What A Sensible Drug Policy For 2026 And Beyond Might Look Like

The Misuse of Drugs Act was introduced in 1975, a response to President Richard Nixon’s declaration of a War on Drugs in June 1971. These two moves were the end result of decades of puritanical hysteria around altered states of consciousness. This hysteria began with alcohol prohibition and, after the popularisation of psychedelics in the 1960s, reached a peak.

New Zealand, ever the kid brother of the Anglosphere, followed mindlessly along with America in making almost every drug illegal. It’s crazy to have a drugs policy where booze is the only recreational option, but thanks to Christian moralism, atheist fear of the psyche and general ignorance and hysteria, that’s what we ended up with. This essay is an attempt to describe what a sane, rational drug policy would look like, if anyone in power was ever incentivised to bring one in.

The sane and rational place to begin is with the research of Professor David Nutt, the world’s foremost expert on relative drug harms. He has developed a set of criteria for measuring drug harm using an analysis technique called multiple criteria decision analysis, or MCDA. Resulting from Nutt’s research is a scale of relative drug harm, outlined at length in books such as Drugs: Without The Hot Air. In theory, a science-based scale like this should be the foundation of an intelligent drug law.

The scale of relative drug harm varies depending on local factors, so that it’s not possible to apply one uniform scale to all countries. For example: in New Zealand and Australia, a lot more damage is done by methamphetamine than by crack cocaine. It’s the other way around in American inner cities. In any case, it’s possible to draw many valuable insights from Nutt’s analysis.

My sane and rational drug policy would declare that Western culture has already managed to handle alcohol and its effects. There are pubs all over the West and yet our culture has not collapsed. Countless movies, songs, books and plays are full of alcohol references, and yet society has not degenerated (at least not from alcohol). This makes alcohol a baseline to which other drugs can be compared.

Any drug more dangerous than alcohol would remain illegal as it currently is. This would include methamphetamine, crack cocaine and heroin. People involved with importing or manufacturing these drugs would still face severe legal penalties.

Any drug less dangerous than alcohol would become legal with some degree of regulation. The difficulty here, of course, is that a wide range of drugs fall into this category. Most drugs are much less harmful than alcohol and each would need a bespoke legal schedule. Sane and rational people ought to be able to cope with this.

The truly less dangerous drugs, such as cannabis, should be relatively easy to deal with. Cannabis cafes can be legalised along the lines of existing pubs. There is already precedent for this model with the cannabis cafes of the Netherlands and Colorado. Cannabis doesn’t cause people to become aggressive or violent and so doesn’t need to be managed strictly like alcohol does.

Because of the low risk associated with MDMA, specialist MDMA lounges should also be possible. It will also be possible therein to hear music that is different to the usual Boomer rock that one hears at pubs. These lounges will likely target those more interested in a rave-style experience than a booze-up. Those selling MDMA at such venues will be legally tasked with ensuring that their patrons are not harming themselves through excess or irresponsible use.

Psychedelics are also not considered particularly dangerous by Professor Nutt. In fact, magic mushrooms and LSD are among the least harmful of all the drugs surveyed (Nutt’s MCDA doesn’t consider mescaline and ayahuasca, which are more American drugs). A psychedelic policy might involve sale from pharmacies only, with no venue sales. It might involve legal home mushroom grows. In any case, it would abolish any requirement that psychedelics can only be taken under medical supervision, indoors, during working hours.

Opium is less dangerous than alcohol, according to David Nutt, and therefore this policy would include legal opium. However, this would be highly restricted owing to its unfamiliarity to Western culture. The correct degree of regulation here might involve opium lounges akin to private clubs, which would be more discreet than pubs or cannabis cafes (i.e. they would only admit members).

Users of regular amphetamines might not want to use them in public, so this might be another case where the pharmacy-only model would be superior to an alcohol-style pub and club model.

All of these regulations would potentially also include the usual provisions for not selling drugs near schools, not using a motor vehicle while high, not using drugs in public etc.

Therefore, my proposed Drug War Armistice policy would not (at least, not initially) change the legal status of methamphetamine, crack cocaine or heroin. But it would change the legal status of most other drugs, on the basis that they’re all safer than alcohol, and therefore that our society can handle them. Moreover, anything less harmful than alcohol is a potential exit drug from alcohol. Thus, liberalising relatively less harmful drugs will reduce overall alcohol and/or other drug damage.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2023
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2022
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2021
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2020
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2019
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2018
Best VJMP Essays and Articles of 2017

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

What Orwell Meant By “War Is Peace” And Why It’s So Relevant

One often hears reference to the phrase “War is Peace” from George Orwell’s 1984. VJM Publishing mentions it all the time. In fact, we mention it so much, that I often cringe when making essay compilations, because it comes up so often. I say “surely this is a cliche now?” In truth, it’s not a cliche because 1984 is as relevant as The Iliad. Everyone knows the basics of it by now because they must.

In 1984, Big Brother has three mottos. The first of these is “War is Peace”. The application of these mottos is how order and control is maintained (this ordering and controlling is discussed at length in the book-within-a-book, The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, which is in my opinion the most important 20 or so pages ever written in English).

It’s understood by most that this phrase refers to external war. If an authoritarian government provokes a state of war with a neighbour, the people’s anger will be deflected from their government to that neighbour. Thus authoritarian rulers start wars to deflect blame for how poorly run their countries are.

Many of us were taught about Saddam Hussein as a classic example of this phenomenon. Hussein, the television told us, attacked Kuwait to deflect the dissatisfaction of those he ruled over onto an external enemy. This is actually a pattern common to Middle Eastern rulers in recent times, and also in various other times and places throughout history.

But not enough people understand that this phrase also refers to internal war.

If the ruling class can set the masses against each other, they can secure their own position at the top of the pyramid. They do this, in practice, by fomenting discord along every existing social fracture line, and by creating new ones. The middle class is set against the working class by telling the former that the latter are lazy, and telling the latter that the former are greedy. Whites are set against browns in the same manner. Men are set against women by telling the latter that the former are trying to control them, and by telling the former that the latter are trying to vote away all their money.

In this manner, everyone is encouraged to have someone to hate who isn’t the ruling class. All discontent is directed horizontally at someone else on the same level. This leaves the ruling class safe and secure above it all.

Without this concept, the modern world can’t be explained.

It’s simply impossible to explain why Western ruling classes imported so many Muslims and Africans without reference to War is Peace. Everyone honest and intelligent knew that these Muslims and Africans would attack and harm the people in the neighbourhoods they were dumped in. But it must be understood this was precisely the point. The point was to subject working-class families to countless violent and sexual crimes. The point was to encourage those working-class people to hate the newcomers. In doing so, the working class would forget their grievances against the ruling class. And thus the position of the ruling class was secured.

It’s also impossible to explain the War on Drugs without such a reference. Why would the political establishment destroy so many of the finest minds of their younger generations by saddling them with criminal convictions, when all they wanted to do was explore consciousness and spirituality? War is Peace explains: the ruling class wanted the pro-drug and anti-drug segments of the population to be at each other’s throats. So it must either err on the side of excess restriction (War on Drugs), or err on the side of excess liberty (as with alcohol): it cannot take a reasonable middle ground. In either case, rationality must be eschewed, because that would lead to peace, which, viewed from the perspective of the ruling class, is war.

It’s also impossible to explain why the mainstream media pushes so much cortisol-raising fear porn unless this concept is understood. Why does the mainstream media constantly stir discord and misunderstanding? Why does it platform the worst examples of almost every demographic, and ignore the best? Because the owners of it want discord and misunderstanding. Not because it “drives clicks” – they don’t need money. They want control. They want to be the boot stamping on the face of the masses, forever. To achieve this, they need to foment war among those masses.

Everyone with any real chance of becoming part of the ruling class understands this principle, and habitually applies it by setting normal people against each other. Demonstrating an ability to do this is how people audition for a place in the ruling class.

Essentially, the logic behind “War is Peace” can be explained as: war for my enemies is peace for me. This is relevant because the Western ruling class is using this exact logic to destroy the Western middle and working classes. In most cases where there is clear evidence of social dysfunction or decay, the War is Peace principle is being applied somewhere.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

Why All The Rapists Can’t “Just Be Deported”

The whole world is now aware that England is full of Muslim rape gangs that prey on white children. The total numbers of raped girls are uncertain, but colossal, at least several hundreds of thousands. And these gangs are still operating all over England.

Many wonder why the English don’t just get rid of these people. It seems obvious that the Muslims are going to keep raping children in England – after all, they do it everywhere else as well. This essay explains.

Before any political action can be possible, consent for it has to exist among the executive. In a democracy, that executive is the masses (at least, in theory). If consent doesn’t already exist, it has to be manufactured. In practice, political action only happens if it’s first made psychologically possible by conditioning the masses to accept it. The World Wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq: all were only made possible thanks to mass brainwashing through the newspapers and radio.

The big problem is that the Western ruling class has now spent 80 years manufacturing consent for the exact opposite of mass rapist deportations, namely mass rapist importations. There has been 80 years of brainwashing to make us believe that all racial groups are precisely the same on all behavioural and intellectual measures (despite the evidence of our own eyes and ears), and that those who deny this equality are the greatest evil on Earth.

In order for mass deportations to become psychologically possible, this 80 years of brainwashing will have to be reversed. It will have to be conceded that the peoples of the world are actually very different, and for genetic reasons that can’t simply be overcome through education. But the equalitarian dogma is at the very core of our culture. So it will take decades, at least, and will require many people to die of old age.

If mass deportations were attempted while it was still believed that human populations were substantially the same, there would be mass resistance from Western populations. The architects of the deportations would be decried as Nazis. Mass rioting would be certain. Young Westerners, Antifa and women would fight tooth and nail to prevent deportations being carried out. It would be carnage.

Consent would have to be manufactured over an extended length of time before any mass deportations could be possible. This would involve a dedicated propaganda campaign which not only drew attention to all the violence and sex crimes committed by certain groups of immigrants, and not only laid out the true costs (economic or otherwise) of Third World immigration, but which decried open borders politicians as traitors. And it would have to do this in a sober, calm, balanced and persuasive manner.

All of this would require a reckoning with the lies of the past. This means a public acceptance that men like Enoch Powell accurately predicted the future when they predicted rivers of blood. It means being taught in schools that the Blank Slate Theory was a colossal mistake. It means an understanding among the ruling class that the demonisation of hereditarians was a shameful collective error that should never be repeated.

The only way this can even begin to be possible is through taking control of the media. The media tells the people what they believe, what their history is and what their future is. Only if honest people take control of the media is it possible to promulgate the narratives necessary to create consent for the mass deportations of rapists.

This is much harder than it sounds.

For one thing, the media is a big institution. Even in a tiny country like New Zealand, the media employs over a thousand journalists and has a total market capitalisation of close to a billion dollars. A rival enterprise might have to raise ten million dollars to start with a one percent market share. Even after spending that ten million, the investment could get attacked by lawfare or propaganda.

For another thing, the globalists are aware of the opinion-shaping power of the media and will fight to not lose control of it. They have long known that whoever controls the mass media controls the masses. Thus they have long been prepared for any contingency in which the masses themselves tried to take control of that media. They will launch propaganda campaigns against any alternative media, and if that doesn’t work they will pay politicians to ban it.

Removing the hordes of rapists is therefore much more complicated than anyone would first believe.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!

21st Century Signs Of A Slave Mindset

Many people believe that slavery ended in the 1860s in America, in the 1820s in the British Empire, and it hasn’t existed since then. In reality, slavery just changed forms. It became more subtle.

In truth, our rulers don’t need to put chains on our bodies, because they already have chains on our minds. In the 21st Century, people are made into slaves not through beatings but through relentless, all-pervasive media propaganda, psychological brutalisation in schools, unforgiving work schedules and an irrational, capricious government. This mental beatdown creates slave mentality, of which various signs are evident.

The first and most obvious sign that a person is spiritually a slave is being against freedom. If they don’t understand what motivated the American Revolutionaries, they are very likely to possess powerful slave sentiments. Note that this doesn’t mean free people necessarily support degeneracy: the degenerate is as much a slave to their biological impulses as anyone is a slave to anything.

Freedom as a philosophical concept is rejected by all spiritual slaves. They simply don’t understand the pleasure that comes from exercising free will. Ever the yin element, they prefer to be directed.

A slave mentality is often present in cases where a person doesn’t understand the important freedom issues of the day. Those who vote against cannabis freedom in the various referendums want the government to tell them what they’re allowed or not allowed to do, which is pure slave mentality. Someone without a slave mindset will naturally try to maximise their agency. Thus they support freedom as a general principle.

A second sign of a slave mindset is a tendency to lick upwards and kick downwards. The tendency to fawn towards one’s social superiors and abuse one’s social inferiors is extreme in many Third World cultures, and Western travellers immediately notice.

The tendency exists in Western countries too (but to a lesser extent) as it reflects an aspect of human nature: when enough fear is put into a person they become vicious. This viciousness is the reason for the abuse of the weak. In contrast to the truly belligerent, however, those with slave mindset do not challenge the strong.

A third sign is respecting violence more than intelligence. In a normal, healthy society, people think further than their immediate environment. Those who are the best at that naturally gain esteem and rise in the social hierarchy, where they are given power to make some decisions on behalf of the collective. This is natural because the survival of the tribe is best served by giving the most power to those who have the deepest understanding of reality.

In slave morality, normal morality is inverted. Long-term thinkers are resented, and short-term, impulsive thinkers are prized. Anyone who thinks long-term is assumed to be weak, nerdish, sickly of mind. Thoughtfulness is hesitance is weakness. Being “tough” is more important than being wise or intelligent. Thus, the most thuggish and aggressive are at the top. The slave doesn’t see such people as thuggish, of course, but rather cool, fun, spontaneous, powerful etc.

A fourth sign is perhaps the most subtle, but also the most characteristic: resentment. As Nietzsche understood, slaves feel immense resentment at the strength and beauty of free people. A person deep into a slave mindset will feel resentful at life itself. If a person resents the role that Fate seems to have placed them in, and makes life harder for others thereby, they are a certainty to possess a slave mindset.

A perpetual bad mood is a clear sign that a person knows they’re a slave and can’t get over it. If a person is constantly surly, disagreeable, sullen – chances are very high you’re dealing with a slave mindset.

A fifth, and probably the most telling sign, is that a person has given up. There is a great word in Swedish called ‘uppgivenhet’, which means ‘resignation’ in English, but which literally means ‘given-upness’. A person’s level of slave mentality correlates highly with their level of uppgivenhet.

Much like the dog that has been shocked so many times that it lacks the will to take an obvious escape offered to it, a person who has given up will do nothing to better their situation even when presented with opportunity. Those who, when given freedom, spend it watching television, mindlessly scrolling, gossiping or boozing are slaves by any other name.

It’s best to avoid people who demonstrate these five signs of a slave mindset. They won’t lead you into physical bondage but even worse: psychological enslavement.

For more of VJM’s ideas, see his work on other platforms!
For even more of VJM’s ideas, buy one of his books!

If you enjoyed reading this piece, buy a compilation of our best pieces from previous years!

If you would like to support our work in other ways, make a donation to our Paypal! Even better, buy any one of our books!