For Lilian and the Indigos - Above Top Secret

But today, we know that marijuana decreases violent behavior. We know that rape is
completely untied to the use of the drug. We know that using it is often much more
affective than Prozac and other, more deadly drugs.
We know, in fact, that marijuana has been attributed in killing zero humans – throughout
history!
We know that driving under the influence of marijuana is less dangerous than driving
while having too little sleep.
And the list goes on.
But meanwhile, we are condoning barbaric behavior because "it's the law." And if the
law stated that women were property and could not be looked upon by men unless
privately and by their husband, if women could not receive education and had to wear
fully covering clothing and paint all windows in their houses black lest they be seen,
would we condone stoning them if their elbow might show? It's the law, after all.
What do we fall back on today in justifying Prohibition (which is working as well and
causing the self-same issues as our past, repealed Prohibition)? Why, the horrors of
altering one's consciousness, of course.
And so I must ask another question: What is inherently wrong with altering our
consciousness? If that is it, if there is something wrong with altering consciousness,
alcohol should be back on the Prohibition list – along with caffeine, nicotine, sugar, and
Prozac, et al.
With this dual standard, we justify our barbarism. We justify kicking downed men.
Here is where I am going to ask you to think. I am also going to ask you to be honest
with yourself. I hope you are both willing and prepared to do both.
Let's turn it around. Let us suppose that there had been a reason to make the use of
marijuana compulsory, rather than forbidden. (We can use its many
medical/psychological advantages as a place to start this idea.)
Who of you would stand and say you are incapable of deciding for yourself whether you
would smoke (or eat) it?
Who of you would claim less than autonomy in making this choice for yourselves?
Who of you would claim a right to being an Autonomous Self?
The catch is, if one claims to be an Autonomous Self, one must grant that to all others.
For if one cannot grant that, one is forever under control by the behavior of others and
one is therefore surely not autonomous.