“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.