[sixties-l] Liberty & LSD (fwd)

From: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Thu Jan 10 2002 - 17:36:06 EST

  • Next message: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu: "[sixties-l] Ex-Black Panther says murder trial is FBI conspiracy (fwd)"

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:40:48 -0800
    From: radtimes <resist@best.com>
    Subject: Liberty & LSD

    Liberty & LSD


    by John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

    OVER THE LAST 25 years, I've watched a lot of Deadheads, Buddhists, and
    other freethinkers do acid. I've taken it myself. I still do occasionally,
    in a ritual sort of way. On the basis of their experience and my own, I
    know that the public terror of LSD is based more on media propagated
    superstition than familiarity with its effects on the real world.

    I know this, and, like most others who know it, I have kept quiet about it.

    Shorty after the Bill of Rights was drafted, the English philosopher john
    Stuart Mill said, "Liberty resides in the rights of that person whose views
    you find most odious. " The Buddha was wise to point out that people must
    be free to work out for themselves what is true from actual experience and
    express it without censure.

    I will go further and say that liberty resides in its exercise. It is
    preserved in the actual spouting of those odious views. It is maintained,
    and always has been, by brave and lonely cranks.

    Lately it seems that our necessary cranks have been falling silent, struck
    dumb by a general assault on liberty in America. This is no right-wingplot
    from the top. Like most totalitarian impulses, it has arisen among the
    people themselves. Terrified of virtual bogeymen we know only from the
    evening news, we have asked the government for shorter chains and smaller
    cages. And, market-driven as ever, it has been obliging us.

    This is what is now taking place in our conduct of the War on Some Drugs.
    In this futile jihad, Americans have largely suspended habeas corpus, have
    allowed the government to permanently confiscate our goods without
    indictment or trial, have flat-out discarded the Fourth Amendment to the
    Constitution, and are voluntarily crippling the First, at least insofar as
    any expression might relate to drugs.

    In my gloomier moments, I wonder if the elimination of freedom in America
    is not what the War on Some Drugs was actually designed to accomplish.

    Certainly we haven't engaged this campaign because the psychoactive
    substances we are so determined to eliminate are inherently more dangerous
    than those we keep in plentiful and legal supply. Indeed, the most
    dangerous, antisocial, and addictive drugs I've ever taken-the ones I'm
    afraid to touch in any quantity today-are legal.

    Alcohol, nicotine, and prescription sedatives do more American damage every
    day than LSD has done since it was derived in 1942. Each year, alcohol
    kills hundreds of thousands of Americans, many of them violently. Alcohol
    is a factor in most murders and suicides in America. It is a rare case of
    domestic violence or abuse where alcohol plays no role.

    Yet I don't hear people calling for its prohibition, nor would I support
    such an effort. I know it won't work.

    It's not working for LSD either; and it's even less likely to. Lysergic
    acid diethylamide-25 is active in doses so small you can't see them. It's
    colorless, odorless, and it doesn't show up in drug tests. And you have to
    be pretty high on acid before anyone's going to notice you being anything
    but extremely alert.

    Does this mean that I think LSD is safe or that I am recommending its use?
    Hardly. I consider LSD to be a serious medicine, strong enough to make some
    people see God or the dharma. That's serious medicine. There are two points
    that need making: First, by diminishing the hazards inherent in our
    cultural drugs of choice and demonizing psychedelics, we head our children
    straight down the most dangerous path their youthful adventurism can take.
    Second, LSD is dangerous but not in the ways generally portrayed. By
    dressing it up in a Halloween costume of fictitious dangers, we encourage
    our kids to think we were also lying about its real ones. And LSD is dangerous.

    It is dangerous because it promotes the idea that reality is something to
    be manipulated rather than accepted. This notion can seriously cripple
    one's coping abilities, although I would still argue that both alcohol and
    advertising do that more persuasively than LSD. And of course, if you're
    lightly sprung, it can leave you nuts.

    But LSD is not illegal because it endangers your sanity. LSD is illegal
    because it endangers Control. Worse, it makes authority seem funny. But
    laugh at authority in America and you will know risk. LSD is illegal
    primarily because it threatens the dominant American culture, the culture
    of Control.

    This is not a sound use of law. Just laws arise to support the ethics of a
    whole society and not as a means for one of its cultural factions to impose
    power on another.

    There are probably 25 million Americans who have taken LSD, and who would,
    if hard pressed in private, also tell you that it profoundly changed their
    lives, and not necessarily for the worse.

    I will readily grant that some of these are hopeless crystal worshipers or
    psychedelic derelicts creeping around Oregon woods. But far more of them
    are successful members of society, CEOs, politicians, Buddhist meditation
    teachers, ministers, and community leaders.

    This is true. Whether we want it to be or not.

    But the fact that so few among these millions dare utter this truth is, in
    a supposedly free country, a symptom of collective mental illness.

    I neither expect nor ask any young person to regard me as a role model.
    There are easier routes through this world than the one I've taken. But I
    do like to think of myself as someone who defends his convictions. And I
    hope to raise my three daughters to be brave enough to own their beliefs,
    no matter how unorthodox, and to own them in public, no matter how risky. I
    dream of a day when anyone's daughters will feel free to do that.

    The most I can do toward a world in which their liberty is assured is to
    exercise mine in this one.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 10 2002 - 18:03:43 EST