he field of psychology today is a joke insofar as it ignores common sense in order to toe the Drug War party line that "drugs" can have no positive uses whatsoever. Of course, this position is never stated explicitly by modern psychologists, but it is implicit in their lack of interest in demonized drugs, except in papers that focus exclusively on the presumed pathology behind their use.
This indifference may seem to be changing today, as academia begins to wrap its collective head around the fact that entheogens1 like psilocybin2 and MDMA3 do, indeed, seem to help people cope with life and to see themselves more objectively, etc. Yet there is a basic idiocy in modern psychology that remains thanks to the stubbornness of materialist doctrine, which refuses to recognize psychological common sense in considering the potential use of a wide variety of drugs, and not just the psychedelics that are now stealing the show when it comes to psychological healing on the national stage. For the simple truth is that any drug that makes a person feel good and/or increases brain function can have a positive effect in therapy for the confused and the depressed, for the once-obvious reason that people enjoy both feeling good and looking forward to feeling good. Hence it follows that the wisely scheduled use of mood-elevating drugs can create a virtuous circle in which the user is empowered to successfully pursue their goals in life (as opposed to the goals of society and/or their therapist).
Nor does this "use" need to be addictive, except in the fretful mind of the Drug Warrior, who falsely tells us that any "feel good" drug will be addictive. This is not true, of course, and least of all for the category of drugs known as entheogens, for which "cravings," at least in the pejorative sense of that term, are virtually unknown. Moreover, in a world without the Drug War, the variety of "feel good" drugs available would skyrocket, making it easy to produce a virtuous psychological circle without establishing physical dependency. (See, in particular, the hundreds of inspirational phenethylamines synthesized by Alexander Shulgin.4) Finally, it used to be common sense that the use of ANY drug is preferable to suicide. If this is so (and it surely is), then it is wrong even to deny opium and cocaine to the suffering, if that is the only thing that "works" for them (again, according to the USER's definition of that term).
I am picking on psychology here, but it is our entire society that is blind to the value of drugs. Science in general is blind. That's why magazines like Science News continue to plump for shock therapy for the depressed5. They refuse to even acknowledge the existence of outlawed drugs and so feel no need to consider how they might work in making shock therapy unnecessary. They are 100% behind technical manipulation of the human brain, but they refuse to even talk about using the plant medicines that grow at our very feet. As mentioned above, this is beginning to change when it comes to entheogens, but the simple fact that coca and opium could be helpful to the suffering is beyond the brainwashed imaginations of scientists at this point and the editors who publish their work. They have all been told since grade school that it is their patriotic duty to be hysterical about drugs rather than to find good uses for them.
This is probably a good place to remind the brainwashed scientists why they are wrong on this topic even on their own scientific terms. For the Drug War is based on the following anti-scientific lie:
That a drug that can be misused by white teenagers at one dose in one situation must not be used by anybody in the world at any dose in any situation.
That attitude is not simply anti-scientific, but it is selfish and inhumane as well.
So while prohibitionists like Bill Clinton are patting themselves on the back for supposedly saving their irresponsible brothers from addiction, they should be apologizing to the hospice kids in India for insisting that they suffer unnecessarily. Speaking of which, it is depressing that a Rhodes Scholar like the former president believes that it is best to lie to Americans about drugs and that the human mind can never learn to use such substances wisely6. It goes a long way toward quelling my IQ envy, when I see folks who should know better espousing such anti-intellectual and obscurantist policies. This is what happens, though, when you ignore common sense: like the fact that it is wrong on so many levels to outlaw the godsends of Mother Nature - and that all perceived "benefits" from doing so are sure to be paid for in blood and suffering, even if it be by strangers in inner cities or overseas.
P.S.
When I write essays like the above, I am always asking myself how a brainwashed reader might react. In this case, I envision them saying: "Yes, that's all well and good, but legalization would lead to anarchy."
My response: Assuming that you are correct, why is this so? I will tell you why. It's because Americans have been taught to scream and holler about drugs. The media believes it is their job to parley any negative drug event into a lurid narrative against drugs. The natural result of this attitude is that we are always being reminded of the lie that drugs are inherently evil. It's as if the media were focusing on the lurid details of car crashes with the goal of getting cars outlawed.
The result: we only see the evil side of drug use, so we crack down some more, creating more bad outcomes for the media and politicians to exploit in lurid detail, and so the beat goes on: the deadly Drug War continues, causing civil wars overseas and leaving inner cities in bullet-riddled shambles7.
Frankly, people need to just plain shut the heck up about drugs. It should be illegal, in fact, to blame drugs for anything, since it is social policy and laws like prohibition that make drugs dangerous, not drugs themselves. No drug is dangerous in and of itself. Not PCP, not ICE, not crack cocaine, not Fentanyl8. Even cyanide has positive uses9. To blame drugs for negative outcomes is simply a modern superstition. Americans love to arrange their world in such a way that there is one cause, one single "whipping boy," for all their problems. But the world is far more complicated than that and when you think otherwise, you end up with laws that make things far worse.
In 1913, Americans used opium peaceably in their homes; in 1915, they were suddenly turned into addicts. The drug did not change, only the laws.
Kids should be taught beginning in grade school that prohibition is wrong.
Until prohibition ends, rehab is all about enforcing a Christian Science attitude toward psychoactive medicines (with the occasional hypocritical exception of Big Pharma meds).
In a free future, newspapers will have philosophers on their staffs to ensure that said papers are not inciting consequence-riddled hysteria through a biased coverage of drug-related mishaps.
Prohibition is wrong root and branch. It seeks to justify the colonial disdain for indigenous healing practices through fearmongering.
The Drug War brought guns to the "hoods," thereby
incentivizing violence in the name of enormous profits. Any site featuring victims of gun violence should therefore be rebranded as a site featuring victims of the drug war. Otherwise, many people don't make the connection.
It's funny to hear fans of sacred plants indignantly insisting that their meds are not "drugs." They're right in a way, but actually NO substances are "drugs." Calling substances "drugs" is like referring to striking workers as "scabs." It's biased terminology.
Don't the Oregon prohibitionists realize that all the thousands of deaths from opiates is so much blood on their hands?
Opium could be a godsend for talk therapy. It can help the user step outside themselves and view their problems from novel viewpoints.
Psychedelic retreats tell us how scientific they are. But science is the problem. Science today insists that we ignore all obvious benefits of drugs. It's even illegal to suggest that psilocybin has health benefits: that's "unproven" according to the Dr. Spocks of science.
A Pennsylvanian politician now wants the US Army to "fight fentanyl." The guy is anthropomorphizing a damn drug! No wonder pols don't want to spend money on education, because any educated country would laugh a superstitious guy like that right out of public office.
Buy the Drug War Comic Book by the Drug War Philosopher Brian Quass, featuring 150 hilarious op-ed pics about America's disgraceful war on Americans
You have been reading an article entitled, Why science is a joke in the age of the drug war published on June 11, 2024 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
he field of psychology today is a joke insofar as it ignores common sense in order to toe the Drug War party line that "drugs" can have no positive uses whatsoever. Of course, this position is never stated explicitly by modern psychologists, but it is implicit in their lack of interest in demonized drugs, except in papers that focus exclusively on the presumed pathology behind their use.
You have been reading an article entitled, Why science is a joke in the age of the drug war published on June 11, 2024 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
