Introduction
I was 11 or 12 when I first came across erowid.org. At that age I was already quite aware of the inherent flaws in the world around me, and its resulting contradictions and problems. Even as a pre-pubescent, I was well aware of the poisoning influence of capitalism and its ugly and stupid sidekick - the tabloid media - and their necessity to complicate simple problems to create areas of profit.
Sitting on the family PC night after night, waiting patiently for each page to dribble through the 56K modem, I was in tune with the notion that this was a place where truth could not be held hostage to an agenda. It was a wild-west war-zone where only the strongest ideas would win. Here, truth could conquer all. It was a great hope, but I couldn’t see how it would begin to dissolve the tumourous structures of the ‘real’ world. Over a decade later though, it’s pleasing to see the old control structures dissolving. I honestly didn’t think I’d see it in my lifetime.
Another thing I didn’t expect to see in my lifetime was the end of ‘The War on Drugs’. Reading through the archives of Erowid at a tender, yet already worldly-wise age, I could see how prohibition was society’s greatest neurosis, and was the main barrier to its own healing process. I particularly remember reading a humorous - but stereotypical - article about the authors’ experiences with different drugs. The experience report that really stuck with me was that of mescaline, which they said had made them abandon clothing, money and possessions. Here, I could see, was a way of medicating ourselves back to sanity.
From that point and to the present day, I have been a strong believer in the failure of prohibition, and actively interested in its alternatives. Until now though, I haven’t considered myself an advocate. I felt it to be too important an issue to be vocal about without research and experience. As a result, I’ve spent many years swallowing when I should’ve been shouting, and my anger at the situation has festered and infected my persona. This cannot do. It is time to get this out in the open. It is OK though; for the first time in modern history, I’m in good company. I’m with the majority.
Definition
My main aim in this short essay is to help to clarify the debate around the problem of drugs, their use, and their abuse. This is a task that cannot be accomplished in a thousand tomes of excellent scholarship and research. In my opinion, it is a slow and laborious task that can only be accomplished through patience. It may be a hundred years before the majority can talk about the issue properly; that is, without moral bias, propagandized fear, and recourse to old forms of rhetoric that have been shown time and time again to be misleading and incorrect. A few minutes observing a debate about the issue should be sufficient for understanding that a major problem currently is that there is no descriptive common ground. Both sides of the debate use the same words in different ways, and as a result cannot come to an understanding. In other words, the first problem to solve is one of definition. What is a drug?
The word itself simply means ‘a substance that has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body’. However, the problem lies not in this meaning of the word, but in the multiple acquired meanings in general usage, some positive, some negative. There are other words we can use if we wish to be particular - narcotic, medicine, entheogen, hallucinogen, stimulant, depressant - these are all common terms with specific drug related meanings, yet the word drug is used to signify all these different properties. The major problem however, is the distinction the debate makes between legal and illegal drugs. Debate around the issue flounders because of this one simple mistake: The assumption that this distinction has real meaning.
The only difference between a legal drug and an illegal drug is that a group of lawmakers have decided that one should not be available to their public. For the prohibitionists, this fact is considered primary. Hopefully it should not be too much of a stretch for the reader to recognise the similarities in this situation with the kind of warped, dogmatic thinking that the Enlightenment did so well to free us from. To put it simply, the distinction of legality is not based upon scientific enquiry, nor public vote. It is based solely upon moral bias.
For this reason, it is necessary to use the word drug in debate, but to understand fully its intended meaning; a catch-all for every substance that produces an effect when introduced into the body. To associate it legal distinctions is to muddy the rhetoric beyond resolution. Coffee is as much a drug as Cocaine. Codeine, as much as Cannabis. The only devices with which to debate their differences are the effects they produce - the effect on physiology and psychology, their toxicity, and any other phenomena that removal from the assumed state of equilibrium produces. The problem of drugs must be debated without deference to their legal status. This will allow for a descriptive common ground to be developed, something which will hopefully begin to reconcile both sides of the debate for the benefit of all.
Fundamentals
In the past few years, I think due in part to the communicative and connective influence of the internet, the public’s attitude toward the drug problem has appeared to become significantly less prohibitionist. This has led to the present polarised debate. The internet, like TV, is itself a drug, and quite an insidious one at that. It has completely uprooted the constipated class-based social structures that a marriage of Christianity and Capitalism had conceived, and that the counterculture of the 60’s began to shake loose. It is no coincidence that the computer revolution originated in the wake of the psychedelic 60’s. I consider the internet to be the realisation of the psychedelic dream, and the values inherent in the experience itself. It is difficult to quantify, but our culture - our language, our art, our entertainment - has been completed infected by the notions of that naive and negligent premonition. The only thing missing is the drugs themselves.
However, this is an idea I will return to and explore in detail later. Presently, it is necessary to return to the main objective of this essay and explore the problem of drugs, and consider something that both sides of the debate tend to ignore, to the detriment of their arguments: The reasons why people use drugs. Although the reasons for drug use are complex, a fundamental can be sought. Remember, we are not discussing legality here; the reasons for a person to disobey a law are not our concern at the moment.
The fundamental reason that a person uses a drug is this: To remove themselves from what I called earlier ‘the assumed state of equilibrium’. For the majority, this is sobriety. However, sobriety itself is not - or should not be - a linear experience. It comes in infinite varieties, with mood being particularly vulnerable to the influences of company, appetite and activity. Our ‘sober’ experience of ourselves varies from hour to hour, and often oscillates in cycles that we eventually try to break free from. Why else do you think that the majority of the Western world reaches for a caffeine fix when they wake?
Although I consider the root of all drug use to be borne of the same instinct, I do recognise that this instinct is manipulated by the body and mind for many, many purposes, and this is where the complexity arises. Faced with this, is there any distinction we can make between positive and negative reasons for drug use? Or to frame it differently; acceptable and unacceptable drug use?
I believe strongly that an individual has the right to control their body and mind. This means that they should have the right to use any drug they wish. However, I think most would agree that this is an idealistic goal, and could be chaotic in practice, inviting stupidity into a realm where it courts danger. There is a need for responsibility; a balance. Ultimately, any individual drug use that does not have a negative impact on others should be tolerated. Any drug use that impacts negatively on others should be considered unacceptable, and the individual concerned, irresponsible. In this system, the individual’s right to pursue a habit that impacts themselves negatively will eventually become obsolete: In a world where we are all connected, I believe it will be much easier for a person to recognise that these behaviours will also have a negative impact on the people around them, and cessation of negative habits will become a formality for most.
Ideological as this is, at the heart of the prohibitionist ideology is the concept that sobriety is truth, and any drug- induced state of consciousness is a delusion. This rhetoric is particularly amusing when coming from your average caffeine fiend, or sugar junkie. It has never occurred to them that their delusions of purity are just as pronounced. As I previous stated, sobriety is not fixed. It is not a linear state of being. It fluctuates and flickers. It is not the solid ground on which to base one’s personal understanding of consciousness. As the psychonauts of the 60’s discovered, meditation is the key to anchoring oneself in the experience of cognition, and it is a necessity for anyone wishing to sail the deep ocean of mind.
The idea of sobriety does however, help us to understand why drug use is so prevalent in our society. It is a question often asked, and is no doubt the bane of prohibitionists: Why, in our cultured, modern, educated and rational world, is drug use so widespread, so thoroughly engrained in the fabric of our society? The answer is simple. The structures built by our culture, which stress hard work, obedience, efficiency, and countless other dehumanising values, force our sober state of being to become more and more linear, robotic and fixed. With this mechanising force oppressing our natural will and innate humanity, the need for an escape grows greater. Drug use is escapism, but it is the escape from the prison we have captured ourselves in. This is where the instinct to use drugs emerges from. It is a legitimate self-defence mechanism. Unfortunately, it has been polluted by several thousand years of toxic ideology and penal (penile!) philosophy, the very bricks and bars with which we have built our psychological prisons. More often than not, drug use under these conditions just reinforces the walls between us and our freedom. This is the tragedy of the situation, and one of the main reasons for the disparity in understanding between debaters of the subject.
Analysis
It is now necessary to consider the question of prohibition and explore some of the arguments presented by prohibitionists. It is worth stating that the following analysis is a result of my own opinion, formed through research and experience. It is biased, but not unjustly so. I can only speak for myself, as much as I’d like to speak for others. As stated before, the purpose of this article is not to prove anything; it is to clarify the debate.
The first argument for the prohibition of drugs, and possibly the strongest, is the relationship between drug use and children. To be clear about this point, it includes all implications that drug use has for ‘minors’ - citizens that are not yet legal adults. I should also reiterate that the use of the word drug here is not implying their legal status, even though we are considering the implications of prohibitive law. Our children are drug users from a very early age, through sugar products, television, and countless other habits. The debate as to whether those experiences have a negative impact on their development is not for this essay to explore.
If prohibition of drugs was to be abolished, the main problem that we would face is how to control drug use in a way that would protect minors from any negative effects. It should be understood in this situation that minors would not be entitled to the same rights as adults, primarily because they are not legally capable of upholding the same responsibilities as them. A minor’s right to drug use is highly undesirable in such a system. I do believe that a desired model for this system is already present in the UK. Within the home, anyone aged 5 or older is allowed to drink alcohol. The responsibility lies entirely with the parents, and it is their duty to deal with any negative effects resulting from their decision to allow their child to use that drug. The availability of alcohol to purchase is limited to adults only, and they are trusted to use the drug responsibly, without causing harm to others. Despite the obvious disparity between this ideal and reality, I would suggest that this is the best model for a post-prohibition system.
There are of course, major objections to this. The first would take the form of a typical scare story that would entertain the possibility that heroin addicts would allow their children to use the drug. I would argue that this would be completely anathema to a system where personal responsibility and minimisation of negative impact was primary. I would also argue that the current system encourages recklessness, and has led to a skewing of the balance between rights and responsibilities in our society.
The second objection, as previously mentioned, would pertain to perceived failures in the alcohol regulation system. It is obvious to most that the current system is failing on almost every level, and that alcohol abuse is the major drug problem in our society. For many commentators, they see this as a result of its legality and regard it as a substance worthy of more regulation or even prohibition. I do not wish to go into the USA’s brief period of alcohol prohibition here, but I believe that the reader will find that it only serves to provide a standardised list of all the negative impacts prohibitionist policies have. The question that prohibitionists need to ask themselves, in light of the understanding that the use of drugs is universal and necessary, is this: Is the major alcohol problem in the UK actually a consequence of the prohibition of other less harmful drugs?
If we accept the idea put forward earlier in this essay, that drug use is borne of a need to escape from a constricted reality that our culture creates to serve its own agenda, the pandemic of alcoholism becomes an obvious consequence in a society where little else has the same availability, effectiveness, and social acceptability. It is the very act of prohibition that has created the problem the prohibitionists will argue is a major reason for indulging in their schemes. This is a perfect example of the retrograde and roundabout logic that exemplifies their arguments.
Another good example is the argument that people should simply refrain from using illegal drugs because they are illegal. However, as this distinction is arbitrary, and not based on any measured analysis of their effects, this argument is moot. The extension of this argument, and one which I will admit really irks me, is the extrapolation of the abandonment of drug prohibition to other prohibited activities such as rape or murder. In this mode of rhetoric, the presence of rape and murder in society, despite their prohibition, leads them to be considered acceptable for comparison. The claim is made that to describe the drug laws as ineffective is to describe the laws prohibiting rape and murder as ineffective, and if we were to abolish these laws, society would fall apart.
This is an appalling way to make an argument. Thankfully, we have already covered the main objection to this twisted logic: A post- prohibitionist system would be based upon the minimisation of negative consequences to others, and the upholding of personal responsibility as the prerequisite to the right of use. This is hardly worthy of comparison to acts which by definition are the most harmful to other human beings, and appear thoroughly inhumane to the sane observer.
Conclusion
It should be obvious to the reader by this point that I have tried to steer as clear of particular arguments as I possibly can. The prohibition debate however, as it currently stands, is generally concerned with the details that I have not discussed here. What will happen if we legalise Cannabis but nothing else? What if we decriminalise all drugs? Will drug use rise if we tolerate it? Does prohibition drive control and profit into the hands of crime syndicates? Is prohibition a drain on the economy? All these are worthy questions, but the ability for them to be answered properly is clouded by the language and rhetoric we use. It is vital that we abandon the distinction between legal and illegal drugs in debate and research. A drug is a drug, no matter of its position within the moral perspective of the individual and their society.
It is also imperative that we stress the balance between rights and responsibilities throughout the issue of drug use. A drug user, no matter what their substance of choice is, has a responsibility to ensure that negative consequences for others are minimised. In the same vein, governments and corporations have the responsibility to ensure that drug production aspires to similar goals. It is from this base that we can hopefully begin to engage in enlightened debate about the end of the ‘War on Drugs’, and start to envision some concrete details regarding a post-prohibitionist society. From this mezzanine of sorts, we should also be able to start modelling the reasons for drug use, and rid ourselves of the unnecessary complexities that forbid a clear understanding of this problem at present. It is my hope that in the age of the internet, this will not be a struggle, but an effort made worthwhile by its resonance with truth and beauty, providing a cultural catharsis that will propel us into a new age of love and understanding.
Coda
Primarily, this essay has been a way for me to express an opinion so deeply rooted in my persona that it has come to define me, even in my silence. I’ve known for a long time that this is my cross to bear, the cause I’ll live humbly for. In the interests of disclosure, I’m not a heavy drug user, aside from a love of beer and wine, an on-off relationship with tobacco, a lust for sugared products and fizzy drinks, an occasional opportunity to indulge in the harmless pleasure that is Cannabis, and a commitment to psychedelics as a path of self-exploration and spirituality. Add to that a violent internet addiction and I do begin to think that I ought to meditate more…
I would like to conclude this essay with a personal reflection regarding some of the ideas presented here. In particular, the idea that drug use is part of a natural defence mechanism that seeks to heal. It was, after all, Timothy Leary who pointed out that to understand the atom, you first need to smash it. How can we expect to heal something if we don’t first understand its problem in relation to itself?
It has become cliché to describe the terror of the situation facing humanity at present. Although hope is waiting on the horizon, and we are beginning to move slowly towards a brighter future, there are still too many negative variables conspiring towards a major, species-changing event. We are inhabitants on a planet more vast and complex in its structure than we can approximate with our best computers or brightest minds. The Earth is alive, and considerably wiser than us in its own realm of consciousness, so alien from our understanding that this must be. It comes as no surprise to me the use of drugs since the 1960’s seems to have been the main trigger for the growth of the ecological movement. I refer of course to the natural drugs, borne of the earth, such as Cannabis, and psilocybin containing mushrooms. These seem to be part of a self-defense mechanism inherent in the earth system, designed to dissolve the cancerous modalities of consciousness that treat the Earth as a commodity, and its inhabitants as consumers.
During one of my first mushroom trips, I had an experience that confirmed this idea for me. It began with a vision, of a dismal night; cold, wet and windy - much like a typical October in Shetland. There seemed to be a dirt road streaking through a rugged country; and parked on it, an elaborate carriage, much like the one in Cinderella, but with a dark foreboding decoration, a muddy mix of browns and purples aching through the driving rain.
I was then inside the carriage, and through the darkness I could make out a being sitting beside me, wearing a long ceremonial robe of sorts, with a large pointed hood, that in the same moment reminded me of a clitoris and of the nippled liberty cap mushrooms deep within my stomach. There was no face visible. In retrospect, the being’s appearance was like that of Death, although this was the only point of comparison between these two beings.
The vision then turned into a conversation, or communication. I cannot remember what I said, as I seemed to communicate with unfinished thoughts and facial expressions, but what this being told me has stayed with me since. It said, very clearly, that the mushroom that I had ingested was seeking to establish a ‘symbiotic’ relationship with humanity. I highlight the word symbiotic because what was described/shown was more than just the common understanding of symbiosis and is difficult to put into language. It was as if the mushroom was infecting our civilisation with its own ideas and values, in order to save the world we both live in. It implied that the conclusion of this process would be a merging of the two species, a psychological symbiosis, and that this process could already be seen in the development of the internet, a mycelial masterpiece constructed in metals and matter but connecting our minds together into a supra-organism.
I do not wish to speculate on the origin of this idea, nor do I wish to dismiss it as fantasy. I want to present it to you the reader, so that you can make up your own mind about the real agenda of those seeking to prohibit certain drugs, and to consider that these drugs may in fact have an agenda themselves.
It seems inconceivable to me that prohibition will last much longer. I just wonder if we will be ready for the full implications of that decision when it finally comes.