time for the U.S. government to realize that the "war on drugs" is an
abysmal failure that has produced a large social class that depends for its
income on the restrictive polices, such as prison guards and DEA officers. Perhaps the only way to change course is to
assure these classes that depend on official "drug money" that they
will have jobs, but jobs related to treatment of drug addiction as an illness,
not a crime.
of speaking uses the paradigm of the prohibitionists and the expressions of the
prohibitionists. Such inadvertent
conceptual acquiescence plays right into the prohibitionist scheme. I would never say simply "The drug war
is a failure", because that totally misses the point. The drug war is a great success at its
actual, covert goals.
point that now must be hammered into the heads of the reformers is that the
drug war is *fake*. It claims to have
one goal, but it actually has an entirely different set of goals. It is, most of all, dishonest -- it's a
*racket* that has *never* had anything at all to do with reducing drug
use. It was never intended to work
towards its stated goal.
One of the
actual goals of prohibition is to dramatically increase drug use, to make the
whole system profitable. Drug-policy
reformers, being all too much the ordinary propagandized obedient teevee
viewers they are, are too stupid and gullible -- or, more accurately, conceptually
brainwashed -- to grasp this obvious fact, unless it is hammered repeatedly
into their thinking. Reading a stack of
Jonathan Ott and Dan Russell books, and Drug Warriors & Their Prey, is the
only hope. Every reformer should be
required to read these books, along with whatever other information sources
they want to use.
There is a
paradigm war here, and reformers *think* they are in a different paradigm than
prohibitionists, *but they're not*. The
concept "the drug war is a failure" *is* the prohibitionists'
paradigm. The concept "addition is
an illness, not a crime" *is* the prohibitionists' paradigm; it's merely a
conventional objection that can never kill the fetid heart of the beast, the
sham "drug war".
reformers are utterly doomed to failure until they adopt a *truly* different
paradigm, and truly break out of the paradigm fastened over their head by the
prohibitionist paradigm. It's like Ken
Wilber's idea of inferior religion as being mere "translation" --
moving furniture about -- versus superior religion as profound
*transformation*. The ordinary
"drug problem" battling is conducted within a single uniform
paradigm, "the drug war and those who are against it". But reformers have only one hope of winning:
by providing a truly alternative paradigm.
are living in delusion, blindly believing that the drug war intends to reduce
drug use, and that the drug war is about addiction or illness. The drug war has *nothing at all* to do with
reducing drug use and it never has. The
drug war has *nothing at all* to do with addiction or illness and it never
has. It is only about money and power,
and always has been. The only real way
to wake up and get others to wake up to reality, the reality of power and
propaganda, is *follow the money* within the prohibitionist camp.
The war on
drugs is a failure? I would never say
that. It is a vicious, evil lie -- now
we're getting warmer. Reformers need to
develop more of a sense of intentional evil.
is an illness, not a crime? I would
never utter that conventional platitude that totally distorts what the drug war
is *all about*. The drug war has
nothing to do with addiction, nothing to do with illness, and nothing to do
with crime. It's a racket on the part
of the prohibitionists, and that's all it has ever been, and this dragon can
only be killed as what it is, not as what it is not.
two kinds of reformers: the conceptual compromisers, and the extremists who
only want to tell it straight. We need
more people to do the latter to the extreme, because the former are too often
oblivious to it. Part of the extreme
straight-talking approach is to emphasize that drugs are, among other things,
the holiest sacrament and the living flesh of Christ, the main vehicle of the
Holy Spirit of Truth. Now we are
can the reformers achieve while wearing a bag of ignorance over their
head? Their efforts may randomly
occasionally pay off; they may occasionally make profit-raking slightly less
convenient for the amoral prohibitionist profiteers. The prohibitionists are worried enough to feel they need to
invest in $3.2 million of propaganda during the Super Bowl to keep the sheep
hypnotized into shallow, emotion-driven, knee-jerk support for the
sheep include the typical drug-policy reformers, who will refute the
prohibitionists using the conceptual world and paradigm of the prohibitionists,
thinking that they are providing an alternative view. There are alternatives, and there are *alternatives*. Status-quo drug-policy reform is succeeding
so little and so slowly as to be a failure.
We need to, for once, see and speak the truth, rather than the usual approach
reformers should *know* the truth, even if they continue trying
counterpropaganda (the use of distortion and double-talk to fight distortion
and double-talk) as a strategy.
Counterpropaganda has made only slow, halting progress; I don't see it
breaking through, only lessening the pain so as to prevent the problem from
ending. The only way to *end*
prohibition, rather than merely mitigating it, is to reveal the evil, the
willful commitment to lying and suppressing the truth, that is its foul,
motivating heart and soul.
dance plays on and on without any real improvement --
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews . Most
of all, I notice the same expressions and phrases being used over the
years. The conceptual artillery of the
reformers is stagnant and narrow. They
would do better by being thoroughly educated about the entheogen theory of the
origin of religion -- read the books by Jonathan Ott, read Dan Russell (
http://www.drugwar.com ), read Dan Merkur (
http://www.promind.com/bk_mym.htm ), read Clark Heinrich ( Strange Fruit,
though out of print, is available at http://www.promind.com/bk_stf.htm ) and
James Arthur ( http://jamesarthur.net ).
All of these books are available at Mind Books -- http://www.promind.com/conts.htm
favorite group of books, a needed addition to the more common coverage of
20th-century drug use and policy, is about the history of entheogen use at the
roots of religion -- http://www.promind.com/conts.htm#E . This more complete education about drugs,
religion, and government, provides a greater range of thinking and
expressions. Reformers need a more
general education with a special emphasis on drugs, religion, and history. A teevee education produces only a
teevee-quality drug-policy reform movement by limiting our conceptual
vocabulary. The last thing the
prohibitionists want is historical thinking, knowledge about the history of
I have the
following book, haven't read it, and don't know if it's prohibitionist, but
it's the kind of follow-the-money investigation, especially of "U.S.
interests", that needs to be done by drug-policy reformers. Drug Politics: Dirty Money and Democracies,
by David C. Jordan. 1999. "the drug trade depends on state
cooperation and compliance to sustain multibillion-dollar levels of illicit
global commerce." http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0806131748 But again, beware of the value system and
assumptions this author makes about what drugs are really all about and what
goals we really have and could have for drugs -- for that critical aspect, rely
on Jonathan Ott's books, such as his book The Age of Entheogens, The
Pharmacratic Inquisition, and The Entheogenic Reformation.
how tall a stack of books you read like Drug War Addiction: Notes from the
Front Lines of America's #1 Policy Disaster, by Sheriff Bill Masters (
http://www.accuratepress.net/dwa.html ), something evil still lurks, giving off
as many foul fumes as ever: the disparagement of drugs, an error which from the
start is an upside-down attitude, framing sacraments as mere poisons. Such error encourages the drug war to be put
back into place, in one guise or another, just as soon as it is dismissed.
black man was a problem, so he was publically persecuted. After such blatant persecution became
unacceptable, he was covertly persecuted, put away in jail in the name of
"the drug problem" where he is of more use (under forced labor) to
the ruling powers than if he were dead -- it's more efficient racism,
persecution-for-profit that produces jobs for the designated good guys. The latter scenario is like the supposed
great victory offered by today's drug-policy reformers, who say they have a
better way to deal with the devil of drugs.
If we keep framing drugs as the devil, along with the real devil which
is prohibition, then people will keep treating drugs as the devil one way or
thing to change, then, is to stop demonizing drugs. The surest way to not demonize drugs is to honor and respect
them, a model offered most clearly by psychedelics used as entheogenic
sacraments. Let us also put the opium
pod on its deserved place on a pedestal, because opium and cannabis are the
greatest medical drugs -- read Jonathan Ott, Dan Russell (Drug War), and
possibly Antonio Escohotado (Brief History of Drugs) on this point. Opium and cannabis are *so* effective, they
certainly are a competitive "threat" -- or an effective complement --
to other, patented drugs.
genuinely positive book to at least be aware of as a demonstration of the
breadth of eternal entheogen use in religion all around the globe is Richard
Schultes and Albert Hofmann -- Plants of the Gods: Their Sacred Healing and
think often about the clear perspective offered by the book A Brief History of
Drugs -- http://www.promind.com/bk_bhd.htm -- "Story of psychoactive
materials: prehistory, Greek, Roman, witchcraft, new world plants, start of
real medicine; then modern history: prohibition, new drugs, the psychedelic
revolution, the drug war, and the present situation. Says drugs have been used
by most societies, and made important contributions." More info:
dubious cliché to say that religious experience is worthless unless it produces
a lasting change of one's conduct and mode of life. Whether or not the value of religious experience depends on
anything outside itself is debatable, but I would suggest that the best kind of
"changed life" now should be activism to truly end the bunk, sham,
fake, pretend "war on drugs" racket, and honor psychoactive drugs,
effectively integrating them into the life of humanity. This is the simplest way to differentiate
drug-policy reformers into two camps with two opposite paradigms: those who disparage
drugs, and thus support prohibition; and those who honor them, providing the
only true alternative to prohibition.
mentioned Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State -- an
excellent, *most* jarring book, needed to shake reformers out of complacent
assumptions that prohibitionists are merely well-meaning but
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275950425 -- Drug Warriors and
Their Prey, by Richard Lawrence Miller, April 1996. "One of the most powerful books that you will ever
read." -- a reader.
or conclusions following from the above:
1. If the
so-called drug problem went away, the prohibitionist leaders would hasten to
put it back into place as quickly as possible.
2. What so
jarred and shook me about the cliché tepid-reformer platitudes I quoted at the
start of the posting was that I clearly saw the *common assumptions* shared by
the prohibitionists and reformers, what can be called the "drugs are
bad" paradigm. I reject the common
paradigm shared by prohibitionists and half-informed, semi- (or
pseudo-)progressive drug-policy reformers: the "drugs are bad"
paradigm. That paradigm asserts two
key, essential points that thinking people should absolutely reject:
o That it would be desirable to eliminate
The fact is, psychoactive drugs provide
many people with what they claim are the most profound, brilliant, valuable,
and meaningful experience of their life.
o That the war on drugs is sincere and is
intended to reduce drug use.
The fact is, the war on drugs is
insincere; it is entirely pretense and the leading prohibitionists know
it. The pseudo-progressive drug-policy
reformers have nothing to teach these prohibitionist pretenders, these con
artists, that they don't already know about the true benefits and risks of
psychoactive drugs. Thus such reformers
are barking at shadows, at an illusory enemy that doesn't really exist as it is
projected. Reformers are fully
hypnotized by the fake, cheap act of make-believe put on by the leading
problem of the reformers now is their own ignorance about the real mindset and
goals of the prohibitionists, not that of the prohibitionist leaders who know
quite thoroughly what they are doing in their manufacture of consent among the
sheep-like television viewers who superficially support prohibition. But these propagandist manipulators also
know that support for the drug war is, although a mile wide, only an inch
deep. These prohibitionist racketeers
know the drug war is running on fumes, sheer momentum that is bound to run
down. That's why September 11th was
dubbed "America's New War".
four main, distinct groups to consider and interrelate in the drug-policy
o Prohibitionist leaders (con artists).
o The sheep subject to the manufacture of
consent, who superficially support the drug war, believing that it is
sincere. Television-viewing voters who
pay slight attention to the drug war and debate about it.
o The pseudo-progressive drug-policy
reformers, who try to inform and manipulate the sheep but themselves fall
victim to the assumptions that prop up the propaganda (drugs are undesirable,
and the drug war sincerely intends to reduce drug use). The majority of active drug-policy reformers
fall into this worldview or espoused worldview. Within this group are two main subgroups:
-- The deluded ones who believe drugs are
bad and believe the drug war is sincere
-- The "strategic" ones who
believe drugs are good and the drug war is insincere but who publicly pretend
to believe that drugs are bad and the drug war is sincere.
o The critically and historically educated,
personal-freedom loving, radical, social-libertarian, and also experientially
religious (radical mystic) legalizers. Sites: http://www.alchemind.org,
http://www.tripzine.com. These are the
reformers who believe drugs are good and the drug war is sincere, and who
publicly *profess* these beliefs. This
is the only position that is not deluded and that is honest and that is not
intent on profiting from an industry of profit-driven persecution in the guise
It is up
to the individual reformer to decide whether to public ally profess what they
believe, or to covertly and strategically distort and hide their real
position. What must first be
accomplished to break out of drug-reform stagnation is to, first, abandon the
delusion that drugs are bad and that the drug war is sincere.
categories I define above, I always group the two assumptions about the
desirability of drugs and the sincerity of the drug war. If you are informed enough to know that
psychoactive drugs are good, you are informed enough to know that the drug war
is insincere. If you are uninformed
enough to believe that drugs are essentially undesirable, then you are
uninformed enough to be conned into believing that the drug war is sincere.
It is an
open question: who differs more in their professed versus actual beliefs: the
prohibitionist leaders, or that subgroup of the pseudo-progressive drug-policy
reformers who believes drugs to be desirable but professes to consider them
undesirable, claiming that it would be good if drug use could be
eliminated? They are both engaged in
propagandistic distortion to hide their real beliefs from the mass of voters
they are attempting to covertly manipulate and persuade through trickery.
legalizers should expose the tepid pseudo-reformers as forked-tongue
counter-deceivers who aim to cure lies by lies, and to replace profit-driven
coercion by profit-driven coercion. The
two opposite kinds of reformers can cooperate strategically, but let us all
recognize which is which -- the two kinds of reformers radically disagree. One believes, or poses as believing, the
"drugs are bad" paradigm and the "drug-reduction war is
sincere" assumption. The other
believes that drugs are good and the drug-reduction war is a giant hoax, a
racket, a sham, the royal scam of the century.
in the hidden heart of its leaders, is nothing but a make-believe witch hunt
driven purely by greed and malice on the part of the supposedly well-meaning
prohibitionists. These bleeding-heart
prohibitionist actors are deliberate, extreme moral hypocrites: they knowingly
falsely accuse drug users of those evil motives they themselves are so
intimately familiar with: greed, immorality, and disdain for ethics, with
racism and the need to public ally demonize others to apparently elevate
themselves, to top it off. Reformers
don't have a ghost of a chance until they comprehend the depth of amorality and
ill-will that motivates the heart of the opportunist, self-serving
prohibitionist leader. This
enlightenment about motives, about who is good and who is evil boils down to
prohibitionist leaders really mean well?
Are they sincere?
not and they are not. Here is a heavily
armed army of aggression, led by prohibitionist schemers, bearing down on its
own populace it is sword to protect, shooting and poisoning at whim, with an
aim of maximizing its own profits and whipping the drug use/drug repression
cycle up into a frenzy, with equal parts of DARE'ing and Just Say No, to drive
the prices up. What is the impotent
response of the reformers? To inform
this army that their tactics are causing harm and are not reducing drug use --
both points which are in fact considered success, not failure, at the actual
goals of the prohibitionist army. What
better encouragement could the reformers offer such prohibitionists to continue
their same tactics? Such reformers are
to blame for much of their own problems.
of prohibitionists, especially at the top, *intends* to cause harm, and
*intends* to drive drug use up. Blacks
are dead, jailed, everyone is in terror because of the drug squads? Terrific!
We're achieving our goals! The
only way to withdraw public support for such a mission and such a covert
definition of "success" and "winning", is to expose the
entire system of deception and covert actual goals and mode of operation to the
public. But of course before that is
possible, the drug-policy reformers must themselves pull their heads out from
their worldview and understand the real motives, values, and dynamics driving
the prohibitionists. "Reformer,
reform thine own worldview."
Kingdom of God, the least shall be greatest and the greatest shall be
least. Who is the least? Comparing jail terms and which
"crime" is demonized the most, in the U.S. -- capital of
prohibitionism -- "the least" would evidently be the drug enthusiast
or even the drug-Eucharist worshipper.
The values of the prohibitionists are more upside-down than the
half-informed pseudo-reformers can fathom.
-- rapid-navigation portal for drug policy reform sites
think about this, Jesus is the mushroom, Jesus is the drug. What is "The
Anti-Drug"? The Anti-Drug IS The Anti-Christ! The sick thing is those who
promote this message are most likely aware of this fact! Darkness Indeed.
I have thought of ideas along these lines, but not this particular idea so
clearly. This fits with the short book
The Drug War and the Rise of Anti-Christ, which has the Anti-Christ
strategically using prohibition as an excuse to attain his actual goal of
grabbing world power.
person would probably use and respect illicit psychoactives, but would *act* as
though he is against drugs. There are a
couple senses of the term "hypocrisy" that are profound, unlike the
common connotation of hypocrisy as accidental violation of one's own stated
o You do X, while being dimly aware of doing
so, and you believe your actions are wrong, but still tell others that people
shouldn't do X. This is mundane
hypocrisy and is not profound or interesting -- this is merely "accidental
hypocrisy" or "self-regretting hypocrisy".
o You don't do X, you don't have any genuine
dislike for X, but you claim certain values about X in order to manipulate
people -- this is real hypocrisy that is *morally* reprehensible.
o You do X, you love X, but you claim to hate
X, in order to manipulate people -- this is the purest, most extreme and evil
kind of hypocrisy. This is extremely
morally reprehensible -- this is the purest and worst kind of lying.
A girl friend
of mine proposes that much pro-life moralism is actually the kind of false
moral posturing seen at the top of the sham drug war -- it is merely *posing*
as moralism but is actually entirely about money and power; this is thus an
important kind of hypocrisy.
the real powerful force driving the women's rights conflict is not disagreement
on moral principles, but rather, sheer grabbing for power and money; there is
money and power for the establishment to be secured by keeping women down.
implies that the most influential pro-life advocates don't actually give a damn
about life or babies but are actually just actors and cynical manipulators who
care about one thing only: gaining power for oneself, using "protecting
life" as an excuse and smokescreen to oppress and profit knowingly from
the suffering of others.
of right-to-life and women's issues, I am interested in such sham moralistic
posturing and the satanic value-system that would have to go along with
it. This sort of satanism would
specifically be a shared value-system and strategy of pretending to promote
morality and various restrictions on behavior, while actually loathing such
ways of thinking and firmly rejecting them for oneself.
mean rejecting all the concepts of moralism and instead wielding moralism as a
con-artist ploy to trick others into submission. Taken to the extreme, you end up with people who strive hard to
appear to be the most moral people around, while in fact they are the most
anti-morality. In these people there is
a complete separation between appearance and reality. The appearance is that they value morality, the actuality is that
they loathe it and only use it to hypnotize and enslave others.
kind of hypocrisy can be identified as striking a moralistic pose and promoting
values that one certainly does not believe, for the actual purpose of
manipulating others. Look at the
motives, as well as the methods, to see true hypocrisy.
the real motives of the supposed prohibitionists who are supposedly against the
illicit substances they publicly demonize?
Some very ignorant prohibitionists really do believe that the substances
are morally bad -- but they are the mere foolish ones.
powerful prohibitionists are more informed and intelligent; thus to be in such
a position, they must inherently be evil liars, con-men, manipulators, who go
to work each day asking whose blood will pay for their luxuries that day, whose
life can they destroy in order to bring in the paycheck.
remains near the bottom of the pyramid; ignorance declines but evil increases
as you rise toward the top. To be so
evil, you have to hate morality itself and purely abuse morality, striking
various moralist poses but never falling into actually believing them. It's a con.
prohibitionists are "moral con artists" who are good at appearing
moral while actually loathing morality altogether and despising the
concept. With his secretive moral
manipulation and mind-games, the devil is the antichrist is the drug
prohibitionist who loves the drugs, or doesn't really care about them, but
loathes morality and loves power -- and seeks to gain power through cynically
wielding morality while being disgusted by anyone gullible enough to be taken in
by such a ploy.
I need to
read Nietzsche's discussion of master morality vs. slave morality. Of course the drug-persecuting Devil uses
any strategy that comes to hand, and a good one is to project his own
self-understood evil and a-morality (rather, anti-morality) onto the drugs and
any drug users who are gullible enough to be made to feel bad about themselves.
WOD is motivated most of all by persecution-for-profit using a strategy of
collaborating with the well-intentioned people who have been harnessed and
brainwashed as lackeys by the WOD's controllers. It is true that many prohibitionists are well-meaning and just
ignorant, rather than evil manipulators.
the evil manipulators spread their own influence beyond themselves and it is
*their* doing, that there are so many ignorant well-intentioned people who let
themselves be so blinded and manipulated by the controllers of the WOD.
controllers of the WOD cannot plead ignorance and one of my greatest concerns
is reformers who believe that the WOD's top controllers are ignorant. The controllers are either ignorant or evil,
and they are not ignorant.
not take great genius to realize, when your job is in the field of drugs, that
the WOD is pure evil persecution for profit.
The ordinary parent is ignorant, but how could the top cop and
billion-dollar budget controller be ignorant -- they are paid to know and study
all about the WOD, eight hours a day.
who is employed to be an expert on the WOD, and who continues the status quo,
can *only* be an evil liar and hater of morality. It is impossible for a person in such a position to be so
ignorant as the common gullible prohibitionist or the ordinary bandwagon-rider.
average cop or department leader is half ignorant, and only half evil -- but
the trend-studying executives who mastermind the WOD have no such excuse and it
is impossible that they are ignorant -- therefore they are staggeringly evil,
and can only be so by adopting essentially a religion of anti-moralism
conducted under the pretense of moralism.
That is the true definition of evil hypocrisy.
to people. Morality beyond that is
motivated by goals that are the opposite of spiritual goals. "A wolf in sheep's clothing" here
would mean people who endorse a certain system of moralism that they themselves
despise, in order to manipulate other people for their own personal gain -- at
the extreme, endorsing morality while rejecting morality altogether; preaching
morality while despising morality: preaching the opposite of what you believe,
to profit from the confusion of others.
moral duplicity, and duplicity about morality and the views one actually holds,
and what goals one is actually bent on achieving. If you "sell your soul" to the devil, conceived of as
the father of lies, this can coherently mean forming a network with other
power-seekers, a network of commitment to lying to the outsiders about your
goals and values.
are often suspected of having an internal agreement to lie to outsiders in an
orchestrated way, for the gain of the organization and its members -- getting
ahead through organized deceit, including hierarchically organized deceit;
secrecy and pretense are hallmarks of this organizational strategy. The lower levels are more ignorant, with
less lying; the higher levels are not ignorant, and entirely driven by lying
and posturing, pretense and duplicity.
The WOD is
a loosely organized system of this sort, with evil non-ignorant controllers at
the top who are working hard to make sure the supporters below are kept
ignorant. A main goal of top-level
prohibitionists is to make sure that they themselves know all the truth about
the WOD while their lower ranks of prohibitionist agents are kept completely in
the dark, knowing only the propaganda that is set upon them.
reformers should use strategies to address this distinction between the evil
all-knowers at the top (and stop trying to teach them what they already well
know) and the masses of prohibitionists who are being actively hypnotized with
propaganda or false knowledge deliberately imposed upon them (not mere ignorant
lack of knowledge).
is the mushroom, Jesus is the drug. The Anti-Drug IS The Anti-Christ! The sick
thing is those who promote this message are most likely aware of this
fact! Darkness Indeed.
One of my
most distinctive ideas is to characterize the ego-mask as, above all,
controllership. The ego is, first of
all, the control agent, the sovereign free ruler, the entity who is held to be
the responsible agent. This sense of
control-agency, including moral controllership, has the potential to die.
way to experience such death, which I emphasize as death of controllership-identity,
is entheogens. Is that a moral way of
triggering ego death and ego transcendence?
No, it's a way of cancelling the ordinary concept of moral action, of cancelling
the notion of being held as the personal responsible control agent who can be
praised or blame as a self-creating sovereign.
The highest religion is that which intensely problematizes the whole
concept of morality.
are dangerous because they temporarily destabilize personal control. They might also be able to trigger lasting
mental instability, but due to the continued drug inquisition, scientific
research on this matter is prohibited and forbidden. That inquisition is largely an institutionalalized, established
state programme of persecution for profit, which often falsely poses as
morality in the most truly hypocritical and evil sense: uses morality purely as
an excuse they don't believe in, profiteers and pretenders to morality pursue a
strategy of persecution for profit.
simple moral matter out of what is a complex trans-moral issue (entheogens
problematize the very concept of moral agency), the persecutors-for-profit
abuse morality and moral concepts. Not
all anti-drug moralists are evil insincere manipulators who seek to profit from
and retain employment through persecuting others, but the important ones are --
the leaders use this strategy.
these leaders may even use and traffic in the illicit drugs they publically
condemn -- this strategy is a proven way of making a paycheck appear.
starting position on protecting children is: To hell with the children, they
can all drop dead. First, we must
practice rejecting the cliche ideas about protecting the children. Now let us take a clear-headed view of
morality. We ought to protect people,
and quit protecting this false, manipulative category of "the
children can drop dead -- because they don't exist. Too long, evil has been carried out against all the young and old
in the name of "protecting the children". "Protecting the children" has become a euphemism for
persecution-for-profit which ends up meaning a bullet funded by U.S. taxpayer
money ending up in the gut of children in Columbia -- your money used to buy a
bullet against your will, used to shoot down children in a forced raid or evil
"intelligence" operation somewhere in America.
children -- a ghost of a concept used as an excuse to mow people down. Let us talk no more of "children"
and talk instead of *people* young or old.
You should not say "children". You should say "young people" to bow down as well to
the implied honorable existence of "old people". We should not protect the children. We should protect the people, including the
adult people and the young people.
is seen as pointless to differentiate between drug safety for young people
versus old people. For drug safety,
there is no separate category of young people or old people. The dangers of entheogens are not
established as being any different in the slightest between an 10-year-old person,
40-year-old person, and 90-year-old person.
pretend-moralistic campaign of persecution-for-profit has used "to protect
the children" as an excuse to prevent all scientific research into illucit
drugs, such as researching the question of whether entheogens present different
dangers to young people and old people.
become an empty assumption without ground that psychoactive drug use is a
simple matter of morality, that drug use is immoral. Where is the justification for holding drug use to be
immoral? There never is any -- it is
always just taken for granted.
evidence that psychoactive drug use harms the body or mind? Due to the inquisition, such evidence cannot
be scientifically or rationally collected, therefore it is an open question
though it should not be and would not be if this were a more enlightened world.
-- rapid-navigation portal for drug policy reform sites