THE NEW PROHIBITION: FROM THE INSIDE OUT

The drug war is an issue filled with almostunending controversy -and
how to broach the issue, even more so. This sad state of affairs
mainly manifests itself in the demonization of drug use, which is
partially precipitated by the rule of law, but also by otherwise
ideological barriers.

How the decision to make the possession and use of mind-altering
substances, synthetic and natural, a punishable act is beyond even
the most crafted and intellectual minds -unless a largely conjectural
argument is allowed to form one's opinions.

In the interest of a largely benign act, an insurmountable degree of
opposition to these absurd laws has been under way for the better
part of 40 years. Artists, pundits, actors, comedians, lawyers,
politicians, scientists, students, law enforcement and even religious
fanatics have all voiced their anger at the discriminatory and
unbalanced statutes that prevent acquisition and consumption of
inherently nontoxic and even beneficial substances.

From the summer of love to the days of insurrection to now -the days
of discussable complacence -a prolonged and biased recognition of the
use of drugs has been at the center of this sideshow act. It is
almost an amazing feat that authority has managed to stymie further
investigation into psychedelic, and otherwise mindbending, materials.
Research should continue, and allowance of personal preference should
never be modified or policed.

When one recognizes what "drugs" are, then it becomes clear they are
tools for altering perceptions or probing the nature of mind and the
varying degrees of awareness. These substances either inhibit or
exacerbate the natural perception systems in the body by binding to
neurotransmitter receptors on the body's cells, eliciting a desired
or less-than-welcome effect. These effects, however, are not from the
drug; they are merely allowed to come to the front of experience and
guide one's mentation by posing as, or imitating, the endogenous
neural chemicals, like serotonin, dopamine, etc.

To create a comparable distinction for nondrug users, let's consider
a few seemingly contra-dictory positions that contribute to the
continuance of drug enforcement.

As consumerist fashion becomes widely accepted, more and more scents
and perfumes seem to be popping up, like malignant skin cells. Most
of these seemingly harmless chemical concoctions actually are made
from petroleumbased substances and have a nature that is even more devious.

These "perfumes" are sprayed or applied to a surface so as to let the
liquid contact air and evaporate.

As these substances evaporate and rip the hair from one's nostrils
upon inhalation, they actually elicit a perceptual response in another being.

Now, how can a substance that enhances creativity, spiritual and
artistic, creates a ethereal film between one and one's experience,
and generally betters the lives of the people who use it, be more
condemnable than a vastly unknown chemical amalgam that forces
perceptions onto another being?

In the interest of space restraints, the author must resist from
"talking toxicology" as this mere word can stir up so much
information that an entire entry can be written of various
toxicological problems in regard to controlled and uncontrolled,
over-the-counter or prescribed, medicines.

These problems with social convention need to be seriously addressed
before we find ourselves in a predicament with no way to justify it.
Already, many are waking up to the explicitly authoritarian stance on
the subject, but this isn't enough. Millions of lives ruined, in
order to keep a truth and fact suppressed, just to masquerade as an
intelligent and well-adjusted society.