Two Cheers for Denver: Let’s End the War on Unapproved States of Consciousness

On May 7, voters in Denver, Colorado narrowly approved a measure de-criminalizing “magic mushrooms” — mushrooms containing the consciousness-altering compound psilocybin. The measure, National Public Radio reports, “effectively bars the city from prosecuting or arresting adults 21 or older who possess them. In the ballot language, adults can even grow the fungus for personal use and be considered a low priority for Denver police.”

Those are both great things. A third great thing would have been an order to Denver’s police to simply ignore “magic mushrooms” altogether, effectively legalizing sale of the fungi as well (assuming there would be much of a market for something that’s easily found “in the wild,” growing on everything from rotting wood to cow patties) . But hey, two out of three ain’t bad. Yay, Denver.

The political justification for this measure (and others like it pending in other polities) is the growing evidence that psilocybin can be useful in treating depression, anxiety, and migraines. How many have needlessly suffered due to the research delays caused by its illegalization?

The practical justification for complete legalization of psilocybin (and all other drugs) is that humans have sought altered states of consciousness for as long as we’ve been humans and are always going to, no matter how many are imprisoned or killed for it. Psilocybin use goes back at least 6,000 years (per prehistoric cave art depictions of its use) and some even plausibly theorize that it was the biblical “manna” consumed by the Hebrews as they wandered the desert for 40 years.

The moral justification for complete legalization (and all other drugs) is that what you put in your body, and for what purpose, is your business and no one else’s.

Alcohol prohibition and the century-long “war on drugs” are proof that it’s impossible to imprison enough people to change that fact of human nature. In fact, the world’s drug warriors haven’t even been able to keep drugs out of prison itself! How, then, do they hope to eliminate drugs from society at large? And why should we allow them to continue trying? The “war on drugs” is completely immoral, not to mention insanely expensive both financially and in terms of the effects it has on our communities.

This is not a complicated issue:

Don’t want to eat magic mushrooms? Don’t eat magic mushrooms then.

Don’t want to smoke cannabis? Politely decline the joint when it’s offered.

Don’t want to drink a beer? Order a nice frosty mug of root beer instead.

Don’t want OTHER people to eat magic mushrooms, smoke cannabis, or drink beer? Learn to mind your own business instead of asking politicians to bust heads because you won’t. Problem solved.

Yes, it really is that simple. Thanks again, Denver.

Open This Content

Tortured “Complexity”

When someone is about to start doing some mental contortionism in order to try to justify statism, they’ll often make the statement, “it’s a very complex issue“. No, it really isn’t. They’re lying to try to appear deep and smart and to justify the unjustifiable.

“Gun control” isn’t a complex issue. You have no right to forbid weapons of defense to anyone, and you can’t delegate a right you don’t have.

“Drug legalization” isn’t a complex issue. You have no right to forbid the manufacture, possession, or sale, nor the ingestion, inhalation, or injection of substances. You can’t magically acquire that right just because you think it’s necessary. You have no right to have people do things you have no right to do without asking them to become bad guys. Prohibition is enforced by bad guys, only.

Immigration” [sic] isn’t a complex issue. You have the right to allow (or bar) anyone on (or from) your property. For any reason or no reason at all. You have the right to hire or trade with anyone. Your rights end at your property lines– the only legitimate borders.

“Taxation” isn’t a complex issue. It is theft– specifically extortion. Nothing can make it something else.

Complex issues” look complex only when someone adds all sorts of twists and turns, bells and whistles, bows and ribbons, and flags and laws. At the base, there’s probably a simple ethically right thing to do and hundreds of wrong things to do. They have to tell lies to justify the wrong things– the statist things.

When someone lies and calls a simple issue a complex issue you can be certain they are looking for ways to justify doing wrong. I’ve run out of patience with the lies told to harm others.

Open This Content

Gun Laws Far Overstep Their Bounds

“Validly enacted laws.” This is how New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas deceptively characterizes the new anti-gun laws he wants enforced against you.

They aren’t validly enacted. They violate the Second Amendment, so they aren’t even laws.

You might imagine they don’t violate the Constitution, based on cowardly and dishonest opinions of Supreme Court justices over the decades, but they do.

The Second Amendment is clear. It’s even more clear once you’ve read the discussions that surrounded writing the Bill of Rights. There was to be no question — no laws concerning guns were to ever be allowed under any circumstances whatsoever.

The attorney general claims to be the state’s chief “law enforcement officer,” yet he orders others to break the law that guides all legislation.

He is entitled to his opinions, but not to making up his own facts.

No actions of a rogue governor, representative or attorney general can make an anti-gun law constitutional, legal, or valid. They can make threats, send letters, or hold meetings to try to force their will. They can bully other government employees and the residents of the state. It doesn’t make their lies true.

You and I both know government will do whatever it can get away with. The solution is to not allow these out-of-control officials to get away with any violation of liberty.

This violation of their oath of office should result in the immediate loss of the position; dragged from their offices in chains if they won’t leave peaceably.

If you believe I’m only passionate about gun rights, I’ll remind you I am equally opposed to prohibition, border controls, and all other violations of natural human rights as well.

If you value the Constitution you should join me. If not, you should join me anyway since anything that violates a natural human right is wrong, even when the Constitution allows it.

It’s a criminal act when public officials impose their wishes in defiance of what the Constitution allows.

Back in the 1920s, those who advocated alcohol prohibition at least passed a Constitutional amendment to make their laws Constitutional. They were still wrong, but they made the attempt to play by the rules. Those who target your liberty today don’t even go through the motions. They do what they want, secure in the knowledge that the courts will not bite the hand that feeds them.

Gang loyalty is powerful.

If government won’t, or can’t, control its appetites, it needs to be taken to the woodshed. It’s past time.

Open This Content

Banning Real Progress

Begging government to ban vaping makes as much sense as begging government to ban car brakes.

No, vaping isn’t totally safe. It’s safer than smoking.

Your car having brakes won’t make driving totally safe. But it’s still safer than driving without brakes.

Banning, or heavily regulating, either one is going backward. Kind of like banning (or heavily regulating) suppressors.

That doesn’t mean I want government to mandate vaping as an alternative to smoking– it should be a personal choice. You do your life, I’ll do mine.

As a tangent– I’m always shocked at the amount of dishonesty involved in trying to fool people into joining the prohibitionists (or any statist cause, for that matter).

I saw a “public service” [sic] ad against the JUUL vapers recently, where the woman was horrified that the JUUL “contains as much nicotine as 20 cigarettes!” What is this, standard-capacity magazine hysteria aimed at a different tool?

I’m supposing you don’t get all the nicotine the device contains in one inhalation. Even if you did get all the nicotine in one sitting, wouldn’t it be just like chainsmoking 20 cigarettes? I’ve seen smokers do that (OK, I didn’t count, but you know what I mean). How many cigarettes come in a pack? 20 or 25? Are you going to shove them all in your mouth at once and smoke them together? I guess you could, but I don’t think there’s a way to get the entire contents of nicotine from a JUUL in the amount of time it would take to smoke one cigarette– unless you broke it open or something. But it sounds scarier to lie. Scared people are lemmings you can lead to cry for the privilege of being governed harder. So that’s what prohibitionists do.

Open This Content

Liberty is Not An “Ideology”

I saw a headline recently, which read in part, “Ideologies clash…”

It turns out one side simply wants to exercise liberty (open a brewery), while the opponents want to violate the first side’s liberty for “reasons”. The reasons include religion, fear of negative consequences of letting people control their own lives, and prohibitionism.

One side is an ideology, the other isn’t.

Liberty isn’t an ideology. It is the acceptance of the reality of self-ownership. From this acceptance flows certain principles. It doesn’t matter to the existence of liberty whether people accept it or not– it just is, to be respected or violated.

Yes, there will be consequences for exercising liberty. Everything has consequences. But slavery’s consequences are worse than liberty’s. And you’re the bad guy when you choose slavery over liberty, no matter what “reasons” you come up with.

This is why governing others is never a valid form of interpersonal interaction. It allows people to violate the liberty of others too easily, and without the risk which should come along with such anti-social behavior.

Open This Content

There’s No “One Size Fits All” For Living

How much of what you want government to do is based on your emotions? On your feelings about what you wish other people would do or believe they should do, and your willingness to use government violence to make it happen?

If it’s more than “none” it’s too much.

I recently ran across a quote by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in which he said, “Some people are less emotional, more reasoned. We call these people ‘libertarians.’ There’s actually data on this — that libertarians are lower on emotion, higher on reasoning ability. They have worse relationships; they care about people less, but they are better able to just reason through a lot of data.”

Fortunately, he’s not quite right.

Libertarians are not less emotional, but — at our best — we are less controlled by our emotions. I can hate drug abuse and still understand I have no right to use government violence to impose drug prohibition. As long as I don’t let emotion overpower reason I won’t advocate harming someone who isn’t violating anyone’s life, liberty, or property.

Libertarians know a crime requires the intent to harm. An accident might result in the same harm as a crime would, but without an intention to violate someone there is no crime. Emotions triggered by the event might try to steer us along a different path, but it would be a wrong path.

A debt is often created by an accident, but again, a debt isn’t a crime. To confuse these things creates tragedy for individuals and sickness in society.

He’s also wrong about libertarians caring less about people. I care about people very much. This is why I don’t accept any justification for violating them. How can staunchly respecting people’s natural human rights be mistaken for not caring?

It’s not “caring” to use taxation to steal from some in order to fund government programs that keep people impoverished. It’s not caring to force people to live as you believe they should.

So would I support government if only libertarians, with their superior ability to reason, were in charge? Not at all. Even those who are better able to reason have no right to govern anyone but themselves.

No matter how well a person can reason through data, they can never know all the circumstances of everyone else’s life as thoroughly as each individual can know their own life. There is no “one-size-fits-all” way to feed a family, dress, or live … or to govern. It’s foolish to pretend otherwise.

Open This Content