The following is in response to today's Tweet by DA Brooke Jenkins calling for a crackdown on "rampant" drug dealing in open air markets. Does she not realize that America has already cracked down to the point that our nation is little more than a penal colony in the eyes of the world? Gee, thanks, prohibition. It's sad to see such a young and apparently bright individual believing so thoroughly in such a hateful policy, one that has ruined the lives of millions of poor people around the globe by entrapment: tempting them with fantastic sums and then turning around and arresting them for taking advantage of the opportunity: the opportunity that prohibition itself has foisted upon them. It's sad to see her supporting a policy that has destroyed the rule of law in Latin America and turned America's inner cities into shooting galleries.
Dear Ms. Jenkins:
I was saddened to see a Tweet in which you announced your determination to crack down on open air drug markets. Do you not realize that these markets are a direct result of prohibition? There was no opioid crisis when opium 1 was legal. People used the drug peaceably in their homes.
It is mindblowing to me that prohibitionists keep blaming "drugs" for the problems that prohibition itself is causing. It is a vicious circle that will never end until responsible people like yourself stop this tail chasing and shout: "Hey, wait, a minute folks, this policy is just not working!!!"
We do not need prohibition, we need RE-legalization 2 of Mother Nature. We do not need incarceration 3 , we need education.
Why does no one talk about empathogens for preventing atrocities? Because they'd rather hate drugs than use them for the benefit of humanity. They don't want to solve problems, they prefer hatred.
The drug war is a scare campaign to teach us to distrust mother nature and to rely on pharmaceuticals instead.
The "acceptable risk" for psychoactive drugs can only be decided by the user, based on what they prioritize in life. Science just assumes that all users should want to live forever, self-fulfilled or not.
Musk vies with his fellow materialists in his attempt to diss humans as insignificant. But we are not insignificant. The very term "insignificant" is a human creation. Consciousness rules. Indeed, consciousness makes the rules. Without us, there would only be inchoate particles.
I can think of no greater intrusion than to deny a person autonomy over how they think and feel in life. It is sort of a meta-intrusion, the mother of all anti-democratic intrusions.
Before anyone receives shock therapy -- or the right to assisted suicide -- they should have the option to start using opium or cocaine daily -- in fact, any drug that makes them feel that life is worth living again.
Outlawing drugs is outlawing obvious therapies for Alzheimer's and autism patients, therapies based on common sense and not on the passion-free behaviorism of modern scientists.
That's the problem with prohibition. It is not ultimately a health question but a question about priorities and sensibilities -- and those topics are open to lively debate and should not be the province of science, especially when natural law itself says mother nature is ours.
What bothers me about AI is that everyone's so excited to see what computers can do, while no one's excited to see what the human mind can do, since we refuse to improve it with mind-enhancing drugs.
Malcolm X sensed an important truth about drugs: the fact that it was always a self-interested category error for Americans to place medical doctors in charge of mind and mood medicine.
(up)