The Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) Reform Initiative is a network making the psychiatric labels that affect the cannabis and psychedelic community an issue in drug policy reform. The prohibitionist justification for denying people their rights is that the use of drugs, such as cannabis, LSD, or peyote, is a threat to mental health and public safety. What are these rights, and why is their denial a worsening disaster?

Arthur Kleps, founder of the psychedelic religion The Neo-American Church, had this to say: "We have the right to practice our religion even if we are a bunch of filthy drunken bums. Try not to degrade rights into mere claims based on evidence ofvirtue and lack of vice. We do not stand before the government as children before a parent; the government stands before us as the corrupter of our God-given rights."'

Kleps was speaking of rights extending in history from the Bible through the Magna Carta, to their enumeration in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America ("the supreme law of the land"—Article VI:2). The so-called war on drugs of the current administration sets aside the authority of its Constitution by disparaging these rights.

Herein lies the dilemma; while it is clear to some people that the war on drugs violates constitutional and human rights, the view of those who are vested with the power to make laws and interpret rights seems to be that the drug laws are constitutional in every respect. Even to bring up the topic of rights hardens the resolve of lawmakers and judges, because it implies that they have failed to understand the true meaning of the Constitution.

To bring about a favorable change in such thinking and jurisprudence requires untried constitutional issues, novel applications of case law, or a closing of the "escape" provisions of the Controlled Substances Acts. An example would be taking the position that the drug laws comprise a bill of attainder, in violation of Article I Section 9; or, that a jury which has not experienced the effects of a psychedelic has not examined the evidence in a First Amendment defense proceeding. But it is the closing of the "escape" provisions that is the subject of this paper. The Controlled Substances Acts vest judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, and quasi-administrative authority over its "escape" provisions to licensed practitioners. They, in turn, are only incidentally answerable to the citizens who are the ultimate source of all government authority.

Criminal legislation in the field of medicine should apply only to specific instances of individual danger. But the Controlled Substances Acts have in effect criminalized any difference of opinion with the American medical community's views. The Acts authorize conviction irrespective of conduct, loss of self-control or finding of scienter endangering or threatening to the public health, safety, morals and welfare.

The near-sacred American principle of"innocent until proven guilty" is abandoned in cases of drug possession. The burden of establishing innocence is placed upon the defendant, who must demonstrate medical permission (21 USC 885). This is only one example of the adjudication of guilt without judicial trial upon the class of persons who may handle or use controlled substances.

Each of the first 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights, with the exception of the 3rd, is desecrated by the drug laws. The Acts substantially impose infamous punishments, banishments, disenfranchisements, disqualifications, near loss of citizenship, and forfeiture of property upon persons who embrace a particular philosophy and/or ideology and/or mode of conduct to the displeasure of Congress or the medical community.

In a recent First Amendment decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has abandoned the previous test of proving that the government has a "compelling interest" in enforcing statutes that restrict the free exercise of religion. The Court in Employment Division vs. Smith (April 17, 1990, involving the sacramental use of peyote by Native Americans) now maintains that religious liberty is a "luxury" that government is free to ignore. Psychiatry is not directly to blame in this case. However, its classification of mental diseases lists the religious ideation of psychedelic experience as a symptom of a disorder.3 That is an obstacle to realizing that this "luxury" is, in fact, a vital right.

An unconscionable offense against freedom of speech is the confessions of wrongdoing and/or illness forced from captives of rehabilitation centers or prisons. These stated professions of belief are compulsory, notwithstanding any difference of opinion the speaker may have with the medical apology of his captives. Said difference of opinion (even conceding respect for rule of law) is referred to as "denial." It is seen as a symptom of the "scourge of drug abuse" that supposedly ravages the populace like an epidemic. Conditional release from New York state prisons is granted only on condition that a statement is signed to the effect that "I will not use or possess ... any controlled substances without proper medical authorization." Section 259(g) of the Executive Law of the State of New York.

Experiences which are common to the human condition are regarded as symptoms of mental disorders if they are induced by cannabis or psych edelics.4 These include euphoria, anxiety, social withdrawal, and sensations of slowed time, all of which attend to involvement with ideas, the arts, or sports. Individual differences in response to these are accepted as differences in taste or interest.

The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is a Federal crime for violators of the Controlled Substances Acts. 18 USC 922(g), 924(a)(2), 924(c) and 21 USC 844(a). Their official mental status undoubtedly has bearing on this. Parenthetically, this author notes that most of the cannabis and psychedelic community abhor violence and agree with this right, if at all, in principle only; they do not own firearms.

The 5th Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination does not exclude urine tests, because such tests are regarded as "medical."

The 9th Amendment states that the enumerating of particular Constitutional rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment states that all powers that are not delegated in the document are reserved to the states "or to the people." The Acts, in contravention of these Amendments and of the Constitution (which say nothing about licenses), deny and disparage these and other rights retained by the people, by delegating power to licensed practitioners.

Thus the drug laws are not only unconstitutional, but excessive governmental and medical con- trot over human minds and bodies, amounting to a gross violation of human rights.

Provisions for the protection ofhuman rights are also made in the Charter of the United Nations. Chapter 1, Article 1(1) respects "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." Article 1(3) promotes "the fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." Further, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4, declares that participation in the cultural life of the community is a right.

Justice demands that these rights must include the cannabis and psychedelic culturists (for example, "hippies"; "dead heads"; "The Rainbow Family"; the cannabis/ psychedelic constituents of the industrialized world; the religious minority of same; and other people callously labeled as "druggies"). The official attacks that deny these people their rights and cultural visions are, frankly, horrifying. The seizure of property and assets, the revocation and denial of professional licenses, the kidnapping of children from their homes, imprisonment, and/or the forcible indoctrination ("treatment") of drug users, are all tactics meant "to destroy in whole or in substantial part."6 Is this an overstatement? Perhaps. But the injury of the acts is compounded, and the lessons of history forgotten, when bills are introduced before Congress (they have not yet passed) that would create concentration camps for drug offenders. These duplicate bills, H.R. 4079 and S. 2265, are designed to enslave people in privately owned and operated forced labor camps. Similar camps were built after Nazi doctors justified the Holocaust on the grounds of "mental hygiene."6

A peaceful resolution of these violations of human rights is sought by many who would like to provide fledgling cultures the opportunity to succeed or fail on their own merits. Given the recognition of their rights, they are apt to succeed; the requisite leadership already exists in a variety offorms. Norman E. Zinberg discovered that most drug users, even users of narcotics, take a firm stand against drug abuse by employing informal social rules and sanctions.' The psychedelic community has its share of churches and scholars (e.g., the Peyote Way Church of God, and the Fane of the Psilocybe Mushroom Association). E.D. Smith found that ethics of a spiritual, therapeutic, or exploratory quality develop spontaneously from the transcendental nature of the psychedelic experience.8

In recognition of the prohibitionist-promoted decay of international law and the legal protection of human rights, alternatives are being suggested. These usually fall short of the optimal goal of relegalization. Instead, they revolve around therapeutic interventions into the lives of drug users. This is hardly better than criminal sanctions, as the drug user is stigmatized as a "mentally ill" individual, stripped of personal responsibility because he is presumed to be "sick."

The professional language of mental deficit is not without danger. Kenneth J. Gergen counsels that as society learns the language, the culture will redefine itself in those terms. This necessitates the invention of more and more complicated professional language for the preservation of the professional clique. In other words, a culture where people see themselves as "sick" leads to self-enfeeblement and overdependence on "experts." This threatens the very foundation of democracy.

People who are referred to as "mentally ill" are ontologically flawed. Their lives are seen as lacking authenticity or values. They are not worthy of love, and they are incapable of judging what is in their own best interests. "They are objects, not subjects."10 Seth Farber warns that institutional mental health sets up an absolute standard which implies that our society is ideal and no further evolution is possible. This polarizes society by advocating undemocratic, elitist practices. Denial, as mentioned above, is seen as a symptom of the "disease of drug abuse" rather than a question of privacy, public policy, or constitutional law. Any argument proper for a truly democratic society can be dismissed as "denial" or "resistance."

The sane pay a high price for this as well. "The enormous prestige of psychoanalysis among intellectuals has almost completely prevented the intelligentsia from taking a critical stance toward the idea of mental illness."" as John McKnight, Professor of Communication Studies and Associate Director of the Center for Urban Affairs at Northwestern University, has said in his essay "The Medicalization of Politics":

The essential function of medicine is the medicalization of politics through the propagation of therapeutic ideology. This ideology, stripped of its mystifying symbols, is a simple triadic credo: (1) The basic problem is you. (2) The resolution of your problem is my professional control. (3) My control is your help.

The essence of the ideology is its capacity to hide behind the magic cloak of therapeutic help. Thus, medicine is the paradigm for modernized domination. Indeed, its cultural hegemony is so potent that the very meaning of politics is being re-defined. Politics is (usually) interactive — the debate of citizens regarding purpose, value, and power. Medicalized politics is unilateral — the decision of the "helpers" on behalf of the helped.

Though it may seem a human alternative to the dehumanizing criminal justice system to treat drug users as if they were sick, it is actually misleading and counterproductive to do so. According to Grinspoon and Bakalar, the vast majority of LSD users, like most drug users, are neither sick nor mentally disturbed." The medical and psychiatric community defines drug abuse as the nonmedical use of illegal drugs.14 Norman E. Zinberg says that, "The chief fault of the medical definition of drug abuse is that it claims to interpret completely and finally a type of behavior that lies outside of the realm of medicine.""

The significance of a drug treatment industry founded on the mistaken premise (or deliberate falsehood) that drug abuse is an illness is that, while narrow professional interests are served, those of the patients and society are not. Dr. George Vaillant, author of The Natural History of Alcoholism, has stated that alcoholism is not, in fact, a disease, but that calling it a disease is a useful device to get the alcoholic into the health care system." As it turns out, no-treatment is superior to treatment based on the medical model." Many people "mature out" of alcohol and drug misuse on their own, but when subjected to the medical model of alcoholism or drug abuse, they begin to think of themselves as the suffering sick who lack self-control." For many, treatment becomes a revolving door, as many patients are re-admitted." All ofthis demonstrates that treatment is not a viable solution to the problem of how society should deal with drugs.

Re-legalization is gaining credible support. The social and financial costs of drug prohibition exceed the alleged benefits.2° However, lawmakers are first and foremost elected officials who feel they must support the drug dread hysteria in order to remain in office. They would require a mandate from the masses, or medical acknowledgment, that the danger of illegal drugs is greatly exaggerated, and certainly not a disease. The medical definition of drug abuse is the main ideological prop of drug prohibition. Remove that prop and the legal standing of the cannabis and psychedelic community, and all drug users, would greatly improve.

It is unlawful and mala prohibita to possess, manufacture, disperse, or even abandon said controlled substances for any reason whatsoever, except in the course of recognized and professional medical or research practice as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the basis of a consensus of views of the American medical community. 21 USC 801a, 802(8), 841, 844. This office, formerly Health, Education, and Welfare, is also authorized to make grants; to enter into contracts, for the collection and dissemination of educational material pertaining to drug abuse; to develop and evaluate such programs; and, acting through the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), to serve as a focal point for the collection and dissemination of information relating to drug abuse. US PL 91-513. NIMH provides funding for the core disciplines of psychiatric, social work, and psychological education. The consensus of views of the American medical community is thus influenced by governmental prejudice. However, this relationship is circular, and indicates that the government can be influenced as well by the American medical community.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition Revised (DSM-III-11), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), is the standard system for classifying mental disorders and for third-party payment for treatment of same in the United States. It is a device of orthodoxy, and thus a political tool. Its cultural hegemony is so powerful, in fact, that in the early 1970s, when the gay and lesbian community pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM that homosexuality was removed as a bar to employment by the Federal government.21 Now gays and lesbians may keep their families intact, even being allowed to adopt children. The cannabis and psychedelic community is similarly in thrall to psychiatric labels.

The DSM-III-R labels users of cannabis and psychedelics as sick people in need of medical care. As has been shown, these people are not sick, and are generally better off without such care. Grinspoon was the Chair for Council on Research, the Council that formed the Task Force on the DSM-III. In response to a letter in 1990, he wrote that he was unable to have the APA take a saner direction where the classification of drug use was concerned. The cannabis and psychedelic community is fully justified in expressing outrage over these psychiatric labels and calling for their abolition.

Ideally, the APA would remove all the categories specific to cannabis and psychedelics from the DSM. There should be an official declaration that the term "drug abuse" will no longer be used, and an acknowledgment of the informal social rules that account for use and misuse. The impact of that action in drug education from elementary school to medical internships, the content and conduct of institutional activities, workshops, and professional training (including police and social work), would jolt society to its senses. Urine testing for cannabis use could no longer be called a "medical test," with the result that such tests would be recognized as self-incrimination in violation of the 5th Amendment. The thousands of victims of prohibition who go blind each year from glaucoma could save their sight with the best medicine — cannabis. The APA has the power to provide the government with the necessary stimulus to formulate more equitable and honest social policies where drugs are concerned. They need only be persuaded.

The DSM Reform Initiative urges people who prefer returning cannabis and psychedelics into responsible adult settings by relegalization to write letters in support of the reassessment of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, to present a more balanced view of cannabis and psychedelic experiences. The objective is to open a productive dialogue to advance the legitimate concerns of the cannabis and psychedelic community. The Initiative has also embarked on a petition drive, and is debating the merits of stronger actions. Raising the consciousness of nations may hinge on the psychedelic reclamation of the soul from psychiatry.

Barlett Ridge is the founder and director of the DSM Reform Initiative.
P.O. Box 1562, Albany, N.Y. 12201.

Endnotes
1 Kleps, Arthur, The Boo Hoo Bible: The Neo-American Church Catechism. The Original Kleptonian Neo-American Church, Austin, TX, 1971.

2(USA) Public Law 97-280 Year of the Bible—Designation.

3 American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised. "305.30 Hallucinogen Hallucinosis", APA, Washington, DC, 1987.

4 American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised. "305.30 Hallucinogen Hallucinosis" and "305.20 Cannabis Intoxication", APA, Washington, DC, 1987.

5 (USA) Public Law 100-606 The Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987.

6 Szasz, Thomas, Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution of Drugs, Addicts, and Pushers Anchor Press/ Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1974.

7 Zinberg, Norman E. Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. Yale University Press, CT, 1984.

8 Smith, E.D. "Evolving ethics involving psychedelic drug taking", Journal of Drug Issues, 1988.

9 Gergen, Kenneth J. In: The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 11, Nos. 3 and 4. Special Issue: Challenging the Therapeutic State: Critical Perspectives on Psychiatry and the Mental Health System (David Cohen, ed.). The Institute of Mind and Behavior, New York, NY, 1990.

10 Farber, Seth.. In: The Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol. 11, Nos. 3 and 4. Special Issue: Challenging the Therapeutic State: Critical Perspectives on Psychiatry and the Mental Health System (David Cohen, ed.). The Institute of Mind and Behavior, New York, NY, 1990.

11 Ibid

12 McKnight, John, "The Medicalization of Politics", The Christian Century, September 1975.

13 Grinspoon, L., and Bakalar, J., Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered. Basic Books, New York, 1981.

14 Zinberg, Norman E. Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. Yale University Press, CT, 1984.

15 Ibid

16 Peele, Stanton. Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control. Lexington Books, MA, 1989. "Ibid.

17 Ibid

18 Ibid

19 Zinberg, Norman E. Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. Yale University Press, CT, 1984.

20 Ostrowski, James. "Thinking About Drug Legalization". Policy Analysis, No. 121. Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 1989.

21 Bayer, Ronald. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. Basic Books, NY, 1981.