I
just got done reading an article in "New York" magazine about
ecstacy. The title was "Ecstacy -
Not Just For Club Kids Anymore!"
My reaction was, yeah - go ecstacy!!!
A good title. My favorite line
from the article was quoted as a "raver mantra" - "Everything
starts with an E". Those raver
kids can be pretty darn clever.
Anyway,
the article started out really good, giving the "real life" view
where the reporter would interview people who were "down with the
scene." One quote that I liked was
"Once you do the first pill, your whole pespective on life changes."
Then
the article got into a detailed analysis of how much money can be made by
"ecstacy rings" and how customs officials are trying to "combat
the problem." Then of course it
got into how lawmakers are trying to raise the penalties for having it. One politician, a NY state senator - Roy Goodman, wants to change the law so that
people are charged with the weight of the entire supposed "stash"
rather than just the weight of the pure drug.
Sort of like the law with LSD where the paper or pill that contains the
drug counts too. Goodman says
"We're at the point now with ecstacy that we were at in the 1970's with
cocaine - people are passing pills around like mints by people who have no idea
of it's negative effects."
All in all it was a pretty decent article. It pretty much gave both sides of the story,
although it was apparent that it was written for an over 40 audience who is not
about to go out and try ecstacy. I
tried to scan it so I could send it to you, but i couldn't get the scanner to
work.
On one hand, it was nice to read an article that seemed to be
written by someone who might have actually tried the thing that they were
writing about. On the other hand, it's
frustrating to see that the people who are making the laws obviously have no
experience with the things that they're making laws about.
It's interesting, though, what you can get out of an article if
you actually think critically about the information that is presented rather
than simply accept the conclusions that are handed to you. For example, articles like that tend to be
filled up with statistics about how whopping numbers of kids are taking ecstacy
and marijuana, which I'm sure makes some people alarmed about how widespread
the problem is. But don't we live in a
democracy? If a large enough percentage
of the population is doing something, shouldn't it be made legal? It seems like what's really holding people
back from supporting legalization of drugs is the fact that they're illegal in
the first place.
And obviously, if kids can get their hands on ecstacy any time
they want to, drug laws really aren't doing what they're supposed to do anyway,
right? Instead of putting millions into
the drug war, couldn't that money be spent to inform those people who
"have no idea of its negative effects" so that they can make an
informed decision. And on that note,
maybe it's because I went to a fairly intellectual college, but every single
person that i knew who took ecstacy was extremely well informed of its negative
effects and the way to take ecstacy as safely as possible. Wouldn't that be good information for people
to have?
The truth is that the negative effects of ecstacy are a little
hard to come by. I've heard of possible
neurological damage at extremely high doses, but that it's quite safe at low
doses. Add to that a lack of any kind
of physical addiction and a typically mild hangover, and it doesn't seem like a
bad choice for somebody who just wants to have
a "fling" with a drug.
And shouldn't that be okay?
I mean, if you want to get drunk, shouldn't that be okay? If you want to go out and have a night of
excitement - go dancing, flirt with strangers, get laid.. shouldn't that be
okay? And if you want to fuck with your
mind once in a while - change your thinking, break out of old habits,
experience intense physical pleasure... shouldn't that be okay too?
Sure, we live in a society and sometimes individual freedom has
to be sacrificed for the common good, and the argument can definitely be made
that some drugs (generally addictive ones) lead to an increase in crime as a
whole. Can that be said about marijuana
or other psychoactives, though? I don't
think so. The only argument I've really
heard along those lines is that they can act as "gateway drugs." But that is based on studies that show that
people who have used marijuana are more likely to use other drugs. Couldn't you also say that someone who uses
cocaine is very likely to have used marijuana?
I don't think you can really show a connection in which marijuana acts
as a gateway drug.
Are there side effects of psychoactives? There can be. Regular use can lead to difficulty with short term memory and
focus. But does it lead to crime? Does it interfere with a persons ability to
find happiness in life? Really, all it
does is interfere with a persons desire to be a good worker.
And do anti-drug laws affect the rich, powerful people behind the
distrobution of the drugs? Not really. The people who suffer are small time dealers
or users without the protection that money can buy.
At the bottom of everything, you can see the same trend in
anti-drug legislature as you can see in almost all new laws - structure to
confine the average person and to help the already rich and powerful become
more rich and powerful. Drugs tend to
make people question their lives and the status quo. They would start to ask themselves, "Is this job really
bringing me happiness? Do I need to do
this to survive? How could I help
myself to be more happy?" Drugs
might help people question the way that buying things makes us feel better, or
to see the everyday addictions we tend to have to negativity and
distraction. Thinking that is certainly
detrimental to the capitalist economy that we live in today.
Most people do not want to think that there is a conspiracy where
laws are made purposefully to subdigate people. We all want to believe that people are generally good and that
lawmakers are just ordinary people trying to do what they think is best. That may be true. But the EFFECT seems to be consistantly the same. Drugs like caffeine and nicotine remain
legal. Wellbutrin, prozac, zoloft,
riddalin, aderol, paxil... all drugs
that are prescribed to change people.
Not as a one day fling, but forever!!!
Now that's scary. Why? To make people happy little citizens who are
good workers. And who profits hugely
from the sale of these drugs? The same
people who finance the campaigns of the politicians who make our laws.
So it's okay to give people a drug to make them feel good enough
to work and buy things. But what if
there was a drug that would help people see the goal of life more clearly? To encourage them to look deeper into the
meaning of everyday experience? To try
to become happier, more fulfilled people.
What if there was a drug that would show a person just how much
potential the human mind has to experience bliss? It seems like a beautiful concept to me. Do we have to wait until we're dead to start
exploring the wonderful mystery of existence?
Despite my best efforts, I have lost faith that my
representatives really have the best interests of the people in mind. Whenever I hear something on the news about
a new law, I try to ask "how can this be interpreted in a way that helps
people with money, while confining the average person?" Because politicians can't just blatantly
ignore the people. They have to
convince the people that these laws are what they really want.
For example, requireing every motorist to have insurance makes
sure that everyone is covered if they are responsible for an accident,
right? Well, insurance companies make
loads of money. Why not have government
mandated insurance for every motorist - through the government. It would be more affordible for everyone,
and the government could use that revenue as a suppliment to taxes. And yet, we have the lottery as an important
source of revenue. When more than half
of the daily calls to gamblers anonomous are due to an addiction to the
lottery.
So think clearly and critically
dammit!! See how your attention is
being continually diverted from the real issues of life - spiritual and
emotional growth. See how you already
have far more than you could ever need.
You don't need to be constantly pushing for more unless that's really what you most love to
do.
