Years 
One Law for the Lion & Ox is Oppression. I watch a few days ago the four-part miniseries The Drug Years
, produced by VH1
a couple of years. He had recently seen another documentary miniseries
VH1 - Heavy
on the history of heavy metal-so good that it did not surprise me too much as
The Drug Years. Not that the miniseries has great revelations, but the documentary material assembled-TV anti-drug propaganda, footage of soldiers stationed experiments with LSD, Acid
tests - and the fascinating interview -
Legs McNeil, Peter Coyote
,
Henry Rollins, Tommy Chong
, Liz Phair
- the return an excellent outreach material, and healthy work libertarian spirit, or at least fairly objective, which in this area beset by darkness is always liberating.
But it is a sad story. Although not terribly pessimistic and testimony appellant in its four chapters is the
sensatísimo Torgoff Martin, author of
Can not Find My Way Home: America in the Great Stoned Age (a man who knows what he is talking ), there is something very depressing in a documentary that begins with the views of people like Ken Kasey
, Timothy Leary
or
Wayne Kramer, and culminates with a lady nasty anti-drug organization that holds that
Ronald Reagan was the great hero of the war on drugs and comparing any use of any substance with AIDS. Times have changed. Worse, of course, but people continue to consume industrial quantities that allow anything out of stasis, in some ways the battle of ideas was won by the reactionaries, and what once looked like a form of liberation, self-modifying and knowledge today hardly deserves the fault place of hedonism and individual freedoms. But it was something else. ***
The Drug Years is very transparent about the qualitative change in the reaction of the authorities over drugs, and can be summarized in the rise Ronald Reagan
of the White House, ie the throne of the world. Reagan, a time of McCarthyism informer who recorded advertisements warning about the medicine was free entrance of communism, had a son who grew marijuana in his home and working in Hollywood, one supposes that took more than a contact live with the objective reality of the Drogon. But it was a rat-with apologies to the rodents and their need to accumulate power in opposition was greater than any objective fact with which he had made contact.
Reagan understood perfectly well that an arrogant nation that feels cracked and weakened, as was U.S. in the 70's libertines, with the Russians invading Afghanistan and oil prices immobilizing Buicks and Cadillacs-needs enemies against which to unite and unify. Were the Communists, and Reagan began the dangerous arms race that would end by breaking the Russian economy, but with them was not enough, we had to eliminate all kinds of different thoughts and articulate. Drug addicts or drug users were not necessarily viewed as criminals before the Reagan administration. The generation of broadcasters of hallucinogens in the 60 thinkers were persecuted as dangerous and subversive potential, but they were brilliant university, not scoundrels. It was during the Reagan administration that the model drug diffuser longer
Ken Kesey and becomes Scarface. The times had changed and drugs.
is instructive to review the advertising, led by Nancy Reagan
of
campaign Just Say No! a stupid campaign, totalitarian and managed by people so ugly that it's amazing that something has been global in time. Also a complete failure, as the children who headed the campaign they were the same young people of the cultural revolution of the raves
and community celebrations of electronics, ie one of the generations of the past Drogon 50 years (Ironically, the documentary shows Nancy Reagan by his despicable propaganda in a school of comedy
Diffrent or
Strokes Arnold , an almost damn just highlighted by the monumental problems of drugs that had its protagonists in the years seq.) When you think about the
Just Say No to Nancy Reagan is one of the most totalitarian and fundamentalist arguments of modern times: no doubt, no debate, does not investigate or different, just say no.
The Reagan and his people, the people unfriendly and hands painted blood, laid the ideological foundations that hold that any variation or adult decision about one's state of consciousness and perception is a crime worthy of punishment, and to convince the world are supported, as all repressive systems-in the worst examples of consumers. It was the era of cocaine, but still only one in four Americans regular users of cocaine, a drug very addictive-reported symptoms of problem drinking. But the world is structured for all in relation to this
person. And to look after the DEA was created, the international conventions against drugs, macro agreements UN and the WHO. That is, the Health Police. ***
retain connotations Words over the centuries, the Greek term pharmakon
, denoting both "poison" and "healing" comes from the
pharmakos , a sort of scapegoat who was sacrificed in pairs in times of disaster and calamities . These two men,
pharmakoi, were thrown off a cliff and burned, but some scholars argue that simply were beaten and rejected. In any case all the variables of the relationship of men with drugs, drugs and their users, are contained in these words. Already in these words is contained the potential to poison, healing and the guys who have to marginalize, even life, for the powers settle into its opposite.
Health Police, which now governs Uruguay (and most of the world) decided that as there are people who are drunk, a decision that drunks do when they are sober and aware, and act violently, must be banned sale of alcohol at sporting and cultural mass. A decision very close to the infamous Prohibition and run over a lot of liberties, but that is done for the public good, because it is easier to prohibit (prevent) to be held accountable for the mentally ill after their acts of violence conscious.
I think that if you have the curious idea of \u200b\u200bbreaking a bottle on the head to another person while drunk, that's not a decision taken by an alcohol, but a starting-now is a filthy beast if it finds something it possible to break the head of a stranger took the time decided to cancel its repressive reflexes chemically in a social situation. In the decades I've been drinking never occurred to me to do something, but I realized it was too dangerous for me to drive after drinking, so I stopped driving. That should be in the adult world of decision makers. Ah, but making people responsible relegate power costs, police costs and prison costs and cost efficiency, so the State chooses to cancel some jobs (beer vendors, distributors, etc.) and even down, placing all the drinkers at the height of the most despicable drunk. But the law also prohibits the sale of alcohol at any place within 500 meters of a sporting event or cultural mainstream. This means that any bar that is located five blocks from the stadium (think of each stage they know and radius of 500 meters and mentally will find plenty of bars, mini markets and other liquor stores), must sacrifice at a stroke much of its revenue, in many cases their best day of collection, because a bureaucrat with a desire to direct the behavior of other people could not think of any other solution. And because it's cheaper and you have to think less.
In 1994 I had the opportunity to asist the Tropicalia 2
concert in Salvador do Bahia. Of course it was a marvel, but probably what most amazed me was that in a concert for some 30,000 people had assembled, along the esplanade in front of the stage-a sort of fair in which they were sold, almost exclusively, all types of alcoholic beverages, including several northern most lethal substances. And, to add risk, sold in glass bottles. I remember thinking that to do something like a music event in Montevideo, the balance would five or six dead threw bottles. But hey, so are the violent Brazilian, in the country of scoundrels: there was the slightest incident. I remember the most disturbing happened to me in this recital was that the mulatto woman who was ahead of me, without having exchanged a word with me, I took both hands to put on the hips, for the support while dancing "He abraço.
My point is that it is reductive and oppressive to generalize according to cultural collapse. True, violence magnified by alcohol is common in football. Also in tropical music recitals. But there is no history in the carnival events, and the rock concerts has almost disappeared, perhaps because mysteriously some sectors of the Uruguayan society has progressed in some ways culturally. But with this legislation would be impossible to have a beer at a party X (where, despite the multitudes gathered there never was a major incident attributable to alcohol), and go five hours without an X Fiesta have a drink as much fun as it seems to me looking at me hands during the same time without having taken acid. Still, there is a man who has decided for me, and of course without consulting me, that's the case. And possibly to decide that it has decided that no more performances like the Fiesta X mass, because the equation of convenience for bars that are installed on the same will fall dramatically, and without investment there is no party, no cachets, no production and no music. Surely those responsible for this bill mean that the pulp and soybean growers will give work to people that this legislation precautionary lose yours, or feel markedly diminished profits. No matter it is for your sake, and because they live otherwise. ***
Health Police, as almost all the police, it is incredibly stupid, but this idiocy, as often happens with security flaws, radiating conviction, and as appeals to fear, has all powers fear grants. In a country where social interaction is rudely torn and people are afraid of their fellow citizens, there is nothing to produce more afraid than someone who does not, someone uninhibited.
And today the names of all the evils in Uruguay is related to a chemical disinhibiting: pasta base. Possibly one of the few drugs for which there is no bright side, the base paste is the equivalent in drugs that would be blue with birdseed for alcohol beverages. That is, something so crude, harmful to the body and effect so brutal that hard to find a reason for someone-however much I long to be placed, to consume. But it is cheap and their own demonization has given people the excuse that it has almost nothing to take total irresponsibility and not feel guilty. Does Linda Blair
was guilty of the conglomerate of demons
Legion inside her? Not at all. So the same goes for the possessed by the paste.
recently saw a television report about a group of addicted to cocaine base in a rehabilitation center. None of them seemed particularly clever or attractive, but they spoke with conviction on camera about their struggle
. On the quest to defeat themselves and come back
born again, from the nightmare of addiction. I thought, seeing them, that was possibly the only chance that these guys appeared on television, and in some ways, the only way to present themselves as activists of something, as victors, as soldiers of their own health, the religious right threatened by inanimate substances, however seem to have evil intentions own. These guys had nothing to do but smoke pasta, now they have nothing else to do to fight it in your body and in his speech. When you've got nothing anything is something.
Excuse me if I'm not particularly arouse admiration. Limitation and victimization are not something that I marvel that I deserve no special respect. I wish to stop taking crap, hopefully find something in their lives worthwhile, hopefully not get used to outsource their own mistakes and decisions. I hope they learn to value the things they do and not by the things that do not do.
neighborhood boys were intoxicated with alcohol and cocaine base to do the things they want to do but find it difficult. The men were intoxicated at the time of egregious action is old as shit sitting. There is much talk of drugs consumed by Americans in Vietnam (mostly marijuana, opium and heroin), but these were consumed mostly during breaks away from the front line. Instead of drugs and the abuse of disinhibiting was extensive in the Second World War where the use of amphetamines in the field was generalized to an amazing extent, especially among fighter pilots. Among the most positioned, as
Antonio Escothado "embalmed in amphetamines" were the kamikaze pilots. Understandably, if you're going to blow against an aircraft carrier as desirable, more patriotic than you, is to be totally wired
. In
that have become children of Uruguay broken in kamikaze base paste whose only motivation is vital to disappear in a burst of glory. Not in the divine wind in the patriotic but simple outbreak of violence that is justified solely by the noise it produces. When nobody knows you exist, to the sound of your bones to break serves caller. ***
The Ministry of Health decided a while ago to prohibit any advertising of snuff in Uruguay, which, of course, affected all Uruguayan media. But one day he realized something terrible: there are other media in addition to the Uruguayan, Uruguayan laws and are not for them. And worse, the media full of awful advertising tabacómana are imported and are read in Uruguay. And that had to be avoided. How? Prohibiting foreign newspapers and magazines containing cigarette advertising, of course. But how is that done? How María Julia Muñoz
convinces the New York Times
Veja
or who can not publish advertising of cigarettes? Geez, that ugly are the limits of power, that ugly in the world there are people whom one does not dominate.
Winston Abascal, director of the Tobacco Control Program did all the tricks to explain the radio that foreign magazines that come into our country are in breach of national law. He clarified that "it is not banning the circulation of the magazine, banning the advertising, because that is what the law states voted by Parliament." But the question was obvious: how forbidding without prohibiting advertising magazine that contains it? The answer seems worthy of a sketch of
Alfredo Casero, "well it covers one of those pencils that cover." Even before imagine the absurdity of the magazine distributors hiring thousands of workers to cover thoroughly with liquid paper
notices a page
Marlboro or Lucky Strike
of thousands and thousands of magazines, or suppose that publishers of these magazines will print a special edition nicotineros ad-free for Uruguay, "should implement a legal mechanism by which a chief that says something like imbecility was removed from office without prior proceedings. Have apparently traded for places those publications a sticker warning that within them are lethal cigarette advertising.
Any reader of this blog knows that I have little sympathy for advertising, which unfortunately has become the main way of financing the exchange of information and culture, casting monetary value for the electronic exchange, "but here one has to play devil's advocate. If you believe that advertising has such power of suggestion that all those under their influence lose the ability to discern and choose, then it should ban all advertising, including that of substances harmful to health, as they would exert some sort mass mind control. If one believes that predisposes only certain consumption by his own argument-that of being a liar could be put on trial, like all false arguments, "then it should be taken as a suggestion, as an opinion. And opinions, even if they are supported by commercial interests, not banned.
prohibitive regulations of a product in its entirety is an excellent example of censorship and is a good test of intellectual success of the Police Health which has not been perceived as such. While there have been multitudes of liberal journalists allegedly tearing their clothes because of the simple expressions of desire and cultural hierarchies Denevi
or
Jorge Luis Mardones of some regulation on public airwaves, there were few complaints regarding the absolute ban on all advertising of cigarettes. However, it was a premeditated hatchet to freedom of expression. Because, objectively, what is advertising? Product information, symbolic information, partial and often mean-spirited, but ultimately
information. Darting is information, which takes only part of the facts, which tries to operate and influence the views of those who receive it and is driven by personal interests of those who generate it. That is, the same can be said of any editorial page of any newspaper.
What if
El Pais, El Observador
or the daily or decide to start publishing a column in favor of smoking and nicotine, and detailing its virtues? For example, that objective truth (and not always known), like a slim cigarette, in addition to moderate the hunger burns calories. That nicotine excites quiet or moderately, with perhaps the only substance that has both functions. Attenuating the effects of alcohol, drunkenness and moderating thus saving many people from dangerous experiences of drunkenness. One of the most remarkable chapters
House the good doctor had saved his life by prescribing a patient back to smoking, which he somehow regulated a lung problem. The case was rare, but like all of that series supporting rigorously scientific examples. What would happen if any of these means someone will write a weekly happening on subjective benefits of smoking? That is, maybe things difficult to verify, but can be as true as any other subjective assumptions. For example, that smoking is cool because it makes you seem to
Humphrey Bogart or Rita Hayworth. That smoking is great because it makes you see your peers that you have no fear of dying young. What women like male smokers because they radiate contempt for the reaper. I can think of that, they can be sovereign pelotudeces but what I can say them in half Uruguayan?
Let's see, the Uruguayan authorities decided that smoking is very bad, the propaganda of those who think otherwise have been prohibited. What is the real difference between that and censorship in the UAE or China? In these countries the authorities also believe that things like that homosexuals can live, that women dress as they want or that people choose their own authorities are very bad things. In Scotland, which adopted legislation similar to the Uruguayan, were required to amend a work in which an actor who personified Winston Churchill
to appear smoking a cigar, which the old bull-dog did all the time. Some businessmen in Hollywood have been toying with the idea of \u200b\u200bsome classic movies digitally altered so that their characters do not appear to smoke cigarettes smoked when they were originally filmed. What is the real difference between this and the rough changes of history that was
Josif Stalin, eliminating its dissidents, not only the world but also of the official photographs? Police Health has criminalized so much and spread so much guilt about any behavior that potentially harms the body, these flagrant abuses to freedom of opinion and information have gone unnoticed or have been tolerated in the same spirit that at some point be allowed some potentially dangerous elements of society were persecuted, hidden, disappeared. Is it gross comparison? Yes, gross is more than brutal, but the fund is in the same paradigm and is a matter of degree.
Cigarettes kill, no doubt, but does not require death. You can quit smoking, it is not impossible, I encourage you to insure me because I did (two cases a day), and it seemed much easier than people say they never did anything difficult, and need to romanticize or magnify their small struggles and victories. And easier still to not start smoking directly. We are all well informed about smoking, so there is your aunt. Much more would have to be nervous about using cell phones or consumption of GM, on which we do not know a damn, and what little is known is quite worrying, and these products are widely promoted by the government that persecutes cigarette smokers.
If an adult decided to run the risk of screwing the health and even death from smoking, his face alive. Death is a right, the planet is supersaturated human and if someone wants to leave early and make room for the noble animals because they want to live (and die) in another way and another rhythm is one of his powers, and there is no reason to consider it a curse. The struggle for self determination and individual liberty has been long and painful, and every step forward has taken decades. It's frightening to go back so fast and so little aware of it. It's frightening what they have become docile people to oppression when it is exercised in the name of health. It's frightening that they do not feel neither horse nor the rider's weight.
I like to have regained my sense of smell, I like to climb a ladder with two floors and no air was gone, I'm glad every time I think about it, that my clothes do not smell like an ashtray and my breath either. Hopefully the girl he left stop smoking, I hope that my nephews never start doing it. Sometimes I miss it, sometimes I like to smoke a cigarette in the evening, listening to "
Invierno Porteño" from Piazzolla
. If I could smoke two or three cigarettes a day, would continue to do, but I know that I have no self control when it comes to snuff and nicotine. No problem of snuff and nicotine is my problem. I realize that and will, therefore, very occasionally, to light your cigarette, give a first and only puff and then wear it in your mouth. ***
I like to put in contrast the statistics of deaths caused by traffic accidents in relation to those produced by drugs. It is a rather grotesque comparison, because it's around 350 to 1-and 1 very relative because every year someone dies in Uruguay by an excess of drugs and death in many cases this can be attributed to allergies, congenital conditions pre- existing court-related effects, "I often say that a comparison is impossible, since it is unnecessary to evaluate a recreational behavior in relation to another who is a need for scrolling. Sometimes I get upset at least inquerir how many you think they really needed to be on top of the car that killed them and what also killed others, something that drugs do not. There
dozens of statistics and computer graphics that move on the same variables: increased consumption of a given substance, relapse rates, hospital costs for conditions that are supposed to produce this or that substance ... etc. But if something is taught to some, but not have the faintest idea who he was Derrida Gulf War is that both the responses important questions and, above all, who and where they do. While the world debated whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and UN inspectors failed to find them again and again, nobody was really important question: Should he nations that do have weapons of mass destruction as the U.S. Massive and Israel to ask another nation if possessed, especially when at least U.S. remains the only country that used them, and against civilians for the worse? When one chooses to discuss in the context of questions raised by his opponent, and lost half discussion, because they accepted the budget authority and ability to judge it. Imagine
other questions related to drugs or toxic substances in general. How many people commit suicide in Uruguay, a country with a terrible suicide rate, not having access to anything to entertain them or by not finding any new experience in their lives? How many of the drunken are killed on the roads had led to his drunk best tempered with a little cocaine? How much money you save, because for some nefarious speculation that is valid, the BPS premature deaths caused by the snuff? How many ex-smokers die from obesity that produced them have abandoned their habit? How many serious nerve problems come from not having access to recreational use sedatives? How many family disasters could have been overcome to have some substance empathetic hand during a conversation? How many people have learned to cope with their fears congenital pass an initiatory experience visionary substances in a controlled environment? How many varieties of crops and plants related to it could develop and provide jobs for hundreds of unemployed, many industries? How many crimes have been prevented from consumers need not resort to the criminal underworld to stock? How much alcohol would have found time terminals a less pernicious form of drunkenness in which shelter?
But even these questions are paradigmatically wrong, because once again talking in terms of whether you want related to the concept of health that defends police. The real questions about pharmakon
non-medical nature, are philosophical in nature and have to do with the meaning of life not with his alleged life. And it can be summarized as follows: can a person decide for me what I get into the body and how I have to live? And especially, can
that person decide?
The problem of toxic substances is not a health problem is a problem of knowledge and freedom. Freedom and her ghost has been one of the overriding themes in Western thought from ancient times that Calvinists and Catholics decided, and for good reason, become the center of all discussions. Independent the issue of religious prejudice, the ability to be free and responsibilities that entails became a philosophy, becoming one of the pillars of existentialism and twentieth-century thought. Derrida's deconstruction even recognize the evocative power of the concept and makes the chain of signifiers
pharmakeia-pharmakon-pharmakeus , one of the exemplary centers of Platonic studies. But of course, none of these modern thinkers began to legislate on the interrelationship between freedom and the subjective choice of our poisons.
In our country, the leading crusader against toxic (discounting several satellites bootlicking out there) is not a philosopher but an oncologist. That is, a cellular mechanism that belongs to a medical specialty that is being defeated by its subject, and-also-in the case who spoke also belongs to an ancient Essene sect that believes in an imaginary friend who lives in heaven, and a fire pit which will be eternally tortured people like me. Excuse me if those credentials do not impress me to give him the moral authority to decide on what I get into the body. Excuse me if I give my soul administration who had his best moment in the administration of a football team.
occasionally asked one of the leaders of the Health Police if you had any experience with illegal drugs. The answer almost invariably is "no." Which means they know something that any kid of 14 who has smoked a joint is very clear, first of all it's appeal. Imagine that examinations for admission to the School of Music were taken by teachers who have studied music history and who can read sheet music to perfection, but are completely deaf. Well, same thing. Ignorant people should be removed at the time the articular end of that stupid "no", the favorite word of people with fear. ***
Sport, the drug that dare not really get high, is placed by the official discourse of this and all countries modern as a substitute and remedy of all poisonings bad and forbidden. Must be recognized sport its enormous power hallucinogen, I do not mean just the ability to have to alter some perceptions by alterations aerobic (a principle that is also) but its amazing ability to pass off as private companies ruthless clubs soccer spiritual institutions. Or do you just saw in the Olympics, which China seems an exemplary nation, not the capitalist dictatorship is disgusting. I do not think a more powerful peyote overdose can cause similar effects of mass hallucination. Interestingly
sport young people killed in quantities or a wave of pure heroin cut with strychnine would ever: someone had to compare the statistics of victims of drugs with the dead or permanently paralyzed horseback riding, skiing or mountain climbing? Does anyone think that the physical damage produced by chronic consumption of, say, marijuana or ecstasy is greater than that produced in skeletal muscles and professional practice in athletics? Based pasta do you know that physical disfiguration as completely as weightlifting? We know that many people would crack the heart taking cocaine or amphetamines, how many by
jogging or training for a marathon?
Sport is good, sure, but we all agree that a balanced measure, monitor, report. No one would think even go swimming without knowing it, or pretend to swim a distance greater than one's own swimming endurance. Well, yes, some are true, but luckily after their genes are not replicated in future generations. The practice of most sports requires more preparation and information prior to the ingestion of most drugs, and even greater physical risks involved. And the practice of these sports, especially the most dangerous, is motivated by the same engine that induces experimentation with drugs: the search for extreme sensations. So why does the State encourages the practice and sees a pride while condemning the other (to say nothing of a combination of both, the worst sin in the world governed by the Police of Health)?
In Uruguay, a land of great ideas, it occurred to develop for those lost souls who are addicted to cocaine base, a plan to override this behavior pernicious practice of a sport. What sport they thought it was the ideal? Boxing. The program
Knock Out Drugs proposes to these young men filed down like ghosts wandering through the city leaving embrace the pipe and gloves. Now, I'm a huge fan of boxing and I think a great discipline, like all martial arts, but I can not think that there is a sport more harmful-practice in itself, not its balanced workout for the body- boxing. In fact it is almost inevitable, at least in the case of professional boxers, a more or less severe degree of brain damage. I'm not necessarily against this and in fact defend the practice ground to critics ("para-police health?) Enemies of the game ex but where does this recommendation of a sport as harmful to the body in a discourse that has reached levels of hysteria authentic in relation to something as contentious and relative as "passive smoking?
But hey, the world stops every four years to celebrate the Olympics that do not use drugs when the Olympics Why Drogon? I'm sure I could put together an excellent team that can excel in disciplines as interesting as
snorting, toking
, tripping
and dealing
. I am a master in the art of not losing the thread of the argument and the power of discussion in spite of being totally gone, a skill that I think deserves a medal. ***
This is an era that, at least with regard to this issue-will Looking to the future as a kind of Second Middle Ages in banning and persecuting it was not known, based on the most absolute bias and trying to keep a monopoly on reality and the social model. Police Health is seen as a Neo-Inquisition, and
Terence McKenna, Timothy Leary's
and Aldous Huxley
be recognized as Galileans with the telescope reversed. But we are going to be dead by then and if there is still measured only under the aegis of the accumulation of time and things, the earth.
Ronald Reagan declared war on drugs, ie a civil war his fellow dissidents. Today there is some consensus that the war was lost because the drugs are still around, perhaps stronger than ever. I believe that this war was won by the reactionary forces, because from them definitively settled the right of interference and prosecution of health as an excuse. What's more, after she modeled the theoretical concept of preventive war. In the fifth column linked to evil and present in every neighborhood, every family.
There is a chapter of the second season of Lost
showing up where politics has permeated the trial of the soldiers of the Health Police. One character, a musician Britpop on the decline, Charlie (one of the hobbits of
The Lord of the Rings ) is still hooked on heroin addict and the drug appears to be a consumer-track when the plane nose-drops. Charlie has a stash
, provision, but lets get high under the pressure of the mysterious John Locke and the desire to approach the clean blonde young mother Claire, and care for her and her offspring. But as they find a plane full of statues of the Virgin Mary full of heroin. Charlie has a probe and, which preserves, intact, in his tent. While Claire learns that the statue still intact, is full of heroin, and Charlie begins to of his life, leaving a sad tango and more, only that one.
There is no character in Lost
, or any writer that makes you say some of them simple argument: "
Claire, you're an asshole Conchuda and hysterical. This hobbit saved your life three times, changed her your baby poop four, you got peanut butter, killed a strong man for you, I assembled the tent and you bank your head for two months on a deserted island filled with polar bears. And all this time of fear and sexual abstinence, do not even asked to be rocked a little in return. Not even for arribita pants. Charlie never had erratic behavior or threatening, even when fully loaded but when you find out you have a new stash of heroin, which is not used, only as a probability of comfort and into a statue-that is, in a fully controllable to see if the guy is giving it or not, because we have to break the statue to get the drug, "you take it out of your life shitting and prefer to give ball to a bare half psycho suspected of killing one of your friends . Are you angry with him because you hid something in a series where everyone hides everything you can to others? Do you consider yourself a danger to your baby on an island where there's smoke conscious black and a band of outlaws who abduct children at night? Go to shit: drugs and Charlie are not fucking matter of your business and you're ungrateful. Chupapijas.
reasoning Claire's character is less likely that polar bears, the hatch on the ground or the size of that island, which remains unknown despite being as large as Sumatra, but the writers of Lost
-a number quite progressive for standards such popular series, "seemed valid. Why? Because the figure of the drug user is so identified in the popular culture of irresponsibility and the danger that the decision to Claire is the only admissible in a popular program. Just like when
Dragnet, at the end of the sixties, parents are drug babies drowned in the bathtub all the time. In a deserted island without medical resources and a multitude of hostile creatures in the back, a load of heroin, a powerful anesthetic in some ways superior to morphine itself would be a blessing that Dr. Jack would care more than anything . But that would require discursive reason in areas where you just have to play the fear. ***
There is a scene that moved me deeply
The Drug Years, a scene of a talk
show the end of 80 which discusses about the MDMA, ie, of ecstasy. The ecstasy-like drugs all subsequently demonized, it was legal for a long time, and in a very pure form, until someone got nervous and decided it was too mental ill to be left to choice of adult citizens. Now, the MDMA must be "next to the illegal drug LSD-more confirmed psychiatric virtues or latent, and has a margin of safety in use quite high unless you are suffering from hypertension, heart failure or is taken to combine excessive use of it with long periods without hydration, health risks are minimal. Even studies on chronic use to warn of a mental impairment associated with mood-are nothing conclusive, and today, almost 20 years that much of English youth use it en masse, not to have noticed massive consequences any kind, beyond a certain sense of community and the smile you've passed well over the years. As usual, the most dangerous of MDMA is its own illegality, since it prevents little control over what actually contain ecstasy tablets.
But what was that scene was to
talk show, in which, with the substance legally still discussing the "love drug" and its possible effects and risks. The driver speaks with a pretty young woman, who admits suffering from terminal cancer, and that use of MDMA had helped her accept her condition immediately and contact their loved ones, overcoming cultural barriers to prepare for the emotional farewell to complete the story of love. Anyone who has experimented with MDMA under appropriate conditions and with a substance of good quality, you know it is definitely a drug that can do that. Today the woman who spoke at that
talk show is dead, I hope that this drug has helped so bad to leave with dignity and that his memory will prevail among those who wanted and were able to contact her in real terms of communication human.
But that is a closed path of ignorance, even the medical experts called on the subject, which, as we are living, reproducing the same policies of prejudice to power-to thousands of terminally ill patients who lie hidden in hospitals not to frighten the world with his death incarnate. Thousands and thousands of people in a state of perpetual suffering that often live in a state of constant torture for being under-medicated, as the Health Police do not want to become addicted to morphine while on the brink of death. Police Health-carrying in his face the marks of the inquisitorial worship of Christianity, prefers suffering torment before that addiction. Health Police of the world want to come out broken, torn by grief, under their control
.
(
few days ago was released as a breakthrough authorizing not artificially keep alive the dying, leaving the good of nature, the duration of his agony. This seems superficially a breakthrough came, however , at the hands of a much more explicit ban on any type of euthanasia. That must have left happier than the clergy, the Police Health and other managers of death, whom I wish, with all the hatred it can hold my little, bitter and black soul they die suffering the most painful and prolonged bone cancer has been diagnosed never). ***
of the skin I'm in charge pa'adentro I've had experiences psychotropic whose only education was that it should not repeat never, I've had experiences that taught me a lot about myself, the perception of the world and the unseen world. Under controlled conditions and reported they were warmly recommend to all who know what they are doing and what are its consequences. Like all mature and responsible decisions. I have always taken into account the recommendations of Carlos Castaneda
, holding that the use of peyote is only necessary because we think we are stupid and we need to see poisoned, and William Burroughs
, who most succinctly summed up everything with a "learn to do it without the chemistry whore."
not only habitual or excessive use of drugs can be harmful to your health, there are people with mental health problems should not approach the visionary or hallucinogenic substances ever, people with heart problems to stay away from stimulants, people with the compulsive tendency to not be thinking of introducing new variables to your circle of needs. Even the most basic level of control over the purity or origin Many substances makes their self-regulation is very difficult even for people well informed. Who discriminates who can venture out and who does not? Well, anyone who is moderately familiar, or in many cases anyone who knows the other moderately. No blind scores in a pilot academy, and if so, any pilot academy gives a title to a blind man. There is no reason, with the objective information exists after generations of Drogon to do the same with drugs. But that takes, more than a positive legal framework, the simple presentation of the principle of accountability.
I have seen horrible things people take drugs I've seen people who never should have come to this or that substance to destroy his health and his relationship with the affective domain. There is no single drug that you know will not find at least a serious contraindication. Including marijuana, considered as safe as its advocates mystical water, produces chronic users obviously a clear intellectual impairment, especially for its effect on memory, an effect that is usually taken as a joke but there's nothing funny and memory is our spiritual safe.
But is not it, always seemed a fundamental error that the defense made some reefer legalizers, citing some therapeutic virtues -Some confirmed, others doubtful, of cannabis. That is to enter the same comparative logic of Police Health and subscribe to their notions about what healthy
. The final argument because it would legalize marijuana for adults is much more simple: because it is not your fucking business what I do with my
lungs. Point.
met the dark side of drugs at an early age, before they even turned 20 when I saw a beautiful girl, one of these Buenos Aires with a big heart and a sympathy that is not found in other countries, demolished their personality, emotional ties and nasal septum because of a cocaine addictions more terrible than I've ever seen. I was very impressed because I was in love with her, too.
One of the many autobiographical comics of Robert Crumb
presents it in a cartoon with an old friend, both died of laughter telling stories about experiences during the Roaring acid 60. Crumb noted that these discussions were very similar to what his father had with his friends veteran of World War II. Crumb does not suggest at this imply an experiential degradation, but rather a constant, that of men as we enter adulthood and Go Back-reluctant-even in an increasingly conservative, tend to elicit our most daring hours a recurring basis. But there is another thing, both have their part adventurer and its social component.
experimentation with drugs was what we had in place an urban guerrilla. Several old members can laugh derisively, but it was an underground movement that never harmed others and that without embrgo was stigmatized, persecuted, repressed and has its own casualties, its dead, its prisoners, its crazy and broken. None of them is considered a martyr, neither of them claimed a pension or charge. And yet, every idiot who smokes a joint shamelessly in any park or beach without fear of more than a mild reprimand, can do so thanks to those who did and again 20 years ago and were beaten, expelled, thrown into dungeons and despised for it. There is no memorial to greet his little secret revolution. On the contrary, unlike the northern hemisphere where the political revolutionary movements of the 60 were in the hands of the psychological unrest and the investigation of the inner mysteries, Third World activists, many of them trained in Catholicism, took immediate advantage repression of customs inherited from the decadent capitalist hedonism. Among those who were experimenting with the limits of body and psyche, of course. There was no place
for new thoughts on the new man, the scene in Uruguay Drogon at 60 was too small to be in conflict with MLN
(in which discourse in any way were common references to bourgeois decadence and homophobic references) instead the Argentine montoneros immediately declared enemies of the "faloperos" who made it clear they were on the list of those who would not take place in the country
released. This thinking persists in the discourse of the Latin American left, in the mad pursuit of drinkers in Chavez's Venezuela, in the executions or forced exile of Cuban traffickers. Because the monopoly of the revolutionary is necessary for the maintenance of power. But
us - the traps, the Drogon, the Moluccan, we were revolutionaries, and also successful.
We who were exposed stinking of sulfur and scaly skin, speaking in tongues to our parents. We who were expelled from circles built in the name of integration. That we were blind under the summer sun in the courtyard of the police station in a dirty city of Rocha. When in doubt we said "yes" and with that yes we graduated from university within the preacher that no president ever attended. We had no guns to defend ourselves. Us, we take pulse scared on the way to a gurney ominous. We hope that the dawn and the return of sanity. We who were included, classified, studied, protected by quarantine docepasosizados, medicated, mourned, hopeless, confused and, always, underestimated. We who were terrorized by professionals fear for unemployed labor in whose hands
you left us when we were little kids ue. We who knew
. We did it. We, who departed for people who wanted and needed. We, the contagious. We, who love us in our hour inoculating shame brighter. We we are everywhere. We deserve respect
.
A queer look hypochondriacal,
control freaks, cowards in fear of life and people who like to decide for others: we ran a Slap in the courtyards of colleges and their girlfriends apretábamos us at the dances. We pass it so well that we forgot to accumulate power, we dispersed, we hurt, we lost the moral authority that we aimed, using our own body battlefield, we got lost. But still we are not afraid. One of these days we will have touched your ass a little more and we will re-supply them as soon as possible and return them to their very limited paper camp organizers and members of the youth brigades of the Red Cross. One of these days we'll be tired, and besides cagarlos to pineapples, we'll pass all sorts of bacteria that have no name yet.
That could happen, just remember that we are freer and curious as you. As soon as we recognize in the light and shadow. Just pass a little pain and anguish of knowing.
