Re: decriminalizing drugs... and more

From: Sasha Chislenko (
Date: Mon Jan 24 2000 - 03:33:12 MST

At 01:59 AM 00/01/24 , Eugene Leitl wrote:

> >Well, only the rich kids drop E. These are certainly nice, mellow,
> >floaty kids who hug a lot. The underdogs however do crack, crank,
> >crystal meth. These are not mellow drugs.
>MDMA is certainly not innocuous, btw. Certainly not the right cure
>for testosterone rage.
>It seems that dance-induced hyperthermia alone might be insufficient
>to explain MDMA-related deaths. The drug might fiddle with body
>thermal control.

I may not have sufficiently complete data here, but it seems that
lots of poor kids save all money they can for an E pill even if they
don't have enough cash left to buy water at a rave. If the govt's
efforts didn't make Ecstasy more expensive than (and maybe laced with)
crack and didn't keep dancing places deprived of ventilation and water,
most of the cited bad effects would be at least diminished.

It appears that rave culture plays the role that starts resembling
that of hippie movement, in the life of the young generation,
replacing the religious influence with direct (and understood, and
personally managed) perception of alternate emotional states
(the effect of it in shaking out "fixed" attitudes to life can
hardly be exaggerated), filling the whole in social agenda that
doesn't seem to offer any goals to the normal population
(American "dream" is gone if it ever attracted anybody;
dangers are gone; saving for a new refrigerator or becoming
an upload are not realistic choices) that still needs some
feeling of emotional fulfillment and completeness.

There are millions of young people filling the existential void with
music, dance, and drugs - unfortunately for them, in dirty conditions,
and under persecution that definitely hurts more "users" (of at least,
MDMA) than it "cures".

The attitude of the govt is clearly demonstrated by the efforts
spent on blanket persecution of the culture it doesn't bother
to understand.

Whatever the consequences of any particular substances (and I
don't advocate anything to anybody), there definitely should be
cases when adult people should be allowed to make their own
decisions. Would you see any reason why a person in a terminal
stage of cancer or a few hours before an electric chair, or somebody
who just lost a child, or is seriously considering suicide, should
not be allowed to take MDMA?

The govt not only severely persecutes all cases, refusing to listen
to any justification; it prohibits all chemical research, all social
experimentation, and suppresses all alternative views on the issues.
According to the existing drug laws, tens of millions of Americans
are serious criminals, at least for pot smoking. That's crazy.

For every kid dehydrated from happy dancing there are a thousand
who were thrown into jail and raped there by hard criminals,
millions who live in fear, and billions of dollars floating
from the kids' hands to mafia, jail industry and corrupt cops.

Coca-Cola, over-sugared cereals, and greasy hamburgers
definitely take a greater toll on life than pot or Ecstasy.
Not to mention alcohol and tobacco.

Reading perfectly legal tabloids definitely warps one's
perception of reality more than an occasional acid trip.
Not to mention religion.

The U.S. gov't insists that in Cambodia the murderers of
millions of people are left in peace, but pot growers are
severely punished.

There are thousands of drugs approved for use that modify every
human function available. Only the ones that modify perception
of the world or one's emotional states are somehow always harmful.

There is no justification for the current persecution, and while
it continues, I do not expect any informed and moral individual to
side with the gov't.

Of course, it is hard to be informed when there is no research
on harmless use of drugs, and no serious public discussion of
the issues.

The whole issue very much reminds me of Russian persecution of
all sources of information that could give anybody an alternative
perception of reality. It blew up under a growing tide of
technological possibilities of generating, copying, and
distributing information, and ever greater access to it by
the population. Biochemistry here follows the footsteps of
information technology - with, I believe, the same technological
and social imperatives. The Soviet regime that could not
take the risks of allowing the inevitable changes incrementally,
was obliterated when the pressure rose too high.

We'll see what happens with technological growth and social freedoms
this time. So far they repeat the path.

I would hate to see the current persecutors of freedom to take
lucrative positions in the after-shock power structures, as it
happened in Russia. Somewhere, they should be driven through
the same pain as their victims.

[ I probably should stay away from these discussions.
   As a non-citizen, I may be persecuted in U.S. for as much
   as advocating polygamy - the practice endangering the very
   core of the American society, apparently, and thus worthy
   of persecution and suspension of free speech. Yuck.
   Which once again puts me in a position where I can't freely
   advocate social freedoms I believe in, let alone try them.
   I HATE that. ]

Sasha Chislenko <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:37 MDT