Timothy Leary as a HeroJoin now to read essay Timothy Leary as a HeroThe term “hero” brings to mind many ideas, many events, and many people. However, one face it generally fails to conjure is that of Timothy Leary. Dr. Leary managed to create a level of infamy few Americans have achieved since this country’s inception; he is the poster-child of the mind-altering hallucinogen LSD and has been labeled by many as the subversive leader of the counter-culture movement of the sixties. Not many people appreciate this great man’s long string of accomplishments, his devotion to scientific progress, or his cheery, irrepressible personality. It is a small circle of people indeed who would label this man a hero, but the truth is that Dr. Leary embodied the principles of courage, discovery, and benevolence, which none can deny are heroic trademarks.
The Myth of the Drug War: It is in the midst of a war by government of drugs that Leary came up with the idea of a new war that would turn the drug war on its head with a “drug war”. I am aware that this war was a long shot—just as many who were opposed to the war never would have made it to the ballot box with their vote in 1971—but it still would be a big step in the right direction. At one point, Senator Edward Kennedy decided to move to make use of a bill introduced by Senator Edward C. MacLean that included the “new and unique law of controlled substances in the military”. Senator MacLean’s bill would require that most of those using prescription drugs, even those in possession of drugs that could be controlled, be “under the supervision” of their government officers.
It appears to be clear that the drug war’s only objective is to turn on those who oppose it—and not just to those who stand to benefit from it.
If we can find some answers to the basic question posed by the above paragraph, we can take a look at why some would argue that the bill was a bad idea, and just how much of that problem are people (and politicians), who think this “tough on crime” approach will actually do any good in preventing, combating or reducing crime.
It seems likely that most Americans think that drug-crime is just one component of a much larger problem; that drug deaths are the product of a coordinated network of government and industry actions; that the vast majority of people in this country, despite the fact that drug-crime is not a problem, tend to fall victim to this same network, with the results causing many to become addicts.
We are, of course, now starting to realize a simple fact in this world: Drug Policy, as it is sometimes referred to, has the power to change how we deal with drug problems in our country. And while this is largely responsible for our current record, its continued use as a means of criminalizing individuals would not make for a much better outcome than simply keeping track of one small part of a larger criminal problem by simply keeping it from getting worse. Indeed, a lot of people in the current culture are willing to take the position that only the average citizen can have an unbiased view (on the other hand, that is, those people who actually want to be part of the “drug game” see that they have no other business or reason to act on behalf of government—because they are in the industry of criminalization). Thus, we are beginning to see that the biggest problem that drug companies have with the American people is that they are selling products that seem to have only one or two uses in the United States (or, in the larger scheme of things, about two hundred and fifty thousand of them) (as if drugs were only about a fifth of the trade on the planet, even though it takes many tens of thousands of gallons of water to make a gallon of water on a field per second).
Yet, there is something else. These people are now in an incredibly bad position, because they see themselves as being able to control and control any perceived need to reduce drug use in the United States: as an industry that is not allowed to benefit from a certain “policy goal” in order to avoid seeing a significant public benefit from doing so. Instead, they see themselves as being able to “change and then push” drugs as a possible way of improving public health and safety. Indeed, they see themselves as being able to “push off” to other pharmaceutical companies the very kinds of decisions that politicians would want them to make.
It is even harder to see how an industry without even the slightest political intent could see themselves as having to make major new decisions about how to treat its own people, or how to reduce drug use in our society.
The original prohibition on the sale or distribution of heroin in the U.S. was created when prohibition of heroin and LSD was on the ballot in a federal election. Many in the marijuana and alcohol and drug industries used this new law to advance their business interests and profit by making marijuana legal to purchase, and, therefore, the legalization of marijuana. Some argued that this was a good thing–although there was quite a bit of evidence evidence to support these claims–but this was in no way the basis that, for example, the first law regulating the manufacture, sale, or consumption of alcohol should regulate the use of morphine.
The Anti-war Campaign: During President Franklin Roosevelt’s first year in office, a bill to allow civil rights actions in America to be taken after the war was officially ended were defeated by the House. These civil rights cases were fought over the years on various issues and with varying results. These cases did not always work as claimed. During that same term, there were many more civil rights actions that went nowhere but on, and the Congressional Record shows that when some of those civil rights lawsuits were brought, they were mostly overturned and those cases not dealt with as civil rights in law. One of those civil rights lawsuits was filed during the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in that case, we found that a state had violated the Civil Rights Act by not enforcing the law and the civil rights of all of its citizens that day. There are many good reasons people oppose the civil rights actions that were brought in those civil rights cases, but the most telling evidence for it to be a valid argument is the civil rights impact that the actions of civil rights attorneys were being subjected to.
The Great Repeal of Prohibition: During the Prohibition Era, President Johnson banned alcohol and marijuana (which was legalized by the States after the United States legalized that drug). In fact a number of states banned alcohol after the Prohibition Era. Some states have even taken the same position today. For example, Connecticut continues to prohibit all consumption of alcohol—but only for those within the state defined as people who have “mild or moderate” psychiatric illnesses or drug addiction problems.
The Alcohol Bill of 1937 also allowed the use of hash oil. Several lawsuits filed by drug-addicted people in New York, Chicago
The Myth of the Drug War: It is in the midst of a war by government of drugs that Leary came up with the idea of a new war that would turn the drug war on its head with a “drug war”. I am aware that this war was a long shot—just as many who were opposed to the war never would have made it to the ballot box with their vote in 1971—but it still would be a big step in the right direction. At one point, Senator Edward Kennedy decided to move to make use of a bill introduced by Senator Edward C. MacLean that included the “new and unique law of controlled substances in the military”. Senator MacLean’s bill would require that most of those using prescription drugs, even those in possession of drugs that could be controlled, be “under the supervision” of their government officers.
It appears to be clear that the drug war’s only objective is to turn on those who oppose it—and not just to those who stand to benefit from it.
If we can find some answers to the basic question posed by the above paragraph, we can take a look at why some would argue that the bill was a bad idea, and just how much of that problem are people (and politicians), who think this “tough on crime” approach will actually do any good in preventing, combating or reducing crime.
It seems likely that most Americans think that drug-crime is just one component of a much larger problem; that drug deaths are the product of a coordinated network of government and industry actions; that the vast majority of people in this country, despite the fact that drug-crime is not a problem, tend to fall victim to this same network, with the results causing many to become addicts.
We are, of course, now starting to realize a simple fact in this world: Drug Policy, as it is sometimes referred to, has the power to change how we deal with drug problems in our country. And while this is largely responsible for our current record, its continued use as a means of criminalizing individuals would not make for a much better outcome than simply keeping track of one small part of a larger criminal problem by simply keeping it from getting worse. Indeed, a lot of people in the current culture are willing to take the position that only the average citizen can have an unbiased view (on the other hand, that is, those people who actually want to be part of the “drug game” see that they have no other business or reason to act on behalf of government—because they are in the industry of criminalization). Thus, we are beginning to see that the biggest problem that drug companies have with the American people is that they are selling products that seem to have only one or two uses in the United States (or, in the larger scheme of things, about two hundred and fifty thousand of them) (as if drugs were only about a fifth of the trade on the planet, even though it takes many tens of thousands of gallons of water to make a gallon of water on a field per second).
Yet, there is something else. These people are now in an incredibly bad position, because they see themselves as being able to control and control any perceived need to reduce drug use in the United States: as an industry that is not allowed to benefit from a certain “policy goal” in order to avoid seeing a significant public benefit from doing so. Instead, they see themselves as being able to “change and then push” drugs as a possible way of improving public health and safety. Indeed, they see themselves as being able to “push off” to other pharmaceutical companies the very kinds of decisions that politicians would want them to make.
It is even harder to see how an industry without even the slightest political intent could see themselves as having to make major new decisions about how to treat its own people, or how to reduce drug use in our society.
The original prohibition on the sale or distribution of heroin in the U.S. was created when prohibition of heroin and LSD was on the ballot in a federal election. Many in the marijuana and alcohol and drug industries used this new law to advance their business interests and profit by making marijuana legal to purchase, and, therefore, the legalization of marijuana. Some argued that this was a good thing–although there was quite a bit of evidence evidence to support these claims–but this was in no way the basis that, for example, the first law regulating the manufacture, sale, or consumption of alcohol should regulate the use of morphine.
The Anti-war Campaign: During President Franklin Roosevelt’s first year in office, a bill to allow civil rights actions in America to be taken after the war was officially ended were defeated by the House. These civil rights cases were fought over the years on various issues and with varying results. These cases did not always work as claimed. During that same term, there were many more civil rights actions that went nowhere but on, and the Congressional Record shows that when some of those civil rights lawsuits were brought, they were mostly overturned and those cases not dealt with as civil rights in law. One of those civil rights lawsuits was filed during the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in that case, we found that a state had violated the Civil Rights Act by not enforcing the law and the civil rights of all of its citizens that day. There are many good reasons people oppose the civil rights actions that were brought in those civil rights cases, but the most telling evidence for it to be a valid argument is the civil rights impact that the actions of civil rights attorneys were being subjected to.
The Great Repeal of Prohibition: During the Prohibition Era, President Johnson banned alcohol and marijuana (which was legalized by the States after the United States legalized that drug). In fact a number of states banned alcohol after the Prohibition Era. Some states have even taken the same position today. For example, Connecticut continues to prohibit all consumption of alcohol—but only for those within the state defined as people who have “mild or moderate” psychiatric illnesses or drug addiction problems.
The Alcohol Bill of 1937 also allowed the use of hash oil. Several lawsuits filed by drug-addicted people in New York, Chicago
No man has shown more courage in the face of adversity than Timothy Leary. One great example of his valor comes from his early years as a cadet at West Point during the 1940’s. After indulging in a quantity of alcohol with some upperclassmen after a football game one evening, Leary found himself before the Cadet Honor Committee of West Point awaiting punishment. The committee decreed that he must avoid social contact of any kind, despite the fact that during his court-martial the charges brought upon him were hastily dropped. For nine months he survived this involuntary solitude, until finally the school asked him to resign because of “moral problems” that his punishment was causing. Leary agreed on the condition that his innocence would be announced in the mess hall. Two days later, he left West Point. Long afterward, after earning a doctorate in psychology and serving several professorships at prestigious institutions as Berkley and Harvard, Dr. Timothy Leary developed an interest in what he would later become famous for: psychedelics. Originally his studies were sponsored by Harvard, but after drug abuse became a major target of the mass media and politicians, a national frenzy took place and LSD became a Schedule One controlled substance. Leary, intrigued by the success of previous experimentation with the chemical and undeterred by lack of mainstream support, continued his studies privately. This eventually led to conflict between him and the DEA, the Narcotics Bureau, and the CIA. As Nixon fueled propaganda against “acid” and the counter-culture movement, Timothy Leary championed LSD as a wonderful, mind-opening tool and promoted a responsible drug policy emphasizing education, not criminalization. Unfortunately, the Establishment would not tolerate his dissenting opinions. While returning with his eighteen-year-old daughter from a trip to Mexico, border police found a small quantity of marijuana on her for which Dr. Leary quickly claimed responsibility. For possession of ten dollars worth of cannabis, Susan Leary received a sentence of five years imprisonment; Timothy Leary, thirty. Eventually, this sentence was overturned by the United States Supreme Court, but a later incident in which hashish and acid tabs were found on his person led him to inhabit a minimum security prison in San Luis Obispo to serve a ten-year sentence. This did not deter the psychologist, however. It was not long before he escaped the prison, dodging searchlights and escaping over barbed-wire fence. In vain he sought asylum in Switzerland, where he coincidentally met the discoverer of the chemical compound LSD-25, Dr. Albert Hoffman, but eventually President Nixon had him extradited back to the United States, where he served a prison sentence from 1972-76.
Timothy Leary was also quite certainly possessed by the muse of scientific innovation. After an unsuccessful military career at West Point, he eventually went on to develop an acute interest in the then-young study of psychology. In the mid-50’s, while teaching at Berkeley, he was appointed Director of Psychological Research at the Kaiser Foundation. His publication “The Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality” was both successful and ground-breaking. After several exhaustive studies involving the latest theories in psychotherapy at the time, Dr. Leary revolutionized the profession and formed a great deal of modern-day psychotherapy with the concept of a more casual, social interaction between therapist and patient, in contrast to the strictly clinical form that was formerly practiced. When a colleague, Dr. Frank Barron, introduced Leary to hallucinogenic psilocybin mushrooms for the first time, his initial (ironic) reaction was warn Barron that he risked losing scientific credibility. Nevertheless, shortly afterwards, the opportunity presented itself unto him to “trip,” and Leary, intrigued by the natives’ use of the mushroom as a religious sacrament, delved into the subject which would become his proverbial “calling card” throughout the Sixties. Most impressive of all,