Dumbest Article Ever?: "Maybe White People Shouldn't Take Drugs From Indigenous Cultures"

By one Liz Posner.
This is idiotic. I mean...off the scale idiotic. It really is just a cornucopia of stupid. Consider this bit, for example:

Drug use can certainly fit into contemporary definitions of cultural appropriation, which is legally defined as "taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission," Susan Scafidi, the author of Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law, told Jezebel, "This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc. It's most likely to be harmful when the source community is a minority group that has been oppressed or exploited in other ways or when the object of appropriation is particularly sensitive, e.g. sacred objects."

The mind, it reels. Note that the link (re: "contemporary definitions of cultural appropriation" is to Jezebel. That's their citation. Jezebel. I'm not kidding.) So...this is a matter of law? Because they give no evidence that it actually is. If it were, this would be alarming in the extreme. Perhaps this Scafidi person is referring to this U.N. business.
   Then there's this bit:

Whatever their intent, the appropriation of ayahuasca has negatively impacted the economies of the communities they come from, particularly when tourists travel to pursue psychedelic drugs. In 2016, Vice reported on the impact of the ayahuasca craze in the Amazon, where community experts say it has commodified the practice in a way that cheapens the actual spiritual practice of ayahuasca. “As ayahuasca has become more and more popular with foreign tourists….we have found that pseudo shamans have sprung up everywhere to cater for the demand," Valerie Meikle, a Reiki master and holistic healer, told Vice. "This means that the ayahuasca rituals have obviously lost some of their original power and very often the ceremony is adapted to suit foreigners who are ready to pay high prices on low-quality rituals." The overall impact cheapens the very practice these tourists seek.

The "appropriation" of ayahuasca has "negatively impacted the economies" of the relevant communities...because...uh...it's attracted tourism, you see, and...uh..."commodified" it so as to "cheapen the actual spiritual practice." Right...so...this negative economic impact...is not economic at all...and is, in fact, entirely unquantifiable. In fact unvarifiable. In fact, let's face it, imaginary.
   Maybe a group can have some kind of historical group right to something like a share of profits with respect to medicine or something. I have no idea. Not a lawyer over here. But as for "cultural appropriation" generally, that's just bullshit.
   But it does reveal something about the mentality of the totalitarian left: in the guise of "multiculturalism," this stuff is mandatory; in the guise of "cultural appropriation," it's forbidden. The one thing it can't be, of course, is discretionary. Because the real point is to micromanage our actions and thought. The particular details about the content of the micromanagement are far less important than the micromanagement itself.