Normally, I would consider it bad form for essayists to tell you that they are "feeling down today." It would be a case of what we used to call TMI as kids: "too much information." But this admission by a drug-war philosopher is highly relevant to his essays given that the lack of motivation referred to has been brought about by drug policy, which outlaws all substances that could help one to transcend this feeling and so be productive in life. This is why I call drug prohibition a meta injustice, because it does far worse than censor you as to what you can talk about: it seeks to limit the amount of passion and zeal that you can devote to your cause as a naysayer against the status quo.
Take me, for instance. There are numerous "behind-the-scenes" steps that I could take to improve the potential indexability of each of my essays. These steps would not take long and I have custom forms that I can, in theory, easily fill out for this purpose. And yet I find it quite hard to follow through. It's kind of like that broken yellow water dish that sits out on my porch under the table on which I place peanuts for my blue jays and cardinals. The plate has been sitting there for months now, and I never think much about it; but when I analyze my failure to act (to pick up the two large ceramic pieces and throw them in a trash bag at long last), I realize that I'm always basically thinking to myself: "Why bother?" I actually like neatness and attention to detail, and yet I have difficulty cleaning up "in real time."
Fortunately, I have long since learned to compensate for this shortcoming by conducting condo clean-up operations on a semi-regular basis on my "good days" while listening to a variety of provocative philosophical screeds on my Bose headset, thereby keeping the morbid reflections at bay. And so, as I tote the garbage bag to the door, I'm no longer thinking, "What's the point of doing this, the bag's just going to fill up again after all!"; instead, I'm thinking to myself: "Where does this so-called philosopher 'get off' concluding that the sober mindset is the nonpareil of unbiased baselines, emotionally speaking!? I'll show him: I'll write an essay about this claptrap this very minute -- or at least after the one-hour timer has sounded, announcing the end of this particular battle in my ongoing war against entropy."
Thanks to these compensatory skills that I have acquired over the years, my place is quite attractive, if I do say so myself. And yet there are so many broken yellow water dishes sitting on the metaphorical porch of my life -- so many steps that could in theory be taken to advance my goals -- were I only allowed the same freedom that everyone had just over 100 years ago, the freedom to control how I take care of my own mind and mood.
Of course, if a psychiatrist were to read these thoughts, they would conclude that I have an addictive personality. From their point of view, I don't need any symptomatic incentives (except maybe for coffee and beer, of course): I need to have my brain chemistry changed once and for all with a one-size-fits-all pill that I will have to take for the rest of my life. Speaking of which, this is one of the most surprising realizations that I have come to over my last seven years of studying American drug attitudes, the fact that healthcare pundits never seem to see any downsides in turning their clientele into patients for life. This is odd, because so many of these pundits preach sermons about the horrors of dependency when it comes to illegal medicines, yet they tout dependency as a positive patient attribute when it comes to Big Pharma meds. They have become so blasé on the subject that the Mayo Clinic does not even mention "dependence" in their write-up of Effexor1, which is surely one of the most dependence-causing drugs in the world2 -- a fact that will never be "scientifically" established, however, in a world in which biopharma pays 75% of The FDA’s drug division budget3.
Key Takeaways:
Drug prohibition outlaws motivation and incentive.
We all have -- or had -- the freedom to take care of our own mind and mood.
Healthcare pundits see no downsides in dependency on Big Pharma meds.
The Partnership for a Death Free America is launching a campaign to celebrate the 50th year of Richard Nixon's War on Drugs. We need to give credit where credit's due for the mass arrest of minorities, the inner city gun violence and the civil wars that it's generated overseas.
To say that taking SSRIs daily is better than using opium daily is a value judgement, not a scientific one.
In a free world, almost all depressed individuals could do WITHOUT doctors: these adult human beings could handle their own depression with the informed intermittent use of a wide variety of psychoactive substances.
When folks die in horse-related accidents, we need to be asking: who sold the victim the horse? We've got to crack down on folks who peddle this junk -- and ban books like Black Beauty that glamorize horse use.
The FDA tells us that MDMA is not safe. This is the same FDA that signs off on Big Pharma drugs whose advertised side effects include death itself.
If America cannot exist without outlawing drugs, then there is something wrong with America, not with drugs.
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.
Daily opium use is no more outrageous than daily antidepressant use. In fact, it's less outrageous. It's a time-honored practice and can be stopped with a little effort and ingenuity, whereas it is almost impossible to get off some antidepressants because they alter brain chemistry.
We deal with "drug" risks differently than any other risk. Aspirin kills thousands every year. The death rate from free climbing is huge. But it's only with "drug use" that we demand zero deaths (a policy which ironically causes far more deaths than necessary).
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.
Normally, I would consider it bad form for essayists to tell you that they are "feeling down today." It would be a case of what we used to call TMI as kids: "too much information." But this admission by a drug-war philosopher is highly relevant to his essays given that the lack of motivation referred to has been brought about by drug policy, which outlaws all substances that could help one to transcend this feeling and so be productive in life. This is why I call drug prohibition a meta injustice, because it does far worse than censor you as to what you can talk about: it seeks to limit the amount of passion and zeal that you can devote to your cause as a naysayer against the status quo. 
(up)