reasons why we need to re-legalize godsend medicines, by the way, for there can be no better way to investigate the distinctions and interactions between mind and body than by using psychoactive substances to leverage the power of mind, mood and imagination - to see both what can be accomplished thereby and what are the hard limits to such an approach. Far from being a niche issue, then, drug prohibition is nothing less than the outlawing of the most important philosophical research project imaginable, that of probing the true nature of our presupposed mind-body dualism. This is precisely the sort of research that William James himself conjured us to undertake as philosophers in "The Varieties of Religious Experience,9" but unfortunately this is a challenge that his alma mater, Harvard University, has censored from their online biography of the man, as they have his use of laughing gas 10 and his ideas on what he called the "anesthetic revelation 1112 ," which, in modern terms, is basically the topic of what drug use can tell us about the nature of reality13.
These opening shots across the bowsprit of today's vulnerable materialism 14 could serve as the beginning of a lengthy essay, but my main goal today is merely to establish that Christian Science is not simply the bad guy when it comes to today's hateful drug prohibition, that the founder of that religion entertained some valid scruples with respect to the mind-body problem and that drug laws prevent us from following up on those leads. We come then to the ironic conclusion that the metaphysics of Christian Science would seem to philosophically support the War on Drugs on a superficial level while yet questioning it profoundly on a still deeper level. These issues are deeply fraught with philosophical considerations which can no doubt be hotly debated. But I hope we can all agree on at least one thing: that the Drug War has outlawed the research required to answer the mind-body questions at issue here and that drug prohibition is therefore an outrageous violation of academic freedom. Should a materialist say otherwise, they are clearly declaring premature victory for their own behaviorist mindset under the cover of a legal system that privileges their own beliefs.
The outlawing of opium eventually resulted in an "opioid crisis"? The message is clear: people want self-transcendence. If we don't let them find it safely, they will find it dangerously.
Scientists are censored as to what they can study thanks to drug law. Instead of protesting that outrage, they lend a false scientific veneer to those laws via their materialist obsession with reductionism, which blinds them to the obvious godsend effects of outlawed substances.
If I want to use the kind of drugs that have inspired entire religions, fight depression, or follow up on the research of William James into altered states, I should not have to live in fear of the DEA crashing down my door and shouting: "GO! GO! GO!"
This is the mentality for today's materialist researcher when it comes to "laughing gas." He does not care that it merely cheers folks up. He wants to see what is REALLY going on with the substance, using electrodes and brain scans.
Google founders used to enthuse about the power of free speech, but Google is actively shutting down videos that tell us how to grow mushrooms -- MUSHROOMS, for God's sake. End the drug war and this hateful censorship of a free people.
What are drug dealers doing, after all? They are merely selling substances that people want and have always had a right to, until racist politicians came along and decided government had the right to ration out pain relief and mystical experience.
Any self-respecting mycologist should denounce the criminalization of mushrooms.
Just think how many ayahuasca-like godsends that we are going without because we dogmatically refuse to even look for them, out of our materialist disdain for mixing drugs with drugs.
I don't believe in the materialist paradigm upon which SSRIs were created, according to which humans are interchangeable chemical robots amenable to the same treatment for human sadness. Let me use laughing gas and MDMA and coca and let the materialists use SSRIs.
If Americans cannot handle the truth about drugs, then there is something wrong with Americans, not with drugs.
(up)