As I was adding my Drug War Comic Book to Kindle marketplace today, I was prompted for a category. Naturally, I looked for a category about the Drug War, since my book is all about that abominable Christian Science war on psychoactive medicine. Much to my surprise, however, there were no such categories proposed. There were categories about LGBT rights, pornography, and feminism, but nothing about the Drug War.
You do realize what this means, don't you? It means that America takes the Drug War status quo as a sort of natural baseline. Drug War assumptions have become so mainstream that their downsides are invisible to us. It's just life. We now consider it natural that we should have to urinate in order to qualify for a job and that we can be sentenced to life in prison for possessing plant medicines that were considered godsends by other cultures for thousands of years.
This is no surprise, however. Scientific authors have been doing the same thing for the past five decades. They write apparently authoritative articles on subjects like the supposed intractability of depression, never once mentioning the fact that outlawed plant medicines have the potential of working near miracles for the chronically depressed. Meanwhile self-help authors fell whole forests worth of trees to publish their five- six- or ten-step plans to happiness, remaining absolutely silent about the ability of properly administered plant medicine to help us work through the mental cobwebs and the vicious circular mental prisons that we build for ourselves.
Why? Because the western world has been duped by bigoted politicians into demonizing plant medicines instead of learning to live with them safely and benefit from their wise use.
It's a category error to say that scientists can tell us if psychoactive drugs "really work." It's like asking Dr. Spock of Star Trek if hugging "really works." ("Hugging is highly illogical, Captain.")
I hated the show "The Apprentice," because it taught a cynical and hate-filled lesson about the proper way to "get ahead" in the world. I saw Trump as a menace back then, long before he started declaring that American elections were corrupt before the very first vote was cast!
After watching my mother suffer because of the drug war, I hate to hear people tell me that the problem is drugs. WRONG! That's a western colonialist viewpoint. God loved his creation (see Genesis). He did not make trash. We need to use entheogenic medicines wisely.
Today's drug laws tell us that we must respect the historical use of sacred medicines, while denying us our personal right to use them unless our ancestors did so. That's a meta-injustice! It negatively affects the way that we are allowed to experience our world!
America never ended prohibition. It just redirected prohibition from alcohol to all of alcohol's competitors.
I know. I'm on SNRIs. But SSRIs and SNRIs are both made with materialist presumptions in mind: that the best way to change people is with a surgical strike at one-size-fits-all chemistry. That's the opposite of the shamanic holism that I favor.
The drug war outlaws everything that could help both prevent addiction and treat it. And then they justify the war on drugs by scaring people with the specter of addiction. They NEED addiction to keep the drug war going.
That's so "drug war" of Rick: If a psychoactive substance has a bad use at some dose, for somebody, then it must not be used at any dose by anybody. It's hard to imagine a less scientific proposition, or one more likely to lead to unnecessary suffering.
Folks point to the seemingly endless drugs that can be synthesized today and say it's a reason for prohibition. To the contrary, it's the reason why prohibition is madness. It results in an endless game of militaristic whack-a-mole at the expense of democratic freedoms.
I've been told by many that I should have seen "my doctor" before withdrawing from Effexor. But, A) My doctor got me hooked on the junk in the first place, and, B) That doctor completely ignores the OBVIOUS benefits of indigenous meds and focuses only on theoretical downsides.
(up)