Substances inducing non-ordinary consciousness (such as DMT) are found abundantly everyone in nature, including our own body (in pineal gland), but we dont go around waging wars on trees, frogs, herbs and people themselves…Or do we?
It is a recent step of pepople to super size and magnify potency of substances we come across. Destroying ancient culture of interaction with nature and cosms.

Really Russell? And are you a hopeless alcoholic and dead keen smoker also, gasping due to COPD. Morbidly obese and diabetic thanks to fast food chains, pumping what’s left of your wage into the pokies and at the last, just can’t wait to wash down a few Prozac, morphine analgesics, benzodiazapines, amphetamine type medications then watch the next “Psychic investigators judge fat bottoms on ice”.

Correct? Or, do you actually make a choice. Think it over – I don’t want to control your answer of course. Plainly, the “getting real” request is better off in your direction my misguided friend.

Regrettably you’ve responded to an excellent argument with what is of course, the well rehearsed indoctrinated moral panic of the prohibitionist mindset. Fear, panic, immediate harm, loss of control – indeed being controlled no less, strange unseen powers who remain inexplicably malignant, and have been poised to enslave us at their whim at every democratic leap since 1778. Them That Is They, They Who Are Them: TITTing, and TWATing Russell, and you’re welcome to surrender yourself to paranoia and learned helplessness if you so wish.

One notes immediately the leap from Michaels argument which is demonstrably based in evidence, to an entirely irrelevant accusatory tone – complete with impossibly shocking scenarios – all over the final two words. Indeed, one must confess to confusion as to why Russell is asking questions of a topic not even mentioned in the article. Unless we count asking unrelated questions and providing fallacious answers. How often does the word “meth” appear in Michaels piece?

Why bother? Who cares? Sorry Russell, those of us in policy application and community health care quite a lot. Cannabis is easier to access than tobacco, and soon to be cheaper. Without any health warnings, and erroneous media panic we must do better. It holds splendid medicinal potential, has not yet been shown to “cause” psychosis and contrary to the memetic conservative chorus is not a drug that produces “addicts”. In fact, actual cannabis related harm is being ignored in favour of sensationalism.

Ironically, no medicinal cannabis patients ever complain of dependency. They do complain of euphoria, and the “monolithic, gigantic multi national drug corporations”, who strive to market a synthetic non intoxicating medication are attacked by right wing conservatives for attempting “legalisation by stealth”. Predictably, the same accusation is levelled at harm reduction. We’ve shouldered the new buzz word, “harm prevention” and if you can really read the future I’m sure you can see what civil rights must by definition fall like dominoes if we allow Prevention to override Reduction.

As for lying journalists with reader support, only a defeatist stands by mutely witnessing their insouciant and dangerous championing of ideological divides, when human health is at stake. From denying anthropogenic climate change, the value of sex education, the success of prisoner rehabilitation indeed any compassionate and progressive approach, these ignorant vigilantes scoop the cream without so much as a second thought of the damage their tantrums cause.

All this ultimately serves to keep everyday people – like yourself – ignorant, unaware of legislative obligations and sadly almost entirely science illiterate. Said another way, you already appear to be controlled to the extent your thoughts, and by extension argument here, are a house of cards relying on worst case and impossible scenarios.

Michael has again shown his professional approach in calmly offering a genuine response to what I consider mischievous and frankly silly challenges complete with ridiculous predictions. Imagine instilling such non critical analysis in children. You could keep going for pages and pages and never approach the damage we do on our roads minute by minute.

The hard fact that prohibition has failed is based in a clear top down explanation of observable dynamics. These falsehoods become more absurd every year. To note the damage of this barbaric abuse of everyday Australians is not to ipso facto claim the legalisation of drugs is the solution, nor indeed to be seen to advocate for same. Recovering from the present problems will not be simple and by necessity must involve a bottom up – and no doubt imperfect approach.

Some drugs may well be “legalised” but strictly regulated. In managing this, we may well see no profit to sustain any need for “meth” and designer drugs. At the least, we remove users of narcotic drugs and stimulants away from ruthless crime. It is prohibition that sustains the rewards for such junk. Contrary to your assumption chronic use is not ubiquitous but correlates to criminal intention and execution.

It is ironically due to prohibition that your argument even takes form. We’ve been raised on the breast of this nonsense, indoctrinated with its false success and rank bigotry until almost incredibly, we slice our throats with the other side of this two edged sword. Mainly, that the world will surely end if this USA blight on foreign policy is exposed and deconstructed for what it is.

Therein lies the cruelty. We’re “addicted” to logical fallacies almost to a person, to sustain “faith” in killing ourselves, when drug addiction rates have remained stable at 1.1 – 1.3% for well over a century. Only use has increased, along with profit for crime and corruption, misery and death. The “meth” you find so fascinating is proof positive prohibition fails. Organised crime doesn’t need the meds that narrow minded conservatives wanted to tax in 1914, – which upon failing led to prohibition in 1919.

Thanks to this blind approach the demand for drugs – and certain dizzying profit – is theirs for the taking. Criminals care not for voter gullibility, nor religious pressure, nor consumer health, nor much at all except profit. Yet, strangely you argue for this to continue.

The real question Russell, is from whom would you prefer loved ones to access any medication or “drug” – a criminal or a medical professional with skill in addiction recovery and minimising the harm of drug use/abuse?

If Holland is the centre of organised crime it’s because no country has yet legalised and regulated. Even where decriminalisation exists, the prohibition on selling and wholesaling makes the international illicit drugs industry possible. A huge amount of black market drugs money supports arms sales and the resulting carnage. That’s why we need to ‘get real’ and go all the way.

Good questions indeed, and a thoughtful take on the problem. I imagine the amphetamines and other chemical drugs would be sold by pharmacists, like they used to, with sales logged on to a database to prevent serial purchase which would also prevent abuse of prescription drugs. Addictive drugs would require a prescription after so many purchases in a week. Pot could be sold in cafés like Amsterdam and in bottleshops where a proof-of-age system is well in place. The prices would be low enough to cut the legs from the illicit market and to make it unnecessary for addicts to mug, steal or prostitute themselves.

This unglamourous process would not significantly increase drug use, I believe. It would reduce alcohol consumption. Problem users would automatically be in contact with doctors. Overdoses would be almost non-existent. No system would be perfect but this scenario is better than the untaxed criminal mayhem we currently endure.

If that’s the product of a ’70s imagination, so be it!

973-409-3274

Call, listen, and press #

One million votes and demand
letter goes to Obama

Download Florida petition at:
http://www.pufmm.org/petition.php

Support Leap.cc – Police Against Prohibition

But of course, Michael, you are dead right. The war is a sham and causing massive misallocation of resources, billions wasted all round. Almost as much as the drug cartels – those ones now taking over entire states like Mexico and Afghanistan – are pocketing from our stupidity.

But please, stop wasting time arguing that cannabis is just dandy. Who cares? You really should have spent that part of your argument extolling the mental health benefits of crystal meth. And as for shooting down imaginary enemies like Miranda Devine and Fred Nile, well, I mean why bother?

But it was your call to “get real”. So Michael, tell us what you have in mind? Something like Holland – the capital of organised crime in Europe?

Which drugs will be OK “personal use?” What quantities? How much will they cost? Which drugs? Who decides? You can’t be half pregnant, can you? Tell us Michael, who do you imagine is going to be selling us our daily dose of meth, and to whom?

I’m not arguing against a free market. Its actually the only solution we have left. But the reality will NOT be be that progressive paradise you have in your very old fashioned, conservative (and dare I say, reactionary) 70s style imagination.

There will be monolithic, gigantic multi national drug corporations keeping us sedated and “party-ing”, and they’ll be not unlike like the one your publisher was ranting against in City Hub this week.

Progressive? Michael – get real!