piacat
Rising Star
The lines between legality, illegality and our own moral decisions is an area that commonly, as psychonauts we are prompted to recognise and deliberate on. I don't respect the law, at all. I identify it's failings as far outweighing it's protections and benefitsI've been thinking about legal medications, primarily legal psych medications recently, their use or misuse and the relationship this has with the use of illegal drugs. Antidepressants for one, have personally always left me feeling flat and cardboard-y. Anecdotally, I've only heard of people having satisfactory results in treating depression with these drugs when the individual is not particularly creative – or in the least, very connected with their potential creativity, (this is not to imply unintelligence). People who are creative, seem to be as tormented by this phenomena as their depressed state of mind originally. I can understand why, legislatively there appears to be a preference towards 'safe' and 'predictable' (subtext here is 'profitable') solutions. But if it doesn't really work, and merely acts as a blanket suppression – why adopt a benighted attitude towards alternatives? Sure, one option may not be for everyone. Antidepressants aren't for everyone either. It is reduced to a socially advantageous ploy to categorise drugs in a manner that is politically correct and maximises economic gain.
In a world where alcohol faces such little regulation it is commonly glorified in sport and pop culture, it is little more than conservative dogma that provide the ethical frame work for decision making towards drug policy. Furthermore, categorising psychedelics alongside methamphetamine and heroin reinforces social stigma that is based in nothing more than ignorance and misinformation.
It feels frustrating, that there is such a low moral expectation for industry, big pharmaceutical – the food manufacture industry, agriculture, business and their impact on us as a societies health and welfare... but a totally unwarranted fear of any beneficial experience that doesn't originate in a government / company funded study, come with a prescription and a marketable new carry case. No, LSD won't harm you... Fast food, chemical pesticides, SSRI's, cigarettes, vodka... those can kill you.
So I personally resolve that it is right and fair to continue to make decisions based on ethical and most importantly, logical analysis of evidence rather than pander to a legal notion that is antiquated, draconian and focused on public opinion and protection of business interests rather than facts. I am comfortable to live with myself, wherever that self is positioned with respect to the law.
Namaste
In a world where alcohol faces such little regulation it is commonly glorified in sport and pop culture, it is little more than conservative dogma that provide the ethical frame work for decision making towards drug policy. Furthermore, categorising psychedelics alongside methamphetamine and heroin reinforces social stigma that is based in nothing more than ignorance and misinformation.
It feels frustrating, that there is such a low moral expectation for industry, big pharmaceutical – the food manufacture industry, agriculture, business and their impact on us as a societies health and welfare... but a totally unwarranted fear of any beneficial experience that doesn't originate in a government / company funded study, come with a prescription and a marketable new carry case. No, LSD won't harm you... Fast food, chemical pesticides, SSRI's, cigarettes, vodka... those can kill you.
So I personally resolve that it is right and fair to continue to make decisions based on ethical and most importantly, logical analysis of evidence rather than pander to a legal notion that is antiquated, draconian and focused on public opinion and protection of business interests rather than facts. I am comfortable to live with myself, wherever that self is positioned with respect to the law.
Namaste