Indeed, the comments on the article disturb me a good deal. One of the reason I find them disturbing is because they are well written, yet clearly lack a fundamental understanding of the entire issue. Yet, there is a glimmer of hope in that ignorance.... a willingness to be open to the issue. Take this comment, which is the first comment I read, for example,
Quote: I don't understand why 'decriminalisation' has ever been touted as a plus to legalising drugs. Ultimately, whether considered in legislative terms, a 'criminal' or not, the use of drugs within a society can have disastrous consequences, in every conceivable way. The article notes how an Australian 'heroin shortage' merely resulted in a 'surge in the number of people consuming cocaine', rather absurdly, as if to suggest legalising drugs and ensuring a permanent, plentiful supply of heroin is the key to the problem. For anyone who does indeed believe this to be so, please find the time to converse with a relative or friend of a heroin addict; the picture is not at all pretty. And indeed, a similar conversation in regards to a cocaine addict will produce the same result.
Sieghart asserts that young people 'will always take mind altering substances', and surely the debate must be taken to such depths in order to yield a successful solution. Thus the question is posed, why do people 'take drugs'? To 'escape' from the mundane, mind-degrading routine of a 9-5 job, the troubles of one's family or quite simply, a means through which to forget one's failures? Perhaps even, a mental health problem?
The war on drugs? Of course, it's doomed to fail. As with every crime going, 'criminalisation' or indeed, 'decriminalisation', has no effect whatsoever; the social events that foster and determine a 'crime', be it murder, rape or the consumption of 'mind-altering toxins', will still occur regardless of whether or not a punishment exists. Yet the now repetitive, frankly frustrating 'leave it to tha free, legal market 'cos the ladz will get a clean cut of coke init' argument is utterly contemptible. Whether drugs are legal or illegal, they will still produce disastrous consequences for those who consume them, those who are close to 'drug consumers' and thus, society as a whole.
In essence, the issues of 'decriminalisation' and 'legalisation', while important in terms of the way in which we view drug addicts, as victims rather than criminals, simply do not reveal the crux of the issue. A debate which does, in which the very fundamentals of drug-use in a society are queried, is sincerely required.
The poster seems to argue that decriminalization and legalization are not viable options because that would not help "the problem". Their argument is that even though the war on drugs will never succeed, that doesn't matter. To support this argument, the poster compares drug use to murder. She says, whether illegal or not, there will always be murders, and we obviously don't consider legalizing murder, right? Of course, we all know that the problem with this argument is that it assumes, apparently unaware that any opposing view even exists, that drug use is fundamentally wrong..... despite the obvious undeniable fact that society is filled with drugs, which just happen to be legal, and which are extremely helpful, if used properly.
However, the glimmer of hope in this comment is that she suggests an examination of drug use. She suggests examining why people use drugs. Unfortunately, at the moment, like most people, she assumes people use drugs to escape reality or get addicted, or use them as some sort of harmful behavior. She has clearly never met someone like me, or anyone in this community. Would she even believe if I told her that almost every day I thank God that an average person like me was blessed to stumble across dmt? It has enriched my life in ways that I cannot possibly give enough thanks. It transcends thank you's. People have no idea how we feel about these things.
I hope that future articles concentrate on the moral issue of drug criminalization. The moral issue being...... how in God's name can you justify putting someone in prison for years at a time with the most violent people on earth, for consuming something of their choosing in to their own body? I get a bit frustrated when I hear arguments for decriminalization that suggest decriminalization because the war isn't working, there is still a demand for drugs, or bring light to the financial cost of the war. These arguments are disturbing to me because the arguments suggest that if the war WERE working, that if imprisoning people did help stop people from using drugs, then it is ok to imprison every single person who chooses to use an herb, even if it is for religious purposes, part of their deepest held beliefs.
It's NOT ok to punish, and certainly not imprison, non violent, otherwise law abiding citizens, for consuming something, exercising free will and freedom of conscience. It's not ok to imprison drug users, just like it's not ok to imprison fat people for being fat.... even if prison is a successful deterrent to being fat. I use obesity as an example because heart disease is one of the main causes of death in America, far greater than drug abuse, I believe. What would people think of American values and freedoms if they started putting fat people in jail because fat isn't good for them? You know what's not good for people? FRIGGING PRISON!!! Prison just may prevent more people from getting fat, however, the fact that government is willing to go to any means necessary to stop people from being fat is worse than the problem of obesity itself. Less people would be fat, but a lot more people would be furious at government for taking their lives, and their families lives away, the concept of freedom would fall apart. It's not ok for governments, or people to use any means necessary, short of the death penalty, to deter people from doing this or that.
We don't send people to prison for 7 years for not wearing a seat belt, even though one could argue that such an act could kill them. So yeah, if the government decided that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt gets 7 years in jail, I bet a lot more people
would wear seat belts, but you know what.... a lot more people would be terrified as well, a lot more people would be severely displeased to live in such a society where government is foaming at the mouth to be so cruel, and people wondering, if they're willing to take away peoples freedom for seat belts, what's next? Is their no limit to what they're willing to do just to deter? The manifestation of that fear would be disastrous..... which is basically what we see with the drug war, a whole lot of needless suffering and violence on both sides. Yet, at current, people are willing to accept the oppression of a certain class of people who use certain substances. Maybe it's because only a small percentage of people use illegal substances, yet a large percentage of them are fat. Oppression should be viewed as offensive to free society, and prison is just about the most oppressive force a society can use.
America gained independence and was founded by people who were pissed off because they didn't want to pay tax on tea. They considered that tax oppression, and wanted independence. And yet, any drug user faces potential oppression far greater than little extra tax. Users can literally have their freedom itself taken away with job, income, home, possessions, everything. It wasn't ok for America to be oppressed by Britain who wanted some tea tax, yet now that America is in power, for some reason the people accept that the government can take peoples lives away for using herbs of
their choice, be it mimosa tea, or cannabis tea, or whatever. This should be truly offensive to anyone who believes in free society, should be offensive to the ancestors of those who died for freedom from governments who will take and take and take beyond reason.
It's hard reading those comments, because people seem to assume that all people who use drugs are so addicted they're robbing people to get money to fund their habit. Yes, there are people like that..... but that's only some people, and only a few drugs are associated with that severe addiction/crime phenomenon, and none of those drugs are entheogens. I bet there's not a person on the planet robbing people to fund their dmt addiction. That's not the nature of all drugs, yet comments seem to assume crime/addiction is the case with all illegal drugs. And then there's the talk of the "cartels", and drug violence. Again, none of that crap has anything to do with the substances we discuss here..... yet the punishment for dmt is just the same as all the rest. Do they know that dmt plants pass freely through most world borders by the kilograms at a time? And surprise surprise, there are no cartels or mimosa gangs or any of that garbage, and no deaths from use, very few people are addicted, and no one is committing crimes to get their hands on mimosa, which is also absurdly cheap by the way. Is this not a strong case for legalization? Of course, I wouldn't want those commenters to know the status of dmt plants because if they learned, they'd probably seek to have mimosa in the same boat as coke, even though their is zero evidence to suggest that entheogens are associated with violence, or addiction. Yet, dmt is a schedule 1 drug, along with cocaine, heroin, and meth.
Part of me wants to communicate with those posters directly. I want them to know who I am, what this community is, why we do what we do. But, on the other hand, I don't want them to know. I don't want them to know because I don't think they'd understand, and I don't want pr from people who would lump me in with "druggies" and addicts and robbers and human traffickers. I feel the disconnect from the general public is so great that I don't even want them to know that someone like me, and a community like this, exists.
Sorry about the rant.