Thanks for sharing Snozz. I watched the whole thing and the only audio I struggled with was the questions from the audience, your voice was clear.
The content is interesting. I want to bring up two main things:
1) Justification of Psychedelic Drug Laws
Today it is clear (as you said) that the original scheduling motivation was false. Yet, the laws based on false premises remain. Why? I think there is more than one reason:
- 1a because people want to control others and keep their power structure through laws (your thesis)
- 1b because there are people who still truly believe that the drugs are damaging enough to suspend freedoms and incarcerate citizens.
You made a great eloquent point for 1a. However, I think you underestimate the ongoing effect of 1b. For example, police sometimes proudly announce they have removed a dangerous plant from the street. More enlightened police are starting to ignore marijuana even though a lot of unjustifiable laws still exist. I think this is the point that some in the audience where trying to make: some drug war enforcers think they are doing the right thing and do have a choice, they just make a mistake sometimes.
I think we should still bring up the medical information to help with issue 1b, while at the same time working on 1a. Can we not do this synergistically, without one taking anything away from the other?
2) The people on the other side of the war that change sides through felt life experience
There is a very important class of people that can help affect change. The people that used to be in 1b (or even 1a), but that because of the reality of life (typically a medical issue) had to abandon that position. For example, the
Florida judge who jailed many and ended up advocating for medicinal marijuana access with deep remorse over his past career. Ronald Reagan can be seen as a victim of his own war and drugs since his end of life Alzheimer's could have been helped by marijuana.
We all have a day when the truth catches up to us. I think that we should embrace these people, forgive all their sins instantly and welcome them to our team. I think consciously doing this could be very beneficial and have a snowball effect (some of these folks may be concerned about how they will be received, at risk of deciding to stay on the sidelines). We should welcome them; I think doing so is in our best interest.
---
Finally, I think science alone is not going to change our oppressive laws, and that became apparent many peer reviewed journal papers ago. A wise man once said that history shows no one gives you rights: you have to go grab them. On this last part I think we agree.
