Society and their Substances: Dispelling the Common myths of Drugs and Drug Users
Have you ever wondered “why” are drugs illegal? Some might look to places like Portland Oregon and say, “Just look at Portland, junkies wandering the streets, doing heroin out in the open!” and they wouldn’t be wrong.
Portland decided to decriminalize all drugs, and made it no more criminal than a speeding ticket. But there was a catch, if the drug user wanted a medical health check, the $100 fine would be waved with the idea of getting the user in touch with medical professionals.
While humane, it’s obvious that these policies aren’t crafted by professional drug users. It’s often the case that “non-drug users” dictate the policies of “drug users” in the name of public health, yet have no understanding of the psychology of an addict.
Even the best addiction expert would never be able to understand the fundamentals of an addict’s mind until he or she becomes addicted to something. The logic, the reasoning, the internal dialogue all change to support the addiction, or to use it as a crutch to blame them for all their problems.
Yet, what news outlets like Fox ignore with the city of Portland is that there is a large homeless population. And when there is misery mixed with cheap and accessible drugs with little criminal penalties or education programs in place – you’ve got a cocktail for disaster.
Now, do we blame “drugs” for this…or is this a problem of the policies surrounding drugs?
Of course, one cannot discard that some drugs are just inherently more damaging to the human body and mind than others. For example, it’s not the same smoking a strong joint than it is injecting yourself with heroin. Therefore the word “drugs” cannot begin to fully encompass the whole problem with “drugs”.
It’s a blanket statement that ignores all the nuance of drugs, their users, and the interaction between substance and society.
Is there a way to fix Portland? Well, yes – but criminalizing drugs is not the way. In fact, criminalizing drugs is counter productive as it makes the environment surrounding drug use, sales, and distribution more lucrative and more dangerous. Other than, “drugs are done in the shadows”, there is no inherent benefit of drug prohibition.
I’ll get a bit into how one could possibly address this problem later on, however – to begin to understand the complexity of “Drugs”, let’s begin by addressing the myths.
Myth 1: There’s a clear definition for Drugs!
“He was doing the drugs!” a worried mom confesses to her neighbor while finishing her third glass of wine. Her nerves finally settled and the social lubricant unhinged her jaw so her soul could sing her anxieties to the world, unbothered by the consequences.
Not to get all Matt Walsh on you folk but… “What is a drug?”
The truth is a “drug” by definition is any substance that changes you physiologically and has an impact on your psychologically”.
Or if you want to get technical, the American Heritage dictionary defines drug as, “A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.”
Here’s the thing…everything is a “chemical substance”. If you’re putting sugar in your coffee, you’re putting “chemical substances in other chemical substances”·
Secondly, it needs only to affect the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction?
Well, under that classification sugar is one hell of a drug – and we give it to children!!!
WHY WON’T ANYONE EVER THINK ABOUT THOSE CHILDREN!!!
Karen 2:19, The Big Book of Karens
Yet when you say, “He did drugs” you’re not thinking about the guy who snarfed down 18 Twinkies. You’re thinking, “Portland Oregon” aren’t you?
Well, that’s because Uncle Sam’s mind control and propaganda machine did its job and installed a bias towards certain drugs. With the help of Pharma, they have been shaping the way we view the definition of drugs since the 1970s.
This is because in the 1971 Controlled Substance Act, Pharma was granted basically “ownership” of all drug development and research in the US, and basically a handful of government sanctioned companies would become our “pharma overlords”.
Along with the FDA [funded by them] and the DEA [Funded by you], Pharma could create the biggest, most insidious monopoly in the world – and then involved the Military Industrial Complex for fun.
[1970s] Pharma: “Hey man, so Colombia – they be making some mad cocaine and its undercutting our profits!”
DEA: Sure, we’ll go create violent altercations between local law enforcement and drug dealers and coerce the government to adopt our strict “anti-drug rhetoric” drafted up by the Prison Industrial Complex!”
Pharma: “Nixon would be proud!”
Yes, and while this might sound highly conspiratorial to some of you – it’s very well documented and all it takes it to walk down the history of drug prohibition to spot the shitfuckery a mile away!
The 1971 Controlled Substance Act gave power to Pharma, and Pharma used this opportunity to “re-educate the populace” by calling what they produce “medicine” and what anyone other than them produce “drugs”.
Yet often times, it’s the “medicine” that comes with 50-side effects including rectal bleeding – but smoking weed is as bad as heroin!
Oh yea, according to the hallowed document that ensured the government authority over your body, cannabis is classified as having “no medical value and a high potential for abuse”. Anyone who has taken any drugs would understand that this is absolute nonsense.
What’s more, tobacco nor alcohol is on the Controlled Substance Act – those drugs aren’t the same as the “other-other drugs” produced by those brown people in the hills laced with demon juice and murder!
The definition you subscribe to about drugs is sadly not yours – it’s a plant. And invasive parasite created by an entity that sees you as the “product”. You are the stock. That’s why you’re not allowed to consume certain “drugs” – it might make you think too much outside of the box.
Myth 2: People who use drugs are suffering from substance use disorder
Most people who use drugs are not particularly addicted. Well, perhaps as addicted as you are to coffee. It’s something that you depend on daily (in the case you’re a coffee drinker), however, it’s not the end of the world when you miss it a day or two.
You might have some low-key physical withdrawal…and in fact, detoxing from coffee is one hell of a detox! Don’t believe me? Go 90-days without coffee and see how addicted you truly are!
Yet some people even wear this addiction as a badge! “I’m totally addicted to java bro!” “Me too!”
There are some drugs that are socially accepted, and even “addictive behavior” is celebrated because the drug itself is seen as benign. People literally go binge drink to get “totally wasted” and laugh about it, even though more people die from alcohol poisoning each year than all of the psychedelic drugs combined.
Yet getting “smashed” is celebrated. “Hangover 1,2,3” is an homage to the whole “getting shitfaced” ideals of the American Badass.
But even then, the vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so in moderation – and this goes for virtually every other drug except maybe for meth, crack, and some lower quality substances. These tend to create devastating physiological responses to the substances, and hyper-addicts tend to kill themselves with it.
Nonetheless, for the vast majority of drugs…people take them responsibly. Just think about it, you do your taxes, you invest your money, you plan vacations, you’ve got a job with a lot of responsibility. If you ever decide to take a psychedelic – wouldn’t you apply the same level of care and attention to the experience?
Of course you would! You’d learn that you don’t need to take a lot of it, you’ll understand set and setting – take it, experience it…assess whether you need more or whether you’re finished…and go about your way.
This is virtually the experience of the common drug user. I for example, am a psychonaut and have been practicing for 20-years. The last time I took a psychedelic was 2 years ago and haven’t had the opportunity nor the “calling” to dive back into a deep weekend of psychedelia.
Typically, however, I use psychedelics once or twice a year. I might microdose for periods of creation and project management, but beyond this – I keep my use of psychedelics in check and for specific purposes.
With proper education, most people would learn the ins and outs of certain drugs, how they behave, what frequency they can use them safely, etc.
The DSM-V, the diagnostic tool [created by pharma], has a particular definition of what it means to have Substance Use Disorder, and they have definitions based on different drugs. However, their classifications are done purely from a pharmacological perspective with no understanding of psychological interplay between a particular person and a substance.
Why is it that the homeless in Portland are doing hard drugs constantly, but Dr. Keven Hart understands how to use heroin for recreational purposes?
Personally, I’m not all that interested in heroin, but if a person can take it responsibly in their own home – then they should be able to do it. And under the DSM-V any kind of heroin use would be considered “substance abuse disorder”.
And this goes back to the classification of “drugs” we covered earlier. The “bad drugs” vs the “good drugs” get different treatment and tolerance thresholds. They decide when you’re addicted, and being addicted is bad – except if it’s tobacco, sugar, alcohol, fast foods, etc.
Myth 3: Drug Users are dirty, immoral, and dangerous losers…
A heroin user, coke user, and a cannabis user walked into a bar – and nobody could judge which one used which….and probably, some of them had high paying jobs…
To think “drug users” are dirty is to think “soda drinkers are fat” or “fast food eaters” are poor. Who is a fast food eater? What does a “soda drinker” look like?
You can’t define them because “everyone” uses it as “everyone” uses drugs. If we’re talking about the “naughty drug list” – the principle remains consistent. If you see me in real life, you would have no idea that I have huddled on the edge of cosmic portals, deeply entrenched in a hallucination after consuming LSD.
You’d say, “look at that responsible, and respectable tax payer!” Because, I have long learned to shift my external appearance to become invisible to the police. The youth dress provocatively, the wise dress practically.
Furthermore, if substance use had anything to do with “morality” or “hygiene”, then I wonder what moral outcome eating hot dogs produce? If you consume a lettuce, do you become a morally ‘better’ person?
After all, if drug use can dictate morals, then food must also play a role. If you drink a beer, do you become “neutral?”
Who dictates the morality scale in correlation to the substance used?
As you can see my friends, when you begin to poke at these myths – they begin to come apart. This is because this particular myth comes from early prohibition – Reefer Madness! Even though reefer madness wasn’t the first mechanism of stereotyping a group of people, it is the most known.
Drug prohibition has long utilized this tactic of “demoralization of a group” in order to justify their atrocities. It’s a more subtle Hitlarian “blame the Jews” tactic of creating a public boogie-man that allows people to pass laws they would commonly not pass.
For example, with the Chinese immigrants who used opium, they were demonized as a group when settler sons and husbands were caught get high and dirty with their Asian brethren.
Then laws were drafted up based on early Christian morality – which was based in puritanism for the most part – which is basically to deny yourself of all pleasures for the sake of getting a mansion in heaven or something of the sort.
The point is, morality is a subjective slippery slope. In the 1960s, any church endorsing gay marriage would have been excommunicated by their peers – now they are opening their doors all over the place.
Morals shift, and the argument that “all drug users are dirty and immoral” is a weak one that could easily be flipped on virtually every substance – simply because morals are fluid.
Myth 4: People take drugs because they have problems
While some people do take drugs to mask their problems, the vast majority take drugs for its effects. When I’m eating a psychedelic mushroom out in the wilderness, I’m not thinking, “If I take this, all my troubles will melt away!”
Rather I say, “Oh shit…relax, and let go…what comes up will come down…” and then I relax, breathe, spark up a joint and ride the magick into the cosmos.
Why do I do this?
Well, for starters, when you enter into a state of psychedelia – your brain begins to connect in ways it commonly does not. It enters into a state of “hyper-plasticity” meaning that you become less “rigid” in your thinking.
You can then, in this state, confront situations in your life from a completely new perspective. At times, it makes you realize that the way you have been looking at an idea or concept or challenge in your life, can be resolved by simply shifting your behavior or the way you feel about it.
Sometimes you can accept the loss of a loved one, or figure out a way to deal with that constant anxiety you’ve been feeling, peaking into the darkness and allowing the unconscious to manifest.
This is how I use psychedelics. Other people use it in different ways. But for no way am I using it to “get rid of my problems” or to “escape them”.
The heroin junkies in Portland aren’t escaping their problems – they are numbing their pain. They are abandoned, they live on the streets, they have no one that loves them, they are alone.
Why the hell wouldn’t you want to just numb yourself for as long as you can if you can see no escape from the hell you are living?
However, for the rest of us who take drugs responsibly – no one is trying to mask their problems with drugs. I smoke weed because I like to get high, I like how it interplays with my creative process and counterbalance it with caffeine.
Myth 5: Regular Drug use leads to addiction
Well, I’ve been smoking cannabis for about twenty years and if there’s anyone who should be addicted to it by now, it should be me.
Except, I frequently take breaks for months at a time and utilize different states of mind to achieve certain tasks. There are moments when absolute sobriety helps me, and then there’s moments when I smoke weed at the end of the day. There are days I smoke in the morning.
However, to claim I’m addicted to weed would be wrong, even though according to the DSM-V I’d probably be classified as such.
Once again, addiction isn’t necessarily bad. We all have our little addictions, yet we’re socially functional. We’re available to our children, we do our work, we don’t slack.
Why is it okay to play video games for 4 hours after work every day, yet you can’t smoke a bong rip? Why is one “relaxing” and the other one “addiction”.
Bias – that’s why!
Myth 6: Taking Drugs Damages People
The number one killer in the United States is heart disease. The #1 cause for heart disease is poor diet.
Considering that people eat so much fast food in the US – shouldn’t the fact that they are damaging themselves be reason enough to ban fast food? Perhaps not ban fast food, perhaps – we could weigh people at the front door which would give them a suitable menu based on their likeliness of developing a chronic disease.
I know some people may scoff at this idea, but it’s essentially what we’re doing with all drugs. We’re saying, “because this substance may cause physical harm…it should be illegal!” yet we don’t hold the same standards to other drugs or foods in society.
Why is it conveniently untaxable, non-pharma drugs that “damages people”, and should be illegal – but legal drugs produced by pharma has a threshold on deaths before it gets recalled?
If harm is the metric for illegality, then we should begin to restrict people’s diets because it is costing the taxpayer billions, people are taking up hospital beds that could be for healthy people that don’t eat themselves into heart disease….
Ya, sounds a bit “Nazi?” That’s because it is!
And the justification of keeping drugs illegal because of possible harm then should be applied to all substances, otherwise it undermines the very justification for keeping it illegal.
The Sticky Bottom Line
You’re not going to save the Portland problem by criminalizing drugs. You can do it by
-
Addressing the homeless problem
-
Creating Drug Centers, where they get free drugs like in Switzerland. There is no need to get into rehab, although it’s available. You can have as much drugs as long as it’s not a lethal dose.
-
Educate people – we don’t need to teach people which drugs are bad…we need to teach them how to use drugs if they choose.
You can have amazing results from certain drugs. Modern research is showing us that psychedelics has the ability to do what common psychiatric medicine is failing. It can help us dissolve PTSD, make people break addiction in a single session, and completely transform their lives.
But if we keep on playing the prohibition game – we’re only going to continue to keep the solutions in the dark, under the thumb of Pharma – who certainly won’t ever put profits over people.
SOCIETY AND LEGALIZATION, READ ON...
