No, it’s not the psychedelic drugs AOC would like to study that has you seeing bizarre headlines. Impressively, she has managed to outdo her own insanity and use the words “moral” and “obligation” in reference to using federal funds to study psychedelic drugs.
Fortunately, the House of Representatives eventually rejected the amendment Thursday with 91 yeas and 331 nays. AOC’s measure would have specifically “eliminated a section of a large-scale appropriations bill stipulating that no federal dollars can be spent on ‘any activity that promotes the legalization of any drug or other substance in Schedule I.”
According to the Drug Enforcement Agency website, “Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Some examples of drugs in the same class are LSD, ecstasy, meth, heroin, and cocaine.
AOC addressed specific drugs and mental diseases in a tweet pleading with voters to persuade their representatives to vote for the measure: “Yesterday I offered an amendment to allow Fed researchers to study Schedule I Drugs, incl: MDMA & PTSD, Psilocybin & severe depression, Ibogaine & opioid withdrawal.” According to drugabuse.gov, MDMA is a derivative of amphetamine that acts as a stimulant and hallucinogen. Psilocybin is better known as ‘magic mushrooms’ and ibogaine is a psychoactive drug that induces hallucinogenic effects similar to LSD.
Now that the bill has failed we can let out a sigh of relief, but her words on the House floor should not be overlooked. “I’m a strong believer in evidence-based policymaking…And wherever there is evidence of good, we have a moral obligation to pursue and explore the parameters of that good.”
WHAT evidence? Shouldn’t the evidence come before the very expensive and potentially harmful policymaking?
Furthermore, don’t use manipulative rhetoric such as ‘moral obligation’ to bully us into agreeing with you. She continued, “even if it means challenging our past assumptions or admitting past wrongs.” It’s hard to find a response to such a comment; she is saying everything we have come to know about some of the world’s most dangerous drugs are “assumptions” and “past wrongs?” This does not deserve using any brain power to analyze.
The lowest of lows, I would argue, is when she uses military veterans as pawns in pushing through her agenda: “Thirty percent of all military veterans have considered suicide.
If a substance shows promise in treating PTSD, we have an obligation to study it,” How miraculous that she is suddenly an advocate for veterans and military personnel.