Drug and alcohol policy in the new society I am building

 Good afternoon reader.  I am working on this article and my attention span is very poor so I am just uploading this even though I didn't technically write it, but it is based on prompts I used to create this post, I find it very important to put my idea out there ASAP since I do not know if I will live to write again on the internet after I leave this facility.  I am going into a State Facility and it is very much like  the soviet system, you get out when "they" say you get out.  Thank you to the wonderful State of New York for providing me with an opportunity to practice patience and perseverance as I am incarcerated for no reason, "Viva la Revolution" The addicts.

My bit on alcohol

We need to look at as society about the history of alcohol in our society.  It was fact that at one time our country prohibited all alcohol from 1920 to 1933.  This has been widely viewed as a failed experiment, it was not in my mind as failed as is commonly held through marketing.  We as a society need to reevaluate why it was made illegal and look at what our society has become because it was overturned.

First I want to say this to provide some history.  In the Jewish tradition it is a commandment that they take a sip of wine once a year in order to be considered Jewish.  Communion fulfills this requirement which is important because of Satan and I will explain in more detail below.  All of my plans are interconnected and all of my plans need to be enacted in order for them to establish this paradise I keep talking about.  We need wine in our communion, it is very important as established by The Lord in his last supper.

Why is is it important, you should ask since I said it was important because of Satan.  If you look at the ethos of my larger cosmology as found in my letter to my Catholic Priest friend Fr. Chumo you will see me referencing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as a sort of ventilation for Satan's consciousness.  When we drink alcohol our own consciousness goes further inward from inhabiting our whole brain to just our spinal cord.  What happens is that as we drink Satan's presence enters our own even a little sip of communal wine does this just a little.  Since we can never be free of Satan or alcohol it is very important we drink a little bit.  But for me that is as far as it ever goes.

I propose we reinstate prohibition and replace it with other intoxicants as I outlined in this computer generated blog post below.  The only legal alcohol would be for religious services.

On Drugs, too lazy to write a formal blog post, written by chatGPT based on my theology.  I promise to write a formalized proposal but this gets all the main points on paper in case of my demise.  Alcohol is a drug!

Aldous Huxley proposed that instead of simply accepting alcohol as humanity's primary intoxicant, we should consider whether a less harmful drug could replace it.

A Deliberate Choice of Which Drugs We Legalize

My proposal is not to legalize every psychoactive substance, but to reinstitute probation of alcohol except for religious purposes.

In particular, I do not support making heroin or other opioids recreationally legal. I also do not support recreational legalization of LSD. My proposal is a deliberate attempt to distinguish between different substances rather than placing every drug into one enormous category called "drugs."

Aldous Huxley gave me an important starting point for thinking about this question. Huxley argued that society should consider replacing alcohol with a less harmful mind-transforming drug. He recognized that human beings have repeatedly sought chemical ways of changing consciousness and argued that simply prohibiting such substances would not make that desire disappear. Huxley himself regarded amphetamine as an imperfect candidate because of the harm that could result from its abuse, so I am not claiming that Huxley endorsed my particular list of substances. Rather, I am taking his question seriously and applying it to the twenty-first century.

My answer is that America should consider a regulated system in which some substances are legal, some are decriminalized, and some remain prohibited.

I would include methamphetamine among the substances that should be available legally under a highly regulated system. I recognize that this is one of the most controversial parts of my proposal. I am not arguing that methamphetamine is harmless. I am arguing that the existence of serious risks does not by itself answer the question of whether prohibition is the best possible public policy.

I would therefore favor strict regulation rather than a commercial free-for-all: controlled production, testing and labeling, licensed distribution, age restrictions, no advertising, restrictions on quantities, and severe penalties for supplying children or exploiting vulnerable people.

I would take the opposite position regarding recreational opioids and LSD. I do not believe that every psychoactive substance belongs in a legal recreational marketplace, and I want my proposal to make that distinction unmistakable.

Rethinking Prescription Stimulants

I would also like America to reconsider its reliance on prescription stimulants such as Ritalin.

This does not mean that I believe people currently taking Ritalin should simply stop taking it. Ritalin, or methylphenidate, is an FDA-approved medication for ADHD and narcolepsy, and the FDA recognizes that prescription stimulants can provide legitimate medical benefits when appropriately used. Ritalin also carries an FDA boxed warning concerning abuse, misuse, and addiction.

My argument is instead about the direction of our pharmaceutical culture. We should question whether a society that is uncomfortable with some forms of recreational stimulant use has simultaneously become too comfortable with putting powerful stimulants into the daily lives of children and adults through the medical system.

I would favor substantially more research into non-stimulant treatments and other approaches to attention and behavioral difficulties, rather than assuming that a stimulant prescription should remain the default answer for every person diagnosed with ADHD.

The goal should not be to move people from one drug to another. The goal should be to give people more genuine choices while reducing addiction, exploitation, and unnecessary criminalization.

Freedom Without Commercialization

My proposal therefore does not envision a society in which drugs are advertised on television, promoted by celebrities, or sold like candy.

A legal drug does not have to be a commercialized drug.

Some substances could be available only through federally licensed distributors operating under strict rules. These distributors could potentially operate small establishments, including licensed residential premises, rather than requiring every transaction to occur through a large commercial retail corporation.

The important distinction would be accountability. A person selling a controlled substance legally would have to know who they are selling to, comply with federal regulations, maintain secure supplies, and accept the consequences of losing their license if they sell to minors, deliberately exploit vulnerable people, or otherwise violate the law.

In other words, I would rather have a regulated adult standing behind a legal transaction than an anonymous criminal marketplace operating beyond the reach of the law.

This would not eliminate drug abuse. No law can eliminate human weakness. But public policy should be judged partly by whether it makes harmful behavior more or less dangerous.

For me, that is ultimately where the moral question leads.

Christ calls human beings toward freedom, responsibility, repentance, and love of our neighbor. A Christian society should therefore take addiction seriously without assuming that imprisonment is always the best response to it.  Think the "Prison Song" by the band System of a Down!

We should be willing to say that some drugs are too dangerous for recreational legalization while simultaneously admitting that prohibition has not solved every problem.

We should be willing to regulate without glorifying.

We should be willing to punish exploitation without treating every drug user as a criminal.

And we should be willing to search for better answers than either unrestricted commercial drug use or an endless war against human beings who are struggling with substances.

That is the kind of drug policy I believe America should begin discussing.

My Bit on Alcohol

When I argue for bringing back Prohibition, I am not simply making an argument about public health. I believe alcohol is different from other intoxicants because of what I understand alcohol to represent spiritually.

In my larger theological framework, I associate alcohol with the biblical story of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and with the continuing struggle between humanity, Satan, and God. I believe that alcohol has a particular relationship to the way Satan works upon human consciousness. When a person drinks, I believe that alcohol can draw consciousness inward and make a person more susceptible to influences that are contrary to God's will.

I recognize that this is my own theological interpretation and not a doctrine that I am claiming all Christians must accept. Nevertheless, it is an important part of why I believe alcohol deserves to be treated differently from other intoxicants.

This is also why I do not believe that Christianity requires us to eliminate wine entirely. Christ Himself used wine at the Last Supper, and wine remains part of Christian Communion. I therefore see an important distinction between sacramental wine and recreational intoxication.

The wine used in Communion has a sacred purpose. It is not consumed for the purpose of becoming intoxicated or escaping from reality. It is received as part of Christian worship and remembrance of Christ. For that reason, my proposal would permit alcohol for legitimate religious services while prohibiting its recreational sale and consumption.

My argument, then, is not simply that alcohol is "bad." It is that alcohol occupies a particular place in the spiritual struggle between humanity, Satan, and God, and that we should take that seriously.

This leads to the obvious question: If we remove recreational alcohol from society, what should replace it?

That is where my proposal becomes more complicated. I am not proposing that society simply become completely sober and leave people with nothing but prohibition. I believe we should examine whether there are other substances that can alter consciousness without reproducing all of the social and spiritual problems that I associate with alcohol.

This is where Aldous Huxley's writings become interesting to me. Huxley asked whether humanity might eventually replace alcohol with other substances capable of transforming consciousness, particularly substances that could produce fewer harmful consequences. My proposal takes that question further in my own direction.

I also draw upon my reading of Carlos Castaneda, particularly his exploration of altered states of consciousness and the idea that human beings may experience reality in profoundly different ways. I do not regard Castaneda's anthropological claims as established fact. Rather, his writings have influenced the way I think about consciousness and the possibility that different substances can produce very different kinds of experiences.

My goal is therefore not simply "ban drugs." It is to ask whether we can build a society that makes a meaningful distinction between destructive intoxication, religious use, therapeutic use, and carefully regulated exploration of consciousness.

And underlying all of this is Christ. Whatever substances we permit or prohibit, the ultimate question should be whether they help human beings live responsibly, love their neighbors, resist evil, and turn their lives toward God rather than away from Him.