After the Drug War part 2

Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass

After the Drug War part 2

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

April 5, 2025

As I consider the kind of world that would exist after the overthrow of the prohibitionist mindset, I realize that my essays on this website are about far more than just drugs: they are about a whole new way of looking at the world, a whole new philosophy of life. For the ideal world of which I am forever implicitly writing would BE very different to that of the alienated status quo of modern times. It would be a world in which we used godsend medicines on an "as needed" basis to conquer that restless human malady that the French philosopher La Bruyère described as "Ce grand malheur, de ne pouvoir être seul": our inability as a species to be alone. In such a drug-assisted world, we could live comfortably both with ourselves and with others. The default human condition would be one of basic satisfaction. Happy with simple things, we would no longer have a restless compunction to hate our fellow citizens in response to the rabble-rousing pep rallies of racist demagogues. To the contrary, such counterproductive and antisocial mindsets would be considered unnecessary and therefore contemptible in the post-prohibition world of which I write.

In such a post-prohibition world, we would view an aggressive neighbor in the same way that we view the neighbor who emits a foul body odor. Just as we ask ourselves, "Why does that odiferous individual fail to use deodorant?", so we would ask ourselves, "Why does that hothead fail to use drugs that inspire happiness and compassion for others?" We would ostracize those people who failed to use drugs wisely and for sane purposes, instead of simply ostracizing the people who merely use drugs.

In other words, in the post-prohibition world, we would think of psychoactive drugs in the same way that we now think of so-called physically oriented drugs: as substances to be used as needed for the benefit of human beings - rather than as something to be withheld from humanity based on the a priori prejudices of racist politicians who seek to use drug law to disempower minorities.

One can immediately see that this post-prohibition outlook on life is anathema to capitalism , however. The sort of drug use that it countenances would serve to make individuals happy with themselves and with life as it is. Their desire for gewgaws or for the latest model of automobile would therefore decrease, which, of course, is a non-starter for unbridled capitalism ¹ , which is all about making us desire the unnecessary. This is not to say that such a world would render human beings quietists with respect to injustice. The occasionally drug-aided contentment of which I write would have the goal of raising us above existential concerns - with respect to things about which we can do nothing - thereby helping us to save our strength for the things that we can change.

In other words, the purpose of the beneficial drug use to which I allude would be to help us acquire the attitude toward life recommended by theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in his off-repeated bromide: namely, to obtain "the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

There is clear evidence of the power of drugs to help us achieve just such states as Niebuhr counsels, states in which we are happy to heed Voltaire's advice to stay at home and "tend our own gardens."

The Hindu religion itself was inspired by the use of such a drug in the Punjab in 1500 BCE.

"The rapture-shedding Soma-drops, effused in our assembly, have Flowed forth to glorify our prince."

And the reports of the beneficial use of Soma ² in Vedic scripture read like the drug user reports of synthesized phenethylamines published in "Pihkal" in 1991:

"I acknowledged a rapture in the very act of breathing."

In this post-prohibition world, however, we would recognize that mere quotations like that of Niebuhr's are frail spells, in and of themselves, insofar as they presuppose the attitude required for embracing them. They are descriptions of ideal states which provide no meaningful suggestions for obtaining them, other than the implicit adjuration to "Just do it!" ...or to pick oneself up by one's bootstraps, so to speak. But then the entire self-help genre is but an artefact of drug prohibition (as is the self-help aisle of the drug store). Our self-help authors attempt to teach us how to "think ourselves" into the mental states that can so palpably be facilitated for us with the informed use of psychoactive medicines. They never bother informing their readers that the mental states that they recommend in so many "words, words, words" are available to all of us more or less instantly through the wise use of such medicines. But then all Americans practice the same censorship ³. This is why scientists write with seeming authority about psychological states today, failing to even mention by way of disclaimer that drug law has outlawed almost all substances that could favorably influence such states. America's unprecedented drug laws are taken as a baseline for academic study.

In recommending such a post-prohibition world, I must keep reminding myself that all of my readers will have been indoctrinated from childhood in the drug-demonizing ideology of the Drug War - chiefly thanks to the strategy of censorship which has kept almost all positive uses of drugs out of modern media. I need therefore to remind them of a simple fact: namely, that no one has ever had the freedom, resources, and desire to study all psychoactive medicines in the world (synthesized and "natural") with regard to how they could be used in common-sense protocols to help folks achieve specific goals: from ending depression to achieving a greater appreciation of Mother Nature.

In the utopia of which I write, we would do just that. We would not just re-legalize the many substances which we outlawed for racist reasons in the 20th century; we would seek for the first time to search the entire world for drug protocols that can help us to live peaceably with ourselves and with others. Nor would we limit our study to today's "usual suspects," like MDMA ⁴ and psilocybin, but we would investigate the informed use of all known psychoactive medicines, including potential combinations thereof.

But there is an important caveat to this approach. This search for useful drugs would not be undertaken by materialists. For in the world of which I write, we would recognize the fact that it was always a category error to dub materialist scientists as the experts when it comes to mind and mood medicine in the first place. This is because materialist scientists are behaviorists when it comes to psychology, which means in turn that they are dogmatically blind to all obvious benefits of drug use, whether those benefits are suggested by anecdote, history or just psychological common sense. Materialists as such are on a metaphysical quest to find drugs that "really" work - in a way that flatters their materialist conception of the world, that is. This means that they are out of touch with common-sense psychology concerning the power of anticipation, of elation, of transcendence, etc., to improve lives. Putting such passion-scorning materialists in charge of drug research is like having Dr. Spock of Star Trek lead a study designed to demonstrate the benefits of hugging: he is not qualified because he just doesn't get it! To him, hugging is "Highly illogical, Captain." Just so, the materialist "just doesn't get it" when it comes to drug use: the proof of their doctrinaire ignorance on the topic is clear by their ongoing failure to approve of the use of drugs that have inspired entire religions!

In the post-prohibition world, we would replace materialist scientists with what I call pharmacologically savvy empaths: caring professionals who have used the kinds of substances under discussion here and who have a deep knowledge of both pharmacology and of best practices when it comes to safe and beneficial drug use. The protocols that they recommend would not just be based on known historic drug use practices but also on the positive approaches to drug use that have hitherto gone on unnoticed behind closed doors thanks to Drug War prohibitions. For, as Carl Hart reminds us, most people actually use drugs safely, this despite the fact that drug laws are all about making use as dangerous as possible, by refusing to teach safe use and by refusing to ensure the quality of the drug supply - hence the misnamed opiate crisis, which is actually a prohibition crisis.

But I need to somewhat arbitrarily bring this essay to a close. This is because, as mentioned above, the discussion of a post-prohibition world entails the elucidation of a whole new philosophy of life, and that is a remit that calls for multiple essays - if not multiple books. There are just so many points at which the author fears leaving the readers behind thanks to the many kneejerk objections that said readers are sure to imagine based on their lifelong programming in the anti-drug ideology of the Drug War. The author feels the need, therefore, to go forth slowly and deliberately, being sure to address each predictable objection that sprouts up mushroom-like in his path. I was tempted, for instance, to include a quotation from Poe about the positive use of morphine in paragraph one, but I forbore, realizing that the reader will have been brainwashed since grade school to believe that safe use is impossible for such drugs, wherefore I must first explain to them how my advocated sea change in drug attitudes would make abuse unlikely and also contain ways to easily combat unwanted dependencies that should occur in specific cases.

So, I ask the reader to stay tuned for installment three of "After the Drug War" for more about the distinguishing characteristics of the ideal post-prohibition world. Meanwhile, please remember that prohibition ideology is like a vampire. It will continue to take victims until we drive a stake through its heart: which means in plain English that we have to do more than re-legalize Mother Nature - we have to expose and refute the hateful and counterproductive assumptions upon which we outlawed Mother Nature in the first place.

Spoiler alert: In the next installment, I plan to discuss how today's tech triumphalism is based on assumptions that are at odds with the post-prohibition priorities of human empowerment and psychological self-sufficiency.

Finally, for the record, here is the quote that I withheld from paragraph one above for fear of mortifying the brainwashed reader. The takeaway message from this quote from Poe is simply that the wise use of drugs (which, yes, is actually possible by full-grown adults) can make one happy with life - can help one live with oneself and not require capitalistic gewgaws to make their world complete ⁵.

"In the meantime the morphine ⁶ had its customary effect- that of enduing all the external world with an intensity of interest. In the quivering of a leaf- in the hue of a blade of grass- in the shape of a trefoil- in the humming of a bee- in the gleaming of a dew-drop- in the breathing of the wind- in the faint odors that came from the forest- there came a whole universe of suggestion- a gay and motley train of rhapsodical and immethodical thought." --from "A Tale of the Ragged Mountains," by Edgar Allan Poe.

After the Drug War, we would actually acknowledge such states of mind to be A GOOD THING!!!

After the Drug War

Pharmacologically Savvy Empaths

Notes for essay entitled After the Drug War part 2:

1: What the drug war tells us about American capitalism DWP (up)
2: Blue Tide: The Search for Soma: a philosophical review of the book by Mike Jay DWP (up)
3: Coverup on Campus DWP (up)
4: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts DWP (up)
5: "Ce grand malheur, de ne pouvoir être seul" -- French philosopher Jean de La Bruyère, as quoted by Edgar Allan Poe in "Man of the Crowd" (up)
6: Three takeaway lessons from the use of morphine by William Halsted, co-founder of Johns Hopkins Medical School DWP (up)

read more essays here

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

A lot of drug use represents an understandable attempt to fend off performance anxiety. Performers can lose their livelihood if they become too self-conscious. We only call such use "recreational" because we are oblivious to the common-sense psychology.

For most drugs, dependency is a bug. For Big Pharma antidepressants, it is a feature.

His answer to political opposition is: "Lock them up!" That's Nazi speak, not American democracy.

What prohibitionists forget is that every popular but dangerous activity, from horseback riding to drug use, will have its victims. You cannot save everybody, and when you try to do so by law, you kill far more than you save, meanwhile destroying democracy in the process.

There are neither "drugs" nor "meds" as those terms are used today. All substances have potential good uses and bad uses. The terms as used today carry value judgements, as in meds good, drugs bad.

Americans are far more fearful of psychoactive drugs than is warranted by either anecdote or history. We require 100% safety before we will re-legalize any "drug" -- which is a safety standard that we do not enforce for any other risky activity on earth.

Billboards reading "Fentanyl kills" encourage the creation of racist legislation that outlaws all godsend uses of opiates. Kids in hospice in India go without morphine because of America's superstitious fear of opiates.

The Drug War is the most important evil to protest, precisely because almost everybody is afraid to do so. That's a clear sign that it is a cancer on the body politic.

Immanuel Kant wrote that scientists are scornful about metaphysics yet they rely on it themselves without realizing it. This is a case in point, for the idea that euphoria and visions are unhelpful in life is a metaphysical viewpoint, not a scientific one.

My consciousness, my choice.

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

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.

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP

(up)

After the Drug War part 2

After the Drug War

Pharmacologically Savvy Empaths

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

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

Diary of a Drug Fiend