n his preface to "Reality Is Not What It Seems," Carlo Rovelli embraces the modern triumphalist myth about science, that it is leading us irreversibly onward to greater and greater truths.
"Scientific thinking," he says, "explores and redraws the world, gradually offering us better and better images of it, teaching us to think in ever more effective ways. Science is a continual exploration of ways of thinking."
In reality, such a statement makes sense only with some enormous qualifications. Science is not really an exploration of ways of thinking: it is an exploration of one particular way of thinking: namely, the rationalist reductionist way of thinking, in which we start with the unstated philosophical assumption that the whole can be understood by studying its parts, and that the smaller that these parts are, the closer we get to "reality" by studying them.
Not only are these premises highly debatable, but they have a body count. They have an impact in the real world.
The scientific reason why I am not allowed to use many godsend medicines is the fact that scientists (and the DEA) claim that no reductionist proof has been found that they "really" work. Sure, I may say that coca helps me feel better and have great endurance. I may point out that HG Wells and Jules Verne reported that Coca Wine helped them to write great stories. I may remind the scientist that the long-lived Peruvian Indians chewed the coca leaf on a daily basis for millennia and considered it divine. But reductionist science places no faith in anecdote and history. They want to know what is going on at the molecular level when a human being ingests coca. Does the drug clearly cause a series of molecular events that can be reliably documented to increase a user's levels of serotonin and other "feel-good hormones"?
In reality, modern scientists are even blinder than this account might imply. Not only do they insist on reductionist proof, but researchers generally write papers to document only abuse and misuse, seldom if ever to document the positive effects of "drugs." That's where the grant money lies after all, in demonizing outlawed substances. That's why we have a National Institute of Drug Abuse rather than a National Institute of Drug Use. The assumption is that psychoactive "drugs" are bad. The scientist's job is simply to prove that statement in a reductionist fashion, complete with PowerPoint presentations and public databases (and above all, a lot of impressive-looking footnotes!), that will convincingly demonstrate that the drug is evil from a scientific point of view as well as an emotional one.
I say that reductionist science places no faith in anecdote and history. But it also places no faith in common sense.
Consider the title of the 2019 article by Dr. Robert Glatter in Forbes magazine in which the reductionist author asks: "Can Laughing Gas Help People with Treatment-resistant Depression?"
What? The Reader's Digest has known for 100 years now that laughter is the best medicine. Laughter has to help the depressed, by definition. And, since we're required to state the obvious here, let me add that laughing helps in two ways, psychologically speaking: first there is the laughter itself, which decreases blood pressure and leads to bodily and psychical relaxation, and second there is the anticipation of upcoming laughter, which also conduces to a relaxed body, for it's a commonplace psychological fact that one's mood improves to the extent that they are "looking forward" to positive episodes in their life. I feel like I'm "talking down" to the reader by stating these obvious truths explicitly, but these are the common-sense facts that reductionists like Glatter completely ignore. Why? Because they are in thrall to the purblind outlook of reductionist science - and, of course, because they're scared to death of violating Drug War sensibilities in this supposedly "free" country of ours.
For this reason, science today is the handmaiden of Drug War ideology. It is not giving us "better and better images" of the world, it is not teaching us to think in more effective ways. It is teaching us rather to "shut up and take our meds." Why? Because our "meds" are created based on reductionist assumptions about human beings, namely that we are interchangeable widgets amenable to the same neurochemical interventions for our psychological complaints. It's not a coincidence of course that this way of thinking dovetails with the need of capitalism to crank out one-size-fits-all cures for things like depression and anxiety. In fact, the wheels of the Dr. Feel Good caravans of the 1800s never stopped rolling: it's just that today the caravans claim to be offering "scientific" cures, a label that awes the crowd and helps them swallow the bitter pill of prohibition.
As for the "scientifically created meds" that are now being doled out like candy, we all know how well they worked out. After 50 years of the psychiatric pill mill for SSRIs, America remains the most depressed nation on earth. The only change is that we are now also the most chemically dependent nation on earth, with 1 in 4 American women now obliged to take these mind-numbing SSRIs every day of their life - all while we outlaw naturally occurring medicines that have inspired entire religions in the past.
Typically when I publish letters like these, I have actually sent a copy of the missive to the party concerned. In some cases, however, the author to whom I'm writing is so firmly ensconced in the ethereal realms of fame that I feel no hope whatsoever in successfully reaching him or her via email, or even via snail mail. Rovelli is one such God. True, a letter of mine may "reach him," technically speaking, but the odds against the recipient (probably his agent) reading more than one line of my letter (and that very quickly) are slim to none. That's why I'm hoping to be famous someday myself so that I too can enjoy the privilege of hastily glancing at the first lines of hundreds of hopeful letters before rejecting them -- or better yet, to watch a good-looking secretary of mine do the same! (By the way, I'm joking here. I point that out for the benefit of the reductive materialists who, I find, sometimes need to be reminded of the obvious.)
Author's Follow-up: June 17, 2023
It's no surprise, of course, that scientists will find reasons why drugs are bad for you, since that's literally all that they are looking for. But even if we grant that a given potential problem exists for a given drug, reductive scientists are still lousy at statistics. They really do believe that one swallow makes a summer. So if they find that there's a potential for, say, about 100 people to misuse a drug, they will fight tooth and nail to keep that drug from hundreds of millions who could profit from it --- just as Michael Pollan wants psychedelics to remain outlawed because an unspecified number of kids might misuse them -- which is very likely, of course, when we teach them to fear drugs rather than to understand them. (Moreover, Michael fails to see that there are millions of other stakeholders in the drug legalization game than young suburban white kids. There are the kids in Mexico who have lost parents due to the anarchy unleashed by prohibition, for instance, the victims of drive-by shootings in the states, etc...)
Another problem with scientists who study drugs is that they're necessarily biased in favor of safety. They seem to be after the holy grail of a drug that cannot be misused by anybody at all -- at least when the drugs we're talking about are controversial and/or outlawed. This is why research on MDMA is so frustrating for them, for they really have to "reach" and conjure with shady one-off findings to badmouth Ecstasy and related empathogenic compounds, which seem to have almost no downsides at all, except those that you'd expect when a user has been taught to fear them rather than to use them safely.
But safety is NOT the primary goal of most people in any case -- unless we're talking about neurotics and compulsive-obsessive types. Self-actualization is the number-one goal of the sane human being in the modern world, becoming (as the old Army slogan had it) all that one can be in life. So the question is not, how "safe" is a drug in the abstract, as the scientist would ask; but rather, are the risks worth the potential benefits for a given unique individual -- and this is not a question that scientists are qualified to answer. They know nothing of the dreams and aspirations of the unique individual who may be using these substances, or of how important a given goal may be to them in the grand scheme of things.
Take me for instance: I feel it's my goal in life to understand as much about reality as I can, and I believe with William James that I have to study psychoactive states as well as normal states in order to advisedly speculate on these ultimate matters. Moreover, I know that the wise use of morphine can give me a surreal appreciation of Mother Nature. I know that opium can induce metaphorical dreams from which the properly predisposed user can benefit. If a scientist wants to opine about a cost/benefit analysis regarding use, he or she would have to know how I feel about life and what I value. That is not their forte and should not be their responsibility.
Of course the ultimate decision on criminalization is made by legislators, but doctors don't help things when they focus on downsides only, never even recognizing the godsend that such medicines would be for the millions upon millions who would be sure to use them wisely -- once we get over the absurd and irresponsible view of the Drug Warrior that it's wrong to tell them how to do precisely that. Only imagine, we scream about drug misuse, and yet it's national policy NOT to teach safe use! This is just more proof that America's (and alas the world's) whole approach to the scapegoat that we call "drugs" is completely incoherent. One can only conclude that this whole brouhaha is about something other than "drugs." Hmm, now what could that be? Maybe, just maybe, it's about controlling thought and suppressing a world view that prioritizes peace and understanding over the wants and needs of the military-industrial complex -- and, of course, ensuring the ongoing re-election of anti-democratic racists by imprisoning as many of their opponents as possible.
Related tweet: June 25, 2023
Doctors should not be regulating mind medicine. They have no training in evaluating the hopes and dreams of humankind. They can tell us about abstract risks, but they can't tell us how a cost/benefit analysis for any given drug should turn out for any particular human being.
The decision to "use" involves a host of presuppositions about: What is the good life? What is the point of life? What is my particular goal in life? Is Mother Nature a goddess or a drug kingpin? Does the government have the right to outlaw Mother Nature? Etc.
Open Letters
Check out the conversations that I have had so far with the movers and shakers in the drug-war game -- or rather that I have TRIED to have. Actually, most of these people have failed to respond to my calls to parlay, but that need not stop you from reading MY side of these would-be chats.
I used to be surprised at this reticence on the part of modern drug-war pundits, until I realized that most of them are materialists. That is, most of them believe in (or claim to believe in) the psychiatric pill mill. If they happen to praise psychedelic drugs as a godsend for the depressed, they will yet tell us that such substances are only for those whose finicky body chemistries fail to respond appropriately to SSRIs and SNRIs. The fact is, however, there are thousands of medicines out there that can help with psychological issues -- and this is based on simple psychological common sense. But materialist scientists ignore common sense. That's why Dr. Robert Glatter wrote an article in Forbes magazine wondering if laughing gas could help the depressed.
As a lifelong depressive, I am embarrassed for Robert, that he has to even ask such a question. Of course laughing gas could help. Not only is laughter "the best medicine," as Readers Digest has told us for years, but looking forward to laughing is beneficial too. But materialist scientists ignore anecdote and history and tell us that THEY will be the judge of psychoactive medicines, thank you very much. And they will NOT judge such medicines by asking folks like myself if they work but rather by looking under a microscope to see if they work in the biochemical way that materialists expect.
Pundits have been sniffing about the "smell" of Detroit lately. Sounds racist -- especially since such comments tend to come from drug warriors, the guys who ruined Detroit in the first place (you know, with drug laws that incentivized profit-seeking violence as a means of escaping poverty).
We need a scheduling system for psychoactive drugs as much as we need a scheduling system for sports activities: i.e. NOT AT ALL. Some sports are VERY dangerous, but we do not outlaw them because we know that there are benefits both to sports and to freedom in general.
Trump supports the drug war and Big Pharma: the two forces that have turned me into a patient for life with dependence-causing antidepressants. Big Pharma makes the pills, and the drug war outlaws all viable alternatives.
Drug warriors are full of hate for "users." Many of them make it clear that they want users to die (like Gates and Bennett...). The drug war has weaponized humanity's worst instincts.
I passed a sign that says "Trust Trump." What does that mean? Trust him to crack down on his opposition using the U.S. Army? Or trust him not to do all the anti-American things that he's saying he's going to do.
Prohibition is wrong root and branch. It seeks to justify the colonial disdain for indigenous healing practices through fearmongering.
It's amazing. Drug law is outlawing science -- and yet so few complain. Drug law tells us what mushrooms we can collect, for God's sake. Is that not straight-up insane? Or are Americans so used to being treated as children that they accept this corrupt status quo?
The Cabinet of Caligari ('62) ends with a shameless display of psychiatric triumphalism. Happy shock therapy patients waltz freely about a mansion in which the "sick" protagonist has just been "cured" by tranquilizers and psychoanalysis. Did Robert Bloch believe his own script?
What bothers me about AI is that everyone's so excited to see what computers can do, while no one's excited to see what the human mind can do, since we refuse to improve it with mind-enhancing drugs.
Had we really wanted to "help" users, we would have used the endless godsends of Mother Nature and related synthetics to provide spirit-lifting alternatives to problem use. But no one wanted to treat users as normal humans. They wanted to pathologize and moralize their use.
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 the Handmaiden of the Drug War: an open letter to physicist Carlo Rovelli, published on June 17, 2023 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)
n his preface to "Reality Is Not What It Seems," Carlo Rovelli embraces the modern triumphalist myth about science, that it is leading us irreversibly onward to greater and greater truths.
You have been reading an article entitled, Why Science is the Handmaiden of the Drug War: an open letter to physicist Carlo Rovelli, published on June 17, 2023 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)