Prompted by “Odd Push in Drug-Adverse Norway: LSD is O.K.”: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/world/europe/an-uphill-campaign-in-norway-to-promote-lsd-as-a-human-right.html
A mainstream media piece on LSD is always going to trigger my posting echo.
“OSLO — In a country so wary of drug abuse that it limits the sale of aspirin, Pal-Orjan Johansen, a Norwegian researcher, is pushing what would seem a doomed cause: the rehabilitation of LSD.”
“…he also wants to manufacture MDMA and psilocybin, the active ingredients in two other prohibited substances, Ecstasy and so-called magic mushrooms.”
“’I helped myself with psychedelics and want others to have the same opportunity without the risk of arrest,’ said Mr. Johansen, 42, a former researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. He recalled how, as a young man, he defeated an alcohol problem, a smoking habit, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression by taking psilocybin and MDMA.”
“‘You have to use a nanny argument: The government needs to take control and regulate the market instead of leaving it to criminals,’ she said. ‘The argument that you decide yourself what you put in your own body will never work in Norway.'”
Sigh, the nanny argument. Are we a world of adults, or lifelong children needing a governmental nanny? Should we really continue to believe that lawmakers constitute adult supervision for all age groups, or metaphorical children in the playground of humanity “thuggishly” (directly, indirectly by academically, or otherwise) dictating who can use the swing set (etc.)?
“As a result, she added, ‘I would never use the word “legalize,” but talk instead about regulating, not liberalizing.'”
Sigh, regulating (judicially, not naturally). My last post sufficiently covered the problems with blindly accepting judicial regulations as respectable, wise, and a net resulting reduction in overall tragedy (without possible basis for believing such positivity due in part to unintended consequences which assuredly occur from broadly applied law).
“Ketil Lund, 75, the retired Supreme Court justice who advises EmmaSofia on its legal strategy, said he had never used psychedelic drugs and had no interest in trying them. But, he said, he supported Mr. Johansen’s campaign as part of a ‘bigger struggle’ against antidrug policies in the West that he described as ‘an absolute failure.'”
Presidential candidate Barack Obama claimed the war on some drugs to be an “utter failure”, but with the honor of presidential status, he has grossly deviated from that conclusion for some unacceptable reason. One would think credible usage of the word failure as it honestly applies against Certain Drug Prohibition would carry extreme public weight, but some force of humanity continues unethically defying that obviously righteous conclusion.
“‘The present narcotics policy in the West has so many detrimental effects,’ he said. ‘These have to be balanced against detrimental effects of the drugs themselves.'”
They indeed do need that balance, but then very powerful self-interest groups (corruptly entwined to abuse the powerful credibility instantly publicly granted to law enforcement) would lose their serious cash cow and mass control mechanism (not to mention sole justification for police militarization — largely from small gangs generating so much money from illicit drugs, they arm themselves with fully automatic weapons against safe policing and public safety).
“Mr. Johansen said the dangers connected with psychedelic drugs had been exaggerated by stories that did not take into account probability. ‘Everything carries a risk. If you walk in a forest, a tree may fall on your head, but does this mean you should never go in the woods?'” [emphasis mine]
Risk is always subjective and present due in part ironically to laws designed (well, at least publicly presented as designed) to minimize risk. In other words, laws do nothing with respect to risk management in terms of any proven net reduction in overall tragedy (as opposed to specific areas of tragedy reduction provided by statistical reporting and other forms of ‘narrow spotlight’ studies intentionally/unintentionally leveraged for abusive reasoning — e.g. spin). Instead, such laws merely (and logically unethically) shift risk to alter the targets of victimization — sometimes as a result of abusive favoritism. According to the United States Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers were painfully aware of that law abusing problem (to a degree igniting a violent revolution), but without scientific constitutionalism (Liberty Shield introduction essay offers complete grounding without abusive reasoning), vagueness of law prompts politically motivated shifts towards ever-increasing the complexity of law (naturally increasing the risk of the tyrannical effects that our nation righteously claims to primarily oppose for the sake of defending liberty).
Negating intelligence is obviously unwise, yet the public remains excessively ignorant to the dangers of nanny government and the abusive favoritism rampant therein against public safety. During the continuous push to form a complex set of regulations to form equality, an elitist (i.e. unequal) group must be empowered enough to enforce that “equality”. As history continuously shows through (at least to) this day of authorship here, that power merely forms the new oligarchical class spanning the private and public sectors (and abusive favoritism therein forms the new-yet-oddly-traditional push for regulations for the sake of equality — and the cycle repeats itself, until sufficient public support for scientific constitutionalism breaks that cycle).
Perhaps the mainstream media — in their professionally journalistically unbiased reporting — should add my extremely pertinent points made herein, so the “public’s right to know” is satisfied with whole truth reasoning that would fully logically (and fairly instantly) crush the war on some drugs — i.e. apply extremely powerful public pressure to ‘ratify a peace treaty’ to end that otherwise perpetual war, and include a provision within that ‘treaty’ concisely stating the perfect societal understanding that you most certainly can put whatever you want into your unalienable-right-to-liberty-embracing body (no judicial “slippery slope” causing exceptions).
That includes LSD (a drug capable of producing extremely mild effects literally one tiniest step from sobriety, and a drug founded during publicly recognized and legitimate research by Dr. Albert Hoffman, whom respectfully died past the century mark in age, regardless of his LSD experiences), and the real (and righteous) risk against unethical elitists that such use (unlike stupidity enhancing alcohol) would alter perception in such a way as to most certainly clearly reveal how utterly corrupt the ‘playground bullies’ (i.e. nanny government and their private sector supporters) truly excessively remain against public safety.
What those bullies fail to understand to their imminent detriment is the Rule of Reality (i.e. reality’s hardcore scientific need for balance, so inevitable correction against the mass suffering caused by such dominance in this seamless ocean of energy, at least according to mainstream physics).
My words here may seem like another ‘us vs. them’ cry for revolution, but the bullies are actually being well-advised (they are picking a fight with literally the most powerful being ever to exist, logically speaking — a fight they will most assuredly lose to a degree precisely matching the likely agony that comes from unethically benefiting from mass suffering), so not just righteously courageously criticized apparently at my own risk (and my loved ones’ risk) as the necessary sacrifice for the sake of maximal public safety (with the understanding that “burying my head in the sand” in hopes those bullies — and/or the Rule of Reality — will not bring harm my way is not less risky).
Never to be pretentious about it, my words (and the Liberty Shield project) humbly logically serve the powerful through powerless people with respect to nature-defined equality and the never-ending press towards a humanity-improving rule-of-law necessarily by scientific constitutionalism.
That includes entertainingly educating entertainers (and everyone else) to often echo basic education against abuse in any of its many forms (including reason abuse, which the Rule of Reality remains punishingly aware). That includes ensuring anyone interested in LSD understands that drug can be profoundly powerful with a dose still measured in micrograms (not the more common milligrams). In our age of nanotechnology, a few hundred micrograms producing serious effects is no longer impressive, and a nanogram of the original formula for LSD would literally produce no conscious sensation alteration (and LSD is non-toxic), so literally zero risk (nonetheless zero harm) — the zero tolerance threshold for LSD grounded in the form of reason abuse known as demonization is terribly abusively unfit (so not just by any sane measure).
Leave a Reply