the lopsided concern for ignorant young people in the re-legalization debate
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
December 17, 2022
The Michael Pollan Fallacy: "The advocacy of substance prohibition based on a failure to recognize all the stakeholders in the drug approval process, especially a lopsided concern for the well-being of the ignorant young people of one's own nationality."
I've hitherto refrained from pointing this out, because Michael Pollan seems like a genuinely good guy, not to mention the fact that he is a writer who is many orders of magnitude in advance of my own feeble achievements. But the fact is that I find it irritating for any writer to use psychoactive substances themselves while yet telling us that we must keep these substances illegal for the masses. (See page 405 of the hardback edition of "How to Change Your Mind," in which Pollan writes: "Does that mean I think these drugs should be legalized? Not exactly.") It smacks of hypocrisy and elitism, saying in effect, "I am, of course, intelligent enough to use these substances wisely, but the average Jane and Joe will never be able to do so." And this is, in fact, the pernicious party line of the Drug Warrior, who is constantly telling us by implication that the average human being will always be a gullible baby when it comes to psychoactive medicine -- which, of course, is a self-fulfilling prophecy, since the government is officially pledged to the goal of scaring us about such medicines, not teaching us about them, let alone telling us how to use them as wisely as possible for our psychological benefit should we choose to partake.
And so Michael says, in effect, "not so fast," failing to realize that some of us -- myself included -- have now waited an entire lifetime to have their birthright of Mother Nature's bounty re-legalized for their free use and yet the progress toward this common-sense goal has been glacial in the best of times.
And why is this so? It's so because writers like Michael fail to realize that in protecting a minority of the ignorant through prohibition, he is thereby reducing millions of folks like myself to a life of unnecessary suffering with depression, to say nothing of the millions who (like Paul Stamets) might have undergone uplifting epiphanies had they been treated with psychedelics rather than with Big Pharma 's dependence-causing medicines which turn the user into a demoralized ward of the healthcare state. Which brings me to another point. Writers like Pollan take no account of the fact that the status quo itself is harmful to the health of Americans, and that whatever problems arise from legalization , they would be dwarfed by the fact that 1 in 4 Americans are currently taking some kind of Big Pharma 12 med every day of their life, a treatment that they might have gone without were Mother Nature not off limits. That's a world of real-life socially sanctioned addicts, and yet all Michael worries about viz. legalization 3 are relatively rare POTENTIAL victims of psychedelic misuse. He seems to think that criminalization will do the least overall harm, but this is only because the victims of criminalization are invisible to him. Why? Because they're living what Thoreau called "lives of quiet desperation," and such downsides will never show up on the front pages of tabloids or be ballyhooed on the ratings-conscious nightly news as a national tragedy demanding instant legislative attention.
Moreover, if Michael were really worried about young people, he'd be concerned about the thousands of young Mexicans who have lost parents thanks to the War on Drugs. But somehow the downsides of the Drug War never factor into our views of drugs as long as their consequences are felt overseas or in American inner cities.
Finally, if any one class of Americans should find it absurd to criminalize Mother Nature's bounty, surely it should be botanists. Surely, they, at least, should see such criminalization as a clear violation of the natural law upon which Jefferson founded America and a clear and absurd violation of our rights as denizens of Planet Earth. Instead, folks like Michael, admittedly after a lifetime on the receiving end of Drug War propaganda (a life in which they never encountered positive references to psychoactive substances, neither in the press, academia, nor in TV and movies 45 ) tell us that we still have to wait until some unspecified date to re-legalize mushrooms of all things -- mushrooms! And no doubt many selfish American parents would praise him for his go-slow approach ("kill 100,000 in Mexico if you have to, just protect little Johnny here at home!") -- but the billions of silent mental sufferers will not praise you, Michael, nor will the victims of Alzheimer's 6 and autism, whose diseases remain incurable due in part to the fact that we have outlawed, and thus discouraged research on, precisely those kinds of drugs that have been shown to grow new neurons and neural pathways in the brain!
Author's Follow-up: January 5, 2023
Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans have been killed by the psychoactive drug known as sugar over the last few years, mostly consumed in the form of Coca-Cola. Not a word from America's substance-demonizing politicians. QED: the DRUG WAR is bald-faced hypocrisy and the political posturing of racist demagogues -- and otherwise intelligent Americans who have been brainwashed by Drug War censorship into believing that poor little uneducated "junior" is the only stakeholder in the drug approval process. Re-legalize now. And use those billions you've been spending on law enforcement to teach -- rather than to ruin people's lives in a divisive campaign to militarize the world and Nazify the English language with hateful, slanderous and unscientific newspeak like "dope," "junk," and "scumbag."
The Hindu religion was created thanks to the use of a drug that inspired and elated. It is therefore a crime against religious liberty to outlaw substances that inspire and elate.
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.
Morphine can provide a vivid appreciation of mother nature in properly disposed minds. That should be seen as a benefit. Instead, dogma tells us that we must hate morphine for any use.
Oregon's drug policy is incoherent and cruel. The rich and healthy spend $4,000 a week on psilocybin. The poor and chemically dependent are thrown in jail, unless they're on SSRIs, in which case they're congratulated for "taking their meds."
Many psychedelic fans are still drug warriors at heart. They just think that a nice big exception should be carved out for the drugs that they're suddenly finding useful. Wrong. Substance demonization is wrong, root and branch. It always causes more suffering than freedom.
The term "drugs" is no more objective than the term "scabs." Both are meant to defame the things that they connote.
My approach to withdrawal: incrementally reduce daily doses over 6 months, or even a year, meanwhile using all the legal entheogens and psychedelics that you can find in a way likely to boost your endurance and "sense of purpose" to make withdrawal successful.
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.
Materialist scientists are drug war collaborators. They are more than happy to have their fight against idealism rigged by drug law, which outlaws precisely those substances whose use serves to cast their materialism into question.
The Drug War has turned America into the world's first "Indignocracy," where our most basic rights can be vetoed by a misinformed public. That's how scheming racist politicians put an end to the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.
The Hindu religion was created thanks to the use of a drug that inspired and elated. It is therefore a crime against religious liberty to outlaw substances that inspire and elate.
