Aside from an assault on The Human Rights Act, the new Tory government are in the process of removing their citizenry’s freedom to experience non-ordinary states of consciousness through the use of mind-altering substances.
The proposed legislation can be found here.
- The bill makes production supply, offer to supply, possession with intent to supply, import or export of any psychoactive substance illegal.
- The bill lists various “legitimate” forms of mind altering substances: alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and medical products.
- This legislation is tantamount to a prescription of approved psychological states: working, consuming, and self-abuse with alcohol/tobacco are the only options available to British citizens from now on.
- The exception of alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco make it clear that the “legitimacy” of given substances has nothing to do with harmfulness to individual users, but compatibility with current social norms and economic needs.
- Banned substances will, presumably, include ALL ENTHEOGENS , regardless of their history of use, their spiritual associations, and their mind-expanding qualities.
- Substances are banned are to be banned solely on the basis of whether or not they are psychoactive: regardless of any research or understanding of the potential harms or benefits of a given substance.
- Controlling neurological states is a clear infringement of our right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion: given that all religious, cognitive and emotional states can be correlated with (and are widely believed to be caused by) neurological states.
- With other countries making progress on the march against prohibition towards a free citizenry, Britain regresses into cognitive fascism.
Watch this space for a petition and protest information.
“We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control.
History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.
We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families. We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. And we believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths.”
A recent article follows many that highlight the profoundly positive influences psychedelics can have on peoples experience of dying. Indeed, an unusual consequence of the restrictions on how psychedelics may be legally tested is that the positive effects that psychedelics (e.g. LSD) can have on peoples’ experience of dying has been verified scientifically beyond reasonable doubt.
Aside from the experiential benefits, there is the possibility (however slim) that these drugs will have a meaningful effect on an individuals post-death existence. The renowned discoverer of LSD Albert Hoffman speculated about whether such chemicals have not only a phenomenological impact, but a metaphysical one: by virtue of this, the very destiny of your “soul” could, in theory, be influenced by the experiences leading up to death. (In ‘LSD:My Problem Child’)
In our current society we assume that the state has the right to control factors that intimately influence our power to control the experience of death. “Designer death” is already a reality, the widespread use of pain-killers during the process of death is, in pure terms, about controlling the experience of death.
The state permits some experiences, but restricts others: LSD is illegal, but why shouldn’t a dying person have power over their own mind? Shouldn’t we have the right to die as we please? If the principle of Cognitive Liberty implies anything, it should be not only that we ought to just to have sovereignty in terms of how we live, but how we die as well.