The conclusion seems obvious: only legalization can lay the foundation for a sound policy on psychoactive substances. In fact, even the most disinterested commentators on this issue came to this opinion, although the political consequences of upholding legalization only contributed to slowing down its discussion. In his latest book The Great War on Drugs, Arnold Trebach formulated convincing arguments for a revolution in substance-related politics.

Another guiding model for dealing with the abuse of relevant substances can be found in how America historically dealt with different conflicting religions; in fact, they are all accepted as a suitable moral choice, which should be available to those who believe in it. The problem of psychoactive substances should be approached in the same way – more like religion than science. I would like law and medicine to recognize the personal, unscientific nature of the sphere of substance abuse, the introduction of some form of First Amendment of the guarantee of freedom to choose a personal doctrine of adherence to certain substances, but somewhat limited by reasonable medical principles. / Arnold S. Trebach. The Great Drug War (New York: Macmillan. 1987), p. 363 /

What he doesn’t discuss, he doesn’t even mention at all, these are the roles that hallucinogens will play in the public scenario after the period of their suppression. In fact, psychedelics seem to be insignificant, if only a measure of the social impact of substances is estimated in the millions of dollars from street sales. Only LSD continues to sometimes distinguish among psychedelics as a possible large-scale problem. However, estimates of the amount of psychedelics produced and consumed in the United States have been politicized, and therefore unreliable and meaningless.

But another measure of the social significance of substances shows that we neglect, at first, at least, the discussion of the social impact of psychedelic consumption when we consider the issue of legalization of psychoactive substances. The key to this other measure lies in the interest shown to the psychedelics of the CIA and military intelligence in the 60s in projects such as MK (“brain control” – mind control) and MK — ULTRA. The widespread belief that the conclusion of these studies was that television is the drug of choice for mass hypnosis, although reasonable, but it should not be taken at face value. I am sure that if psychoactive substances were legalized, fears of a cocaine epidemic or a general addiction to heroin would have been unfounded. I am also convinced that the interest in psychedelics would increase,and their consumption would increase, and that this possibility is of great importance for the ruling circles. This new interest in psychedelics should be foreseen and foreseen. If the use of psychedelics makes it easier to understand the social attitudes and assumptions of the original cultures of the partnership style, then ultimately the public nurturing institutions may wish to support this awareness.

It seems that some new planetary consensus is being built. What was previously in its infancy and unconsciously, now becomes conscious and at the same time logically built. The collapse of the Marxist alternative to a democratic consumer society for compact media and high technology was quick and complete. For the first time in the entire history of the planet, there is some definite, albeit dimly definable consensus regarding “democratic values”. This trend will meet the real resistance of various forms of monotheistic religious fundamentalism in the 90s. All this is a phenomenon of expanded consciousness caused by an information explosion. Democracy is an expression of the Archaic idea of ​​an equal group of nomads. In its purest terms, she is psychedelic through and through, and her triumph seems ultimately unmistakable.

The “Drug Problem” acts against the tendency of a planetary expansion of consciousness through the spread of democratic values. There is no doubt that a society that intends to control the consumption of psychoactive substances by its citizens is heading for the slippery slope of totalitarianism. No arbitrariness by the police, no supervision or interference in people’s lives will be enough to influence the “drug problem”. Therefore, there will be no limit to repressions that frightened public institutions and their brainwashing specialists can cause.