November 22, 1993 Hi, I've long been interested in intentional community and have lived in a couple. A community which assumes the adaptive value of psychedelics as a given would be truly real. We hold a sweat lodge ceremony here every new moon. I and some of the members feel that we have work yet to do with the entheogens but we are waiting for the proper setting. Love May, 1993 Dear Bruce: I am personally quite sympathetic to your movement and also consider the current legal situation atrocious. However, to make any lasting progress in this area I think the following approaches to marketing would be far more beneficial than those currently taken: (1) The vast majority of Americans are not interested in chemically assisted personal and spiritual growth, altered states, the dying process, and transcendental or expanded consciousness. These are internal, largely immeasurable experiences and we value the external and material in our culture. Most cultures, given a chance, also worship the material world. I'd recommend against trying to sell the merits of chemically induced altered states, no matter how much you believe in them because you won't connect with most of those you wish to influence, the fearful non-believers. I heard you and several of the speakers mention repeatedly how important your psychedelic experiences and perspectives are to you. Not to be rude, but "Who cares?" It's like listening to ESTies or psychotherapy patients talk about their latest insights -- valuable to them but few others. I don't think that this sells well to the frightened, non-transcendental masses -- it is too intangible and the means to reach these states are too frightening. (2) What would sell well? If you or others could take the time to show the enormoius material and economic costs of oppressing tyranscendental experience and drugs, it would sell to the majority concerned about excessive government spending, taxes, the deficit, and crime. Again, it is a material world we live in. The costs of suppressing marijuana, psychedelics, and all other consciousness-altering drugs is enormous. It includes the costs of the DEA, narcotics officers, jails and prisons, attorneys, much of what passes as drug rehab, the destruction caused by the criminal and gang subculture it supports, the lost taxes from a hidden drug economy, the lost productivity of incarcerated individuals, etc., etc. If you could tally up all the direct and indirect costs of the war on drugs, I believe that the dollar cost of this oppressing would easily run into the tens of billions each year. In short, I would recommend that you promote the movement as a way to substantially cut the deficit, reduce government spending, and reduce crime. From this framework, you would have a very marketable position with the majority who care far less about inner growth than material enhancement. (3) I think it would also be tactically advantageous if the movment emphasized "responsible" drug use rather than "Wow, how neat it would be if we all could use drugs." In a sense, taking an in-between position and arguing against the unlimited availability of drugs would allow the rule-makers to set the kinds of limits they so love to set (you have to be over 18; you can't drive under the influence; you have to take a test to get a license to use strong psychedelics or dangerous physical drugs, etc.). I think that the promotion of control models used in Holland and in the U.K. up to the late 'sixties would be quite marketable. I would also note here that there are occassional casualties from psychedelics and it's important to mention any and all responsible research regarding problems. For example, several well documented cases exist of individuals with permanent visual disorders caused by long-term repeated use of LSD. I think it important to be honest that no substance is completely without risks and that the movement is arguing for responsible drug use. (4) I would also submit to you that your major fight is against the many who benefit enormously from labeling drug use as criminal. Many individuals having comfortable well-paying careers or businesses in drug enforcement, correctional institutions, prison construction, rehab, or law do not want to see their livelihoods impoverished through the decriminalization of drug use and the legalization of marijuana. In short, I am arguing here that the roots of the prohibition are economic, not cultural, and that socially responsible management of the "drug problem" is best sold to the public on its economic merits. I would appreciate a reply. If I can help in some way, as I noted above, I have a somewhat unusual background mixing the soft world of psychology with the hard world of money and I would be interested in making a contribution. Best wishes for success, Last Updated:
Tuesday, June 06, 1995  |