"Taking himself seriously, so you don't have to."

Part VI-B: Narcotics

Part VI-B: Narcotics

 

You know what I’m talking about. Drugs seem the same as other forms of modern entertainment: television, video games, masturbation. Some can be done with others; some are best for one on their lonesome. There seems to me nothing inherently wrong with the usage of these substances. They can be abused, sure. Their usage can degrade oneself (and when I say narcotics, I should also include caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol. Including any other drugs available. Same with prescription drugs.) So, narcotics: they seem as entertainment, sure, and there is nothing inherently wrong with them (short of abuse and the circumstances involved with procurement in illegality), but is that all? No. They can be beneficial. It depends on the person using them, how they are used, in what company, and for what purpose, but they can be beneficial. Mediated, tempered with a sense of their power (for the user must be cognizant of that power), and procured for an individual’s own usage or for others of like mind (without “pushing”), some benefit can be gained of these substances. Of course, they must be somewhat age-restricted, as it requires an education in things of this nature to know how to use them correctly, and many a good man or woman has been broken by their usage. I hear you say, “So there are negatives!” True, but this is not to be so greatly lamented, for those who are unable to regulate their usage (after they have learned many hard lessons), should just as well be broken by their aspect. For if it were not for these narcotics, a person of that sort would find another means to that end. If, and I mean IF, there be never-ending deplorable circumstances for everyone that has ever used a drug, even the tiniest amount (and IF our highest virtue truly requires such purity), the most intelligent among us would surely refrain. As there are a myriad of things available to our freedom presently that offer enticing, fantastical possibilities to the initiate that are known to be quite dangerous, most people have learned to avoid them.

I can offer another way of looking at it. In Plato’s “The Republic”, the opening question is: “What is justice?” Before making much headway, one of the characters professes his admiration of injustice, as it was responsible for material happiness, riches, respect from one’s peers, etc, added to which justice provides none. As the system of governance that we employ professes to follow “justice”, one cannot deny. It seems reasonable that the creation of a system of “justice” followed discussions of this very sort. Now, were we to assume the opposite of the matter (that injustice is better than justice), could we idly stand by while honest, hard-working people were thrown in jail and reviled, while murderers and rapists were allowed to walk the streets, and indeed, be respected? No. Justice came of its own accord. It took millenia for us to get to the point we are now. Still, Plato would be appalled. But his system was one of stringent order, as opposed to organic flow, as individual freedom best puts forth. The point is that we cannot know that prohibition is better than legalization1. It is time to try something new, and not balk in the face of it. Those that must be without will be unaffected, those that require will be sated, those who endeavor in commerce will reap the rewards, and our individual freedom will be furthered, and I dare say, “justified”. As it is, usage of narcotics is an unnecessary restraint on our individual freedom.

A purely theoretical example would look like this: a population allowed to do what they wish, is suddenly denied something that is not harmful to others, denied what they would wish upon themselves. There is nothing of the golden rule broken by its usage, and yet they are denied. For what reason? That they might be entertained? Distracted? Enlightened? Degraded? Any of these things are possible, but let the individuals choose for themselves, for those who find nothing worthwhile, they will pass on judgment. For those otherwise, they will otherwise. In this case, it is best to “let it be”. Allow it to be so; as this is not any sort of orderly paradise of which we live, structured by intention (we are in quite virgin territory), so it must be that we allow ourselves to make our own path, to stab out upon precipices that may or may not contain us, that we experiment.

 

(Now, let me pause. There is one qualification. And this does not merely pertain to the legality of narcotics. Any change in our governance or altering of our morals, values, economic structure,etcetera, any grand alteration of our mode of life should be held back for a one thing that can (and MUST), practically, be achieved beforehand. Free energy. It must be had. This is of paramount importance. Absolute paramount. Our social malaise can wait, other intentions of civilization can wait, everything can stop; there could be nothing on our televisions, our radio, nothing to eat but bread and water, but this must be done. When achieved, and our mode of operation has stabilized, then we can address subjects such as this and a myriad others. Of course, there are only so many people that could contribute to the effort in this case, and there is a limitation of the economic sort that denies that such endeavor should take place, and nay, be paramount. But it must be. I’m not talking just the good ‘ole U.S. of A. here; all of modernity must take this course. Transfer our usage of petroleum to kilowatt-hours gleaned from sunshine or wind or movement of water. A grand undertaking, of course, and this is discussed elsewhere. But I wanted to say again; why not?)

 

[There is much more to be said of this topic, and I will return to it in due course.]

 

1I have not lived outside of this prohibition. It is present everywhere in the modern world, besides Portugal. And I hear that de-prohibition has been quite a benefit. Before prohibition took place, we were in much different straits. As individual freedom has come further, it has demanded furtherance. I see little reason to deny it thus.