I get either depressed or angry (and often both) when focusing on the philosophical absurdity of substance prohibition, so I have decided to take a break from that irritating topic for a few minutes and to write a short essay instead on the philosophy of psychedelic drug effects. To be specific, I wish to address the question of why the world seems so new and surprising to those who are under the influence of such medicines. This has, I suggest, everything to do with Immanuel Kant 1 's categories and the forms of Socrates.
With apologies to John Locke, our minds are clearly not blank slates (tabla rasas) when we arrive in the world, or if they are, they do not remain so for long. Consider how the merest 2- or 3-year-old is aware that any dog is a dog -- despite the fact that dogs vary so wildly in attributes. In fact, a toddler will understand that a two-dimensional rendering of a dog is a dog. We clearly see the world via rule-based understandings, based on preexisting categories or forms. Otherwise, a child would have to have his or her concept of "dog" updated by adults time and time again after encountering diverse examples of the species. And so the parent has no need to say things like: "See, honey? That schnauzer is just as much a dog as that Great Dane!" Or, "See, honey? These lines on this paper are what we call a 2-D rendering of the dog that we can also see in real life!" The parents can save their breath. The kids already know that a dog is a dog is a dog. They know thanks to their possession of a built-in rule-book on this topic.
We can hypothesize then that at least some of the seemingly bizarre experiences of a psychedelic voyage result from the sudden abeyance of such rules. Under the influence of the drug, we are no longer constrained to see that pile of fur as a dog -- but rather as a carpet or as jungle foliage or as oscillating tendrils of some great sea monster. In short, we are constrained -- or rather freed -- to think creatively in our drugged state whereas we are constrained to think practically -- i.e., with a utilitarian 234 focus -- in a so-called "sober" state.
"Abuse" is a funny term because it implies that there's a right way to use "drugs," which is something that the drug warriors deny. To the contrary, they make the anti-scientific claim that "drugs" are not good for anybody for any reason at any dose.
Scientists are responsible for endless incarcerations in America. Why? Because they fail to denounce the DEA lie that psychoactive substances have no positive medical uses. This is so obviously wrong that only an academic in an Ivory Tower could believe it.
I don't have a problem with CBD. But I find that many people like it for the wrong reasons: they assume there is something slightly "dirty" about getting high and that all "cures" should be effected via direct materialist causes, not holistically a la time-honored tribal use.
Q: Where can you find almost-verbatim copies of the descriptions of religious experiences described by William James? A: In descriptions of user reports of "trips" on drugs ranging from coca to opium, from MDMA to laughing gas.
Meanwhile, no imaginable downside could persuade westerners that guns and alcohol were too dangerous. Yet the DEA lies about almost all psychoactive drugs, saying there are no good uses. That's a lie! Then they pass laws that keep us from disproving their puritanical conclusion.
Suicidal people should be given drugs that cheer them up immediately and whose use they can look forward to. The truth is, we would rather such people die than to give them such drugs, that's just how bamboozled we are by the war against drugs.
No drug causes addiction after one use. From this fact alone, it follows that even drugs like meth and crack and Fentanyl can be used wisely -- on an intermittent basis.
Champions of indigenous medicines claim that their medicines are not "drugs." But they miss the bigger point: that there are NO drugs in the sense that drug warriors use that term. There are no drugs that have no positive uses whatsoever.
The Petpedia website says that "German Shepherds need to have challenging jobs such as searching for drugs." How about searching for prohibitionists instead?
Drug warriors do not want to end "addiction": it's their golden goose. They use the threat of addiction to scare us into giving up our democratic freedoms, like that once supplied by the 4th amendment.
(up)