"The psychic effect of cocainum muriaticum in doses of 0.05-0.10 grams consists in a general raising of the spirits and constant euphoria, which differs in no way from the normal euphoria of healthy human beings.... One feels an increase in self-control, and feels revitalised and better able to work...."
When we judge (or rather demonize) drugs in this way, we are judging far more than drugs. If we say, for instance, that cocaine should be illegal, we are tacitly also pronouncing on the importance of having a focused and cheerful mindset, on the propriety of living life like Sherlock Holmes or Robin Williams. We are saying, in effect, that such ways of "being in the world" are not as important as 100% safety. We are saying, to be specific, that solving my depression is not as important as 100% safety for all parties who are even remotely concerned. This is easy for scientists and moralists to say, because they have no skin in this game. They are like a landlubber calling for the outlawing of boat racing. They therefore feel free to run roughshod over the rights to godsend healthcare for the depressed. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only depressed person in the world who recognizes this fact, however, this failure on the part of the mainstream to honor me as a stakeholder in the drug legislation game. Otherwise, every self-help group for the depressed would be demanding the end of this drug prohibition which refuses to consider the depressed as stakeholders in our government's drug-related policy decisions. And yet almost all such groups have been bamboozled into viewing drugs as a problem, not as an answer. "The White Man goes into his church house and talks about Jesus, but the Indian goes into his tipi and talks to Jesus."
We might paraphrase Parker's observation as follows:"The westerner goes into their local library and reads self-help books about feeling great; the free individual uses the world's many godsend medicines to actually feel great."
"My impression has been that the use of cocaine over a long time can bring about lasting improvement..." --Sigmund Freud, On Cocaine, 1884
"The White Man goes into his church house and talks about Jesus, but the Indian goes into his tipi and talks to Jesus." 9
"The White Man goes to an expensive psychoanalyst to find out WHY he feels lousy -- the Native American uses Mother Nature's medicines so that he no longer feels lousy."
Unfortunately, the American chemist seems to have considered the testimony of such users as merely one input in determining what drugs might help the depressed. He felt that any true antidepressant had to be a one-size-fits-all pill that will affect different people in more or less identical ways. This approach was certainly in Shulgin's financial interests given his work for pharmaceutical companies. However, had Shulgin risen above his own self-interest, he would have seen that the testimony of the drug users is EVERYTHING. We need to trust them to tell us what works for THEM -- and in which particular circumstances it works. In other words, we have to embrace all the unique variables of drug use that the Drug Warrior completely ignores! Only in this way can we find out what works for whom and under which circumstances. Freud had the right idea: He noticed that cocaine use actually ended depression in his patients. Unfortunately, he was ambitious and was more interested in making a name for himself than in pushing back against the statistically challenged fear mongering of prohibitionists.
"My impression has been that the use of cocaine over a long time can bring about lasting improvement..." --Sigmund Freud, On Cocaine
In "Psychedelic Refugee," Rosemary Leary writes:
"Fueled by small doses of LSD, almost everything was amusing or weird." -- Rosemary Leary
In a non-brainwashed world, such testimony would suggest obvious ways to help the depressed.
So he writes about the mindset of the deeply depressed, reifying the condition as if it were some great "type" inevitably to be encountered in humanity. No. It's the "type" to be found in a post-Christian society that has turned up its scientific nose at psychoactive medicine.
"Judging" psychoactive drugs is hard. Dosage counts. Expectations count. Setting counts. In Harvey Rosenfeld's book about the Spanish-American War, a volunteer wrote of his visit to an "opium den": "I took about four puffs and that was enough. All of us were sick for a week."
Here's the first step in the FDA process for evaluating a psychoactive drug:
Ignore all glaringly obvious benefits
National Geo published an article entitled "Coca: a Blessing and a Curse." Coca was never a curse. Most people used it wisely, just as most people drink wisely. Doctors demonized it because it really worked and it could put them out of business. https://abolishthedea.com/sigmund_freuds_real_breakthrough_was_not_psychoanalysis.php
If anyone manages to die during an ayahuasca ceremony, it is considered a knockdown argument against "drugs." If anyone dies during a hunting club get-together, it is considered the victim's own damn fault. The Drug War is the triumph of hypocritical idiocy.
America never ended prohibition. It just redirected prohibition from alcohol to all of alcohol's competitors.
The drug war tells us that certain drugs have no potential uses and then turns that into a self-fulfilling prophecy by outlawing these drugs. This is insanely anti-scientific and anti-progress. We should never give up on looking for positive uses for ANY substance.
The DEA conceives of "drugs" as only justifiable in some time-honored ritual format, but since when are bureaucrats experts on religion? I believe, with the Vedic people and William James, in the importance of altered states. To outlaw such states is to outlaw my religion.
A lot of drug use represents an understandable attempt to fend off performance anxiety. Performers can lose their livelihood if they become too self-conscious. We only call such use "recreational" because we are oblivious to the common-sense psychology.
