Anarchy and Drugs

The US drug legislation

- you are not allowed to consume a substance that
  (a) has a hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system
  (b) has a stimulant effect on the central nervous sytem
  (c) has a depressant effect on the central nervous system
- to be concise, there is no way these effects occur except on the central nervous system so they can be restated as banning anything which:
  (a) has a hallucinogenic effect
  (b) has a stimulant effect
  (c) has a depressant effect
- so this statement mandates that one is not permitted to alter their perception of reality under severe penalty.

Is this really the "land of the free"?

Typical justifications for drug illegalization circle around "public health" which albeit sounding like a noble concern is not explained anywhere. What precisely are they doing for "public health" and how does this effort take precedence over personal freedom?

Scientific data is selectively acknowledged by crafty politicians to support their political ends, even when scientists attemp to make reality of data known to politicians who pretend it is invalid. If certain drugs are classified as having no medical purpose, it is illegal for scientists to experiment in order to determine whether these drugs in fact do have a medical purpose.

Political ends — in US this usually revolves around appearing reactionary conservative and caring about the ol' Christian decency for general crowd appeal. But in times long since past, thousands of years before the emergence of Abrahamic religions or the vicious monotheistic dust demon god, our ancestors used to live in a deep harmony with the land. If there was something exquisite that nature offered, it was sanctified and used only in special purposes. The priests of societies and tribes took care of the delicate preparations, but it was not uncommon that even the whole hunter-gatherer tribe participated in the potent ego-dissolving trip. Certainly these late moral imperatives can't be more real than the original thing, am I right?

The potential for acclaimed drug "abuse" is the recreational use. Only function is tolerated, because it serves the interests of the masters, no freedom to not to function in ways that don't befit the interests of the masters.

Interests for this kind of political hold on freedom to use drugs are (a) conventional notions of harms and taboos and (b) influential medicine indrusty which are both both sure ways to gain more political influence and money. They use the linear crowd logic to educate that x leads to y, period. There is no speak of responsibility but circular logic excuses of knowing better or holier-than-thou. As with carrying guns, it's not the guns itself which are dangerous, but the experience and intent which pull the trigger: a drug experience can be something fun shared with friends and family alike, but it can lead to total personal ruination or cases of violence. That all is up to the basic foundation of how fit is the person use guns/drugs, is responsible, does psychosis run in his/her family, and potentially many others.

Drugs can be used in a self-destructive manner, but why should few bad apples spoil the experience for the rest of us? Actually, the problem of modern society pretty much boils down to the fact that there a too many god damn rules to forbid, instead of having a more positive positive mindset of encouraging the inherent freedom to experience, enjoy, and grow up as a healthy and responsible human, which we never will be without freedom.