Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass
blog icon orange rss icon with stylized radio waves bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter substack icon


back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow


After Szasz

How mainstream drug attitudes have become worse than ever in the 21st century

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

March 15, 2026



The depressing thing about reading Thomas Szasz1 today is that it makes me think as follows: If such an intelligent man can so clearly present the facts of the case and not succeed in changing mainstream minds, what chance do I have as a relative dimwit, a thoroughly "unconnected" dimwit at that? For I am sorry to say that the situation since Szasz's time has gotten worse when it comes to America's drug attitudes, not better. This is obvious given the bizarre reaction of pundits of all stripes to the case of Claire Brosseau, the depressed Canadian who is fighting for her right to assisted suicide.2 Had Szasz been around today, he would surely be pointing out the fact that Claire's morbid activism must be seen in light of drug prohibition, which outlaws all the drugs that could cheer Claire up in a trice! The state first outlaws Claire's right to heal, and now Claire demands that the same state help her to die BECAUSE of the depression that the state thus brought about! Claire should be fighting to end drug prohibition which outlaws her right to heal, not arguing for a new recherché right to have the state help her to die!

New York Times healthcare reporter Stephanie Nolen reported on Claire's situation in late 2025 in an article in which drug prohibition was never mentioned, not once, neither by Claire nor by her two psychiatrists nor by Nolen herself. 3 And the story gets weirder. Surely, I thought, at least the Cato Institute would see the role of drug prohibition here in sending Claire to the gallows. But when I wrote to Jeffery Singer4 5 on this score, he referred me to his statements on the matter in which he never once mentioned drug prohibition, although he did call for Claire's right to obtain healthcare from non-state sources. It seems that even Singer believes that Claire's case is all about assisted suicide and that drug prohibition is somehow a separate and unrelated topic. Consider what these people are saying by ignoring the potential benefits of drugs in Claire's case: they are saying that death itself is better than drug use! Let's say that again: they are saying that death itself is better than drug use!

This is what happens when the media censors all positive drug use from the public record.

Nolen seems to know nothing about drug benefits, many of which, however, are common sense as in the case of laughing gas. Instead she assures us that Claire has tried "drugs" and that they failed -- as if "drugs" was an objective category rather than a catchall phrase for the endless list of competitors to alcohol of which racist politicians disapprove. It is simply not possible that "drugs" could fail for Claire, although any particular drug could fail. It will be difficult to find the right drug given our draconic drug laws, but drugs could never fail Claire in a free market. If we consider the healing value of anticipation, there is great obvious power in drugs like opium, laughing gas, phenethylamines and cocaine to cheer the depressed up, and without addicting her, although, the precise drugs to use for that purpose will obviously vary from person to person.

This is all common sense stuff. But some drug or drugs will work, if we value Claire's life and let her find them, preferably with the help of a pharmacologically savvy empath 6 7 After all, the bogus category of "drugs" includes the kinds of substances that have inspired entire religions and philosophies, as Soma inspired the Vedic religion8 and laughing gas inspired the philosophy of William James9 10. The phenethylamines synthesized by Alexander Shulgin even gave users what they described as a glimpse of heaven itself.11 One merely displays their ignorance of pharmacology and ethnobotany and drug history in general when they dismiss the power of drugs in less than a full sentence, as does Nolen in her politically correct treatment of the Brosseau case.

It might be said that we cannot blame Nolen for ignoring drug prohibition if none of the principals in the case ever mention it themselves, and yet this connection is so obvious to me that I am astounded that a health reporter would NOT mention it, if only to draw these people out and have them confront the 6,000-pound gorilla in the room. Claire is asking for nothing less than death itself, so surely the fact that drug prohibition drastically limits her ability to cheer herself up should be considered as HUGELY relevant to her story. And yet, as I have shown repeatedly, Americans -- even Libertarians -- seem to observe the following rules of politeness in public discourse: never admit that there are positive uses for drugs, and never admit that there are negative outcomes to prohibition.

This is why anti-violence groups for inner cities never blame drug prohibition for the presence of guns in the first place.12 They have a prior commitment to the drug-hating ideology of the War on Drugs, and so even ending inner-city violence comes in second place to that objective. The problem, of course, is that if we never acknowledge the problem, we will never end it.

Some might say that the book by Carl Hart shows that American attitudes are changing about drugs.13 Hart published the tellingly titled "Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear" in 2020.14 We do, of course, owe Hart a debt of gratitude for speaking common sense from the user's point of view. Unfortunately, Hart opens his book by insisting that the drugs that he uses are for recreational use only and that all of our real concerns about our psychological health should be treated by a doctor. (Hart apparently wanted to reassure Big Pharma that he was not trying to lay his hands on their golden goose: namely, the dependent patient.) Can Hart really believe that, though, that drugs that have inspired entire religions cannot be used to cheer one up, for instance? And who are these doctors that Hart wants me to visit? These are the doctors who "saved me" from time-honored substances like opium and laughing gas and phenethylamines by shunting me off onto a Big Pharma med that is far harder to kick than heroin 15! They have thereby turned me into a patient for life, a ward of the healthcare state, and an eternal child. And yet Hart tells me that drugs that can give me glimpses of heaven somehow should not be used to cheer myself up?!

He would not say that if he were a 67-year-old who had to see a doctor less than half his age every three months of his life for permission to buy another refill of an under-performing, expensive and highly dependence-causing "med." The big mistake of my life was to ever go to doctors in the first place in my teens -- but then what could I do? I was depressed, and drug prohibition had given psychiatry a monopoly on prescribing mind and mood medicine. This is why I envy those who have the guts and the wisdom to use outlawed drugs wisely despite drug prohibition and I wish them Godspeed in avoiding the Christian Science Police, who are determined to punish them as severely as humanly possible -- with the same fervor as protestants once punished Catholics in the 16th century, inventing ever-new ways to make their lives a hell.16 For them, drug use must always end in tragedy -- and their job is to turn that "idée fixe" of theirs into a self-fulfilling prophecy.



Author's Follow-up:

April 13, 2026

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up








Key Takeaways:






Notes:

1: “The Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility.” 2025. Szasz.com. 2025. https://www.szasz.com/. (up)
2: No one would need assisted suicide if we ended drug prohibition: what Claire Brosseau's case tells us about the warped mindset of the west when it comes to drugs DWP (up)
3: Nolen, Stephanie, and Chloë Ellingson. 2025. “Claire Brosseau Wants to Die. Will Canada Let Her?” The New York Times, December 29, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/health/assisted-death-mental-illness-canada.html. (up)
4: https://www.cato.org/people/jeffrey-singer. 2025. “Your Body, Your Health Care.” Cato Institute. April 8, 2025. https://www.cato.org/books/body-health-care. (up)
5: Your Body, Your Health Care: a philosophical review of the new book by Jeffrey A. Singer DWP (up)
6: pharmacologically-savvy empath: this is an empathic individual with an ethnobotanical knowledge of safe and beneficial drug use worldwide, someone who recognizes psychological common sense and can advise on protocols that meet user needs while avoiding unwanted dependency. (up)
7: Replacing Psychiatry with Pharmacologically Savvy Shamanism DWP (up)
8: “Soma: The Nectar of the Gods.” n.d. History of Ayurveda. https://www.historyofayurveda.org/library/soma. (up)
9: Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide DWP (up)
10: A Philosophical Review of "The Varieties of Religious Experience"-- How William James failed to connect the dots DWP (up)
11: Shulgin, Alexander T, and Ann Shulgin. 2019. Pihkal : A Chemical Love Story. Berkeley, Ca: Transform Press. (up)
12: Heather Ann Thompson. 2014. The Atlantic. The Atlantic. October 30, 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/10/inner-city-violence-in-the-age-of-mass-incarceration/382154/. (up)
13: What Carl Hart Missed DWP (up)
14: Drug Use for Grownups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear Hart, Carl (up)
15: Heroin versus Antidepressants DWP (up)
16: Gunning for Marijuana Users DWP (up)




read more essays here





Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US




In "Psychedelic Refugee," Rosemary Leary writes: "Fueled by small doses of LSD, almost everything was amusing or weird." -- Rosemary Leary In a non-brainwashed world, such testimony would suggest obvious ways to help the depressed.

If I smoke opium nightly, I am a drug scumbag. If I use Big Pharma "meds" every day of my life, I am a good patient.

It's funny to hear fans of sacred plants indignantly insisting that their meds are not "drugs." They're right in a way, but actually NO substances are "drugs." Calling substances "drugs" is like referring to striking workers as "scabs." It's biased terminology.

So much harm could be reduced by shunting people off onto safer alternative drugs -- but they're all outlawed! Reducing harm should ultimately mean ending this prohibition that denies us endless godsends, like the phenethylamines of Alexander Shulgin.

"Just ONE HORSE took the life of my daughter." This message brought to you by the Partnership for a Death Free America.

There is an absurd safety standard for "drugs." The cost/benefit analysis of the FDA & co. never takes into account the costs of NOT prescribing nor the benefits of a productive life well lived. The "users" are not considered stakeholders.

Big Pharma drugs have wrought disaster when used in psychotherapy, but it does not follow that the depressed should become Christian Scientists. The use of outlawed drugs can obviate the need for shock therapy.

For those who want to understand what's going on with the drug war from a philosophical point of view, I recommend chapter six of "Eugenics and Other Evils" by GK Chesterton.

Q: Where can you find almost-verbatim copies of the descriptions of religious experiences described by William James? A: In descriptions of user reports of "trips" on drugs ranging from coca to opium, from MDMA to laughing gas.

I hated the show "The Apprentice," because it taught a cynical and hate-filled lesson about the proper way to "get ahead" in the world. I saw Trump as a menace back then, long before he started declaring that American elections were corrupt before the very first vote was cast!


Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us






back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow
Book Cover

Break the ice with a sledgehammer: place this book on your coffee table.

This book features 150 annotated images, designed to force brainwashed Americans to confront the fact that drug prohibition is wrong. Here is what author Richard Parrish II says of the book's compiler: "The drug prohibition philosopher provides first-hand, principled, persuasive, and insightful arguments against the current drug prohibition regime..."

Purchase Your Copy
Book Cover

Diary of a Drug Fiend

This is the only full-cast recording of Aleister Crowley's 1922 classic paeon to common sense. It is the first book -- and so far almost the only book -- to stake out a philosophy of drug use that is compatible with human freedom, one in which we learn to use drugs as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity. This recording was produced by the Drug War Philosopher and your purchases help support his effort to push back against the tragically counterproductive policy of drug prohibition, in the name of human freedom and of humanity's right to heal.

Purchase Your Copy



No cookies, no ads paid for by amoral and immoral billionaires (or trillionaires).


Unless otherwise indicated, no AI is used in the creation of site content. These essays represent the original ideas of their author and not the ideas that the author SHOULD have based on an algorithmic parsing of existing data. For more on this subject, consider the AI-related viewpoints to which the author subscribes as delineated in the New York Times opinion piece entitled "What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity" by Rebecca Winthrop of the Brookings Institution.

The Partnership for a Death Free America is a proud sponsor of The Drug War Philosopher website @ abolishthedea.com.


Copyright 2026, Brian Ballard Quass Contact: quass@quass.com

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP (up)