whose documentary about Chicago violence does not even mention the Drug War!!!
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 13, 2022
Lisa Ling never once mentioned the Drug War during her documentary about violence in Chicago. Not once. Surely she knows that it is the Drug War that creates HUGE incentives for drug dealing, thereby facilitating the creation of armed gangs and the violence that comes with it in the form of turf wars. This violence (which killed almost 800 blacks in Chicago in 2021 alone) will never end if we fail to identify the obvious cause.
By failing to identify the true cause of the violence -- namely, substance prohibition -- Lisa is empowering fascists like Trump to start executing black Chicagoans in the name of the hateful Drug War.
Please, Lisa: as liquor prohibition created the Mafia, so substance prohibition has created the modern inner-city gangs. Please say so in your future reportage! As Heather Ann Thompson wrote in The Atlantic in 2014: "Without the War on Drugs, the level of gun violence 1 that plagues so many poor inner-city neighborhoods today simply would not exist.2"
Lisa missed a real opportunity to get to the truth about the hate-filled drug-war, which gives police carte blanche to treat suspects like scum. That's why the cop who killed George Floyd told the crowd to "just say no to drugs," because it was the Drug War which first gave racist cops like himself the green light to treat suspects like dirt.
Forgotten Stakeholders in the drug debate
The depressed and anxious who are denied godsend medicines thanks to prohibition.
The academic community, which is censored by drug law and told they can only research substances of which their government approves.
Mexican children who lose their parents to the War on Drugs
Patients (including children in hospice) experiencing pain who cannot get adequate relief, thanks to America's demonization of pain medicine.
Residents of inner cities who live in violent "no-go" zones like Southeast Washington, D.C., where bullets fly thanks to the fact that substance prohibition armed these communities to the teeth.
Formerly free Americans who now live in a semi-police state thanks to the militarization of local police forces in the name of "fighting drugs."
Author's Follow-up:
May 18, 2025
America is in complete denial about the downsides of drug prohibition, and Lisa Ling is the poster child for that denial. But she is not alone in ignoring the endless downsides to drug prohibition. Most of today's scientific articles on things like depression and human consciousness only make sense if you assume with the author that drugs do not exist. Take the claim that depression is hard to beat. That statement is true only if you assume that psychoactive substances do not exist, many of which could end depression in real-time, as for instance laughing gas 3 , phenethylamines, and even opium 4 , the drug that Americans love to hate.
But Americans have been brain-wiped when it comes to drug prohibition. They refuse to admit that drug prohibition exists. They refuse to even recognize the existence of the endless substances that we have outlawed in the name of fearmongering and racial and ethnic prejudices.
Even our history books ignore the Drug War. The progressive historian Howard Zinn never mentions the Drug War once in "A People's History of the United States of America"; neither does the conservative historian Paul Johnson in "Birth of the Modern."
How will the Drug War ever end when we refuse to recognize that it even exists? How will it end when we give it a giant "Mulligan" for all the harm that it causes, and instead cast about for other culprits, like global warming and job availability.
I try to be optimistic, but my comments on these topics are increasingly being blocked by algorithms, so confident are America's techies in their childish and disastrous view of "drugs." I am finding it very hard to believe that the truth will eventually be recognized as such, which is a belief that even the great pessimist Schopenhauer entertained, i.e., that the truth would eventually "out." I wonder rather if billionaires and their heavily censored media can ever be stopped from controlling the narrative and so deep-sixing any attempts at regaining religious and psychological liberty in America and hence in the world at large.
Brits have a right to die, but they do not have the right to use drugs that might make them want to live. Bad policy is indicated by absurd outcomes, and this is but one of the many absurd outcomes that the policy of prohibition foists upon the world.
Drug War censorship is supported by our "science" magazines, which pretend that outlawed drugs do not exist, and so write what amount to lies about the supposed intransigence of things like depression and anxiety.
Properly speaking, MDMA has killed no one at all. Prohibitionists were delighted when Leah Betts died because they were sure it was BECAUSE of MDMA/Ecstasy. Whereas it was because of the fact that prohibitionists refuse to teach safe use.
Both physical and psychological addiction can be successfully fought when we relegalize the pharmacopoeia and start to fight drugs with drugs. But prohibitionists do not want to end addiction, they want to scare us with it.
Psychiatrists keep flipping the script. When it became clear that SSRIs caused dependence, instead of apologizing, they told us we need to keep taking our meds. Now they even claim that criticizing SSRIs is wrong. This is anti-intellectual madness.
Racist drug warriors make cities dangerous with drug prohibition -- then they use that danger as an excuse to send in the National Guard.
"Everything one does in life, even love, occurs in an express train racing toward death. To smoke opium is to get out of the train while it is still moving. It is to concern oneself with something other than life or death." -Jean Cocteau
This is the problem with trusting science to tell us about drugs. Science means reductive materialism, whereas psychoactive drug use is all about mind and the human being as a whole. We need pharmacologically savvy shaman to guide us, not scientists.
The "acceptable risk" for psychoactive drugs can only be decided by the user, based on what they prioritize in life. Science just assumes that all users should want to live forever, self-fulfilled or not.
Freud found that cocaine CURED most people's depression and he "got off it" without trouble.
(up)