>It is 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.
That way 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.
The main 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".
The 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.
Reformers 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.
Addiction 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.
There are 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 getting warmer.
How much 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 prohibitionist racket.
These 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 of counterpropaganda.
At least, 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.
The same 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.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892817720 , 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 .
My 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 drugs.
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.
No matter 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.
The freed 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 another.
The first 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.
Another 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 Hallucinogenic Powers.
I also 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: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892818263 .
It's a 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.
I 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 mistaken/misinformed. 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.
Two points 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 psychoactive drugs.
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 prohibitionist profiteers.
The main 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".
There are four main, distinct groups to consider and interrelate in the drug-policy reform battle:
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 of benevolence.
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.
In the 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.
Pro-drug 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.
Prohibition, 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 the question:
Do the prohibitionist leaders really mean well? Are they sincere?
They do 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.
The army 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."
In the 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.
http://www.reformnav.org -- rapid-navigation portal for drug policy reform sites
>Now 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.
Excellent, 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.
Such a 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 principles.
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.
She says 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.
She 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.
Regardless 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.
It would 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.
The evil 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.
What are 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.
The more 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.
Ignorance 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.
Such 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.
The sham 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.
However, 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.
The 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.
It does 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.
A person 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.
The 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.
Be decent 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.
That is 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.
Organizations 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.
Drug-policy 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).
>Jesus 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.
The surest 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.
Entheogens 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.
Making a 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.
Many of 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.
My 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".
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.
The 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.
Then, it 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.
A 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.
It has 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.
Is there 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.
http://www.reformnav.org -- rapid-navigation portal for drug policy reform sites