Opinions & Blogs

Can We Really Have Democracy Without Conscious Sovereignty?

There are very few countries in the world which are not entirely driven by their economy. Bhutan is one that I know of. The problem with the monetary system in place is that it breeds vanity, which in turn breeds greed.

Our governments are controlled by their financial backers, thus never act in the true best interests of those they govern. Instead, they act in the interest of those who will pay them the most.

People around the world know that their governments are corrupt. They know that politicians lie to them. But they still vote for them. Why?

I honestly have no clue what drives people to religiously align themselves with a certain political party. And do so regardless of evidence opposing their views. 

Though I feel the media driven world we all live in exasperates the issue.

Take the current political situation in the UK and USA. The leaders of both countries were proven to have benefitted from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and both leaders are seemingly cosying up to Vladimir Putin — Russia also being implicated in the scandal.

All of this has lead to people falling for the illusion of freedom when, in reality, none of us have true freedom. The fact is we no longer even possess sovereignty over the most intimate part of our experience on this planet – consciousness.

Democracy and drugs

Let me ask you this: is a person taking opium (a completely natural substance provided by the planet) an objectively bad thing? No, certain opiates are prescribed by medical institutions around the world to treat pain.

This brings me to my next question: how can we objectively define morality on such a subject when the only person affected by the action, is the person consuming the substance? I’ll put it another way: how can we be so entitled as to think that we have the right to dictate another human’s conscious sovereignty?

The simple fact is we cannot objectively define morality on the matter of consuming drugs anymore than we can dictate how much a person sleeps. But we all do it.

What would your reaction be if I told you that your cuddly dreams of rainbow farting unicorns are the result of tripping your bollucks off? Think about it.

Dreams are good, right? Many psychologists have theorised that dreams allow our brain to play out fears and desires. These fears and desires would be unhealthy to express in our waking lives. But they need to be expressed. Many scientists also theorise that dreams are the result of an illegal drug called DMT.

This means we all are illegally tripping our tits off every time we go to sleep and enter the realm of dreams.

What’s with the laws?

Governments around the globe enforce strict punishments on people wishing to take DMT. The same can be said for most natural substances which allow us to take full control of our consciousness. Why is that?

There have been many studies which found psychedelic drugs to have a positive affect on the human brain. And that they can lead to a heightened sense of consciousness. Scientists have looked into treating a range of mental illnesses with them. Mote notably, a form of PTSD which was considered untreatable.

I feel should state that I am not advising you drop acid anytime you feel a bit shit. Nor am I trying to convince anyone to try it recreationally. The point of this to question what we consider to be democracy. These substances can be beneficial. They have the potential to open our minds by forcing us to question our very definition of reality.

And this is why our conscious sovereignty is so crucial to our existence. The fact that it has been stripped away from us says a lot about the current state of affairs. If someone else is dictating my consciousness, are they not dictating every conscious decision I make?

So how can we have a democracy? How can we possibly consider ourselves to be truly autonomous when we possess such limiting conscious sovereignty? Yes, people can abuse drugs. People abuse anything if you give them half the chance.

I once watched a documentary on a person who was sexually attracted to the Eiffel Tower. She became obsessed, flew to France (from the States) and proceeded in an attempt to marry it. The point? She is a lunatic and there are already laws in place for lunatics.

How does it affect you?

Here’s a hypothetical scenario: there’s guy who knocks back a bottle of vodka every night. One night he drinks too much, loses his shit, and beats the crap out of his nan with a baguette.

Should vodka be outlawed? No. There are already laws in place to deal with people battering grannies with baguettes. Likewise for any other crime which can be committed by someone who is intoxicated, regardless of the substance. So to ban all drugs because some people abuse them and do fucked up shit is bizarre.

It’s no different to, I don’t know, banning peanuts because someone had an allergy and died after eating one.

Let’s make another hypothetical scenario. Let’s say I am a fully functioning member of society who dabbles in the odd gallivant around a dance floor while tripping balls on MDMA. One night, let’s say a weekend, I decide to drop and an extra bomb of some super strong shit I bought. Then I overdose and, ultimately, die.

Who is affected by this? My family and friends, obviously, and the person/people that find my body. However, while upsetting for my loved ones, death is an inevitability and it could have happened in a multitude of other ways. Likewise for the person/people who find the body — it’s upsetting, but shit happens.

The point from all this is that the worst case scenarios from using these substances can, and will, occur either way. It seems to me the only possible reason we see such a prevalent war on drugs is to stop us questioning those who govern us.

When we accept that the very reality we hold so dear can be altered beyond comprehension so easily, we accept that everything we think we know could be wrong.

Love, peace and happiness.