Conclusions

3. Conclusion
We have examined the main positions of the opponents. All of them, on closer examination, as I hope to have shown convincingly, turn out to be obscure magical/psychotic incantations, based on the assumed, ‘self-evident’ truths of various dreams which follow various unconscious scenarios, but all four carry strong emotional appeal for the inhabitants of our society. One final example of the lack of valid logic in the war on drugs are the marijuana laws. When one points out to the politicians how absurd it is when possession of a plant meant for smoking leads to equal or higher prison sentences[1] in comparison to crimes like assault of a person, robbery and rape, there are two ‘liberal arguments’ given in return:
“Although this is the punishment in our law books, of course we don’t really put kids with a cigarette of marijuana into jail for years! The judges can see that the law should not be enforced to its full extent in such cases, and go easier on the young delinquents.”
“In out society small prison sentences or even just fines are the official punishments for possession of a small amount of marijuana. It’s only the dealers who are severely punished.”
In the first case the opposition actually admits that the laws are inadequate and that it would be wrong to enforce them they way they are written. Than what is the point of these laws? The point is political – declare the activity of 30% of the inhabitants illegal, and keep them in perpetual fear. You don’t have even to have enough prisons or mental homes to lock them away – you can’t lock them all away anyway – society will collapse – but you can always keep them guilty and weak in front of the state authority. Like in previous decades and to this day in many societies there are laws against homosexuality. Millions do it, everyone knows that millions do it, but strict laws against it allow keeping a huge chunk of the population in fear.
The second argument, that only people who are seen by the law as ‘dealers’ get severe sentences, is not based so much on a logic of political tyranny, but rather on almost sincere attempts of finding a compromise between the mass hysteria and common sense. It’s good that there are societies in which you don’t have your arm cut off if you have a cigarette of marijuana, but still, the idea that you must get it from the thin air and not from someone else is absurd. There is a hint of the Anglo-Saxon concept of ‘fair play’ in this – ‘if we catch you with a little amount its ok, if we catch you with more – tough luck.’

PRAGMATIC ISSUES
Behind this abstract logic of oppression, there are of course, also simple pragmatic issues:
- careers which politicians make by their anti-drug/indecency crusades;
- promotions which police officers get for catching an X amount of “drug abusing and dealing scum”;
- huge profits which the organized crime has from the illegal status of drugs
- a splendid excuse for restricting civil freedoms.
- some of the huge organized crime profits finding their ways into cops pockets and politicians bank accounts.
From a practical point of view, the current war on drugs is good for everyone – the politicians are happy; the mafia is happy; the police is happy; the population is happy. “The war on drugs” is a survival strategy of so many people, that if drugs were to be legalized tomorrow, millions would be lost to some, careers would be lost to others, whole national economies would be seriously threatened, and the poor decent folks would have to find another group which to blame for everything which is wrong in their lives, another group with which to compare and to feel smug about themselves.




REALITY DEFENCE
But behind the confused emotional logic, the lies, as well as the ‘common sense’ pragmatism, there is a third layer of explanation. It has to do with the state protecting its “reality” from subversion. In dictatorships and totalitarian regimes it is known all too well, that not only political hints, but also simple “strangeness”, “outlandishness” can make the state censor to forbid a work of art.
The sheer “avant-garde” is dangerous in itself, because it subverts the legitimate rules of reality, by offering an alternative. And people’s jobs, marriages, all activities which keep them alive and give meaning to their lives, their ‘survival strategies’, exist only as long as the reality which makes them possible exists. So it is an intuitive feeling of self-preservation which makes the decent folks fear and hate ‘drugs’, makes them laugh at strange paintings and get depressed from strange music. But of course, no society can remain unchanged. The fight which they lead is doomed from the start – change in general can not be halted, drugs in particular can not be ‘un-invented’, you can not turn the clock back to the moment before drugs appeared, and by putting everyone you catch taking them into prison, you do not ensure a stable and happy society, all you ensure, is an illusory peace of mind for yourself.

SUMMARY
To put it simply: it is my belief, that mind affecting drugs are divided into legal and illegal by a simple criteria. The drugs which shut out the worrying thoughts and emotions and help a citizen go through his or her routine with a smile are legal, while drugs which lead to brooding self-examination, or out-worldly bliss, and therefore to questioning or ignoring of the current rules and expectations, are illegal. Drugs which help you stay programmed are legal, drugs which can be used for personal de-programming are outlawed.
[1] In many places of the world – even to execution.