Anyone who has spent time trying to understand the factors at play with The War On Drugs knows that it has created an entire industry based around it. Euphemisms like "community" (i.e. Law Enforcement Community) are used for it's different sectors, but the fact is that The War On Drugs has created a massive Drug War Industry that our own federal government puts over fifty billion dollars a year into. State money and illegal drug trade money don't even need to be considered when you realize you're looking at a federally funded market worth more than fifty billion annually.

However, if you do consider the illegal trade (state money is just a fraction of federal) then you'll realize where the big money really is. Although the actual figures are hard to be sure of, for obvious reasons, global estimates are about three hundred twenty billion a year. This Drug War Industry has been growing and supporting itself through the violent and destructive symbiosis between law enforcement and organized crime for decades now, leeching a literal trillion dollars from our economy since it's initiation. But there are other sectors like testing companies, private prison systems and recovery treatment facilities that are a very profitable part of this industry as well.

Now let's, for the purpose of this line of thought, ignore what this says about The War On Drugs and think about how it impacts a post drug war world. For better or for worse there are a lot of people who depend on the opportunities created by the Drug War Industry to bring home the bacon and when that business suddenly goes belly up, so do the opportunities. We're talking opportunities for everybody from street level dealers and beat cops to kingpins and high level federal officials. Even the people who run recovery treatment facilities and test your pee take a hit. That's a lot of people and if they're all suddenly unemployed or making a lot less than they were, everybody is going to feel that.

But the problems don't stop there. We cannot forget that there are also legal, pharmaceutical drugs woven into the fabric of the Drug War Industry. Keeping that in mind, we have to consider this question: if the goal for The War On Drugs is to stop the production, distribution and use of illegal substances, then how has a post drug war world managed to handle drugs that can be legally prescribed? You only have to look at the rate of illegal pharmaceutical drug use to see that our current systems fall far short of the stated goal, but does that mean we should just say fuck it and let everybody do whatever they want? Or is there a perfect piece of legislation that will keep these kinds of drugs from being used recreationally?

Another issue I see, and this may be a stretch for some of you, especially if you've never used drugs, is that drugs are a very important and prominent part of our history. For starters, there's not insubstantial evidence to suggest that "magic mushrooms" were an essential, if not preeminent influence that, in conjunction with other factors like change in diet, contributed to the doubling of the human brain size in an amount of time that is considered unusually rapid on the evolutionary scale. We also cannot forget or discount the countless artists (both modern and classic) and influential figures who attribute important parts of their success or failure, depending on the case, to drugs. There's just to much to cover here, but you could do an extremely interesting historical study on the role that drugs have played in history. From the influence of mushrooms in ancient fertility cults to the transition into alcohol in more modern times and all the things like ergot poisoning, which is suspected of having LSD like effects and being a catalyst for unexplainably crazy events in human history, especially in the middle ages. 

Like it or not, the existence and influence of drugs in the human experience cannot be denied by anyone who plays by the rules of evidence. Now when the Drug War Industry (which currently handles all things drugs) goes belly up, how will that change our current relationship to drugs? If the most extreme vision of victory for The War On Drugs is achieved and drugs are totally absent from the human experience, then what effect does that have on humanity? On the other hand, no one wants de-regulated drug production and distribution, so how do we manage that safely without creating another war industry?

When it comes to drugs, the only clear cut, black and white statement you can make is that they are complicated and anything but a black and white, clear cut issue. Many societies have embraced and venerated drug use and ceremony while others, like ours, have tried to enforce a non-interaction policy. As we look out to the future of our relationship with drugs I don't think there's any question that it is in the process of serious change that is being catalyzed by more accurate information about drugs being available than ever before and exposure of the damage being caused by the War on Drugs happening on a scale not previously possible. 

All things considered though, when this industry, that justifies it's existence with autocratic ideals, has either had its way or been thrown down, there will be extensive vacuums of economic, political and social energy left behind. These future vacuums are currently pillars holding up important pieces of our society and we need to think about what will happen with that weight once they're gone.

I will reference the beginning of this blog to make my ending point. If you'll remember (or re-read) I said that this line of thought would work whether you imagine The War On Drugs having been won or lost, but let's get real: The War On Drugs will never be won. If over a trillion dollars and four decades can't get it done, what the fuck can? So we are realistically left with one scenario, and that's us losing to drugs. Considering that fact, there's only one real question left: when it comes to The War On Drugs, do we need an exit strategy or do we just get the hell out?

This is an idea that's fun to play with because a post-apocalypse era is typically thought of as a point in history where rebuilding and relearning has to take place on account of everything being destroyed. However, in our scenario (which I believe is the one we are currently in), the new world is there to take the place of the old world and accomplish everything it used to with new methods and ideas, making for a post-apocalypse era that is full of growth and a thriving humanity. Could that be the kind of era we are headed for?

I also mentioned at the end of the last blog that I would address the question: Is humanity ready, as a global population, for true freedom and democracy? This is a deep question with many trails and implications, but I think it applies directly to our scenario because one of the major distinctions of the new world I see coming, is how the pressure of governing is distributed throughout its framework. Under our current hierarchical framework, where the burden is concentrated at the top, this question is nothing more than a philosophical musing because true freedom and democracy are out of the question. But with the coming of the new world that will, if I am correct, evenly distribute this burden throughout its framework and thereby ensure true freedom and democracy, I think this could very well be the most important question we could ask. 

Now, I think this new world is evident and easy to see in the change of the last few decades and how it has come at breakneck speed, with the whole lifecycles of data mediums, communication protocols and giant business' being run through like the behavioral phases of a toddler. The rapidity with which these changes have swept in as well as that of their growth has, I think, left not insignificant percentages of our population in a bit of a shock and, probably even more accurately, completely behind in the dust.

The only ones that are really grasping it en masse are the newer generations, and it really seems like that's due to the fact that they're born into the changed world. The older generations seem to have an operating system (if you'll allow me to use such a term for people) that is completely incompatible with these changes and I think here is evidence of the separation between the old world and the new. One is dying out, one is just starting and for this brief period of time they co-exist. 

When put in those terms, what I'm describing could easily be discounted as a normal change in generation. But this is more than just a transition from one generation to the other, this is a change in era as well as a change of the age. Changes in generation usually happen on the social level and sometimes on a technical, artistic or even religious level. I think the changes we have coming will strike out at every level of our lives, removing and rebuilding every piece of the system, not just a few parameters. 

Now, as I've said, I think this rebuilding process would evenly distribute the burden of governing throughout the framework and what I mean by this is that freedom would be thrust upon us, along with the burden of working together to manage our world. Whether this happens as the outcome of our intentional actions or simply because it's the inevitable result of these changes and connectedness I don't know, but real freedom it would be. And we're going to realize something if freedom does come.

We're going to realize that what governments rely on is what I might call a human preterition and others might call a blatant deception from our rulers. Whatever you call it, what they're relying on is the assumption that they are the only option for governance and protection. That without a central authority to make decisions the world will fall into chaos, because you can't trust other people not to fuck up your shit unless there's an authoritative, intermediary institution with the very real ability to enforce its laws.

But if I'm right about all of this then not only are we going to realize that they are far from the only option for governance, we are also going to realize that we now have the tools and the framework to govern ourselves. Either way, I really don't think these changes and realizations are going to allow the question of whether or not this is something we as a global population are ready for, to sit back as an interesting philosophical musing. And as they continue to progress I think they're going to force us to answer the question by uniting the globe in a true and free democracy and letting the dice roll. 

This is where freedom's rubber will meet life's highway, because in a true and free democracy everybody connected to the framework is a governing force. There will be no one to blame but ourselves for whatever outcomes we bring about. We will no longer be able to shift the responsibility for our global actions to corrupt governments and rotten corporations. We will realize that we are totally accountable for the world we live in and always have been, we just handed that responsibility off to governments to take care of. Can we handle taking it back?

There's only one way to find the answer to this question. We have to find ourselves in a situation that thrusts freedom upon us, like the one I propose we are currently in, and if we improve and harness our potential for our extraordinary brand of consummation then we answer resoundingly: "Yes!" And yet the nature of freedom is such that we might scream "No!!" and spiral down into the darkest collapse we've yet known. 

I don't think the point is worrying about which it will be though. I think the point is knowing that it's up to each individual to embrace freedom with a real understanding of what it is. To undertake it's challenges and strive to be worthy of them and worthy of a world full of free people doing the same. If we can do this or at least the majority of us can do this, and I think we can, then we'll be well on our way to the most amazing period in known human history.

In this post I will aim to set forth a no bullshit, fully considered and no excuses made definition of freedom that will emphasize personal responsibility and ask an extremely important question about mankind. 

To start with, this is the best dictionary definition I found for freedom: 

"The power to determine action without restraint" 

That's from dictionary.com and I think it's the most spartan and effective definition you're likely to come across. But what I noticed most when I was reviewing the different definitions is that all of their verbiage indicates a lack of something. It's always without, never with. Or maybe absence, but never presence. 

From this perspective the losing your chains metaphor really works best for freedom. Sure you're now without your chains but that doesn't mean you earn a prize. In the first days of freedom you have less than you did in your recent days of wearing fetters. It's up to you to be strong and focused enough to provide more for yourself. 

This brings us to my main point: freedom is not about having choices and the amount of choices you have aren't a representation of how free you are, despite how much it's idealized as such. You will always have choices and the amount of choices you have will always be limited by circumstance. 

Freedom is about responsibility. To declare your freedom is to declare yourself capable of managing your life without the need for direction. To a society it signifies that you are capable living your life without infringing on theirs. On a personal level it means you are capable of living in a way that fulfills your genius, or whatever marker you set for what you want in life. 

Like I said earlier, the amount of choices you have aren't a representation of how free you are. In other words, you can't measure freedom by counting how many options you have to choose from. You can only measure how free you are by assessing the qualities of the choices you have. You should have choices that possess as many qualities as you can imagine, a full range of good, bad and everything in between. 

Which brings us to the crux of the issue for me. Humankind has so much potential, for both good and bad, but that potential is limited and capped by authority. A central authority that presides over a group of people is a replacement for each of those people's personal responsibility and that is said to be necessary because you just can't trust the people around you without something to keep them in line. But what no one mentions is that authority, no matter how scaled back, encroaches not only on your freedom but on your responsibility for yourself. 

History has shown that human authority systems, once established, tend to seek an equilibrium and promote a homogenous citizenry. But human consciousness is not homogenous. If you set it free you will always get something unique. If you subject it to moral status quo's and/or an over reaching government then you limit what it's capable of. And yeah maybe it won't always be beautiful if you set it free, but look at the world around us today; it's barely holding together. 

I think it's time we truly realized what freedom is and ask the only question that matters in my opinion: As a global population are we ready to handle true freedom and democracy?  

I'll attempt to answer that question next week.