no access
Depressed? Ask Your Doctor if Assisted Suicide is Right for You
Depressed? Ask Your Doctor if Assisted Suicide is Right for You
Philosophical musings on the strange case of Claire Brosseau
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
February 16, 2026
I have already written half a dozen essays on the strange case of Claire Brosseau, the depressed Canadian entertainer who wants the state to help her commit suicide, the same state that is denying her all the drugs that might make her want to live. North Americans are so bamboozled by Drug War lies that we literally would prefer suicide to drug use.
The fact that none of the various "professionals" involved in the case even notices this glaring angle to the issue shows how propaganda and censorship have fried their brains. They now truly seem to believe the enormous demonstrable lie that psychoactive medicines have no positive uses for anybody, anywhere, ever, not at any dose or in any situation. For absent such indoctrination, the question on everybody's sane lips would be: why are we not fighting for Claire's right to the use of the plants of Mother Nature, why are we not fighting for her right to take care of her own health as she sees fit: why, in short, are we not fighting to end drug prohibition on her behalf rather than to help her to kill herself so that she can escape the hell that drug prohibition is forcing her to endure totally unnecessarily?
It seems Claire herself is bamboozled, because she seems to believe that drugs have nothing to offer her -- which is absurd considering that drugs have inspired entire religions and many have the power to elate and inspire in real-time, notwithstanding the self-interested lies of medical doctors who give us their metaphysical spiel about the need for "real" cures: you know, the kinds that turn the "med" user into patients for life. The very idea that drugs cannot help with depression is an enormous self-interested lie of the medical establishment, first promulgated when doctors saw their business model endangered by drugs that really worked, first opium, and then cocaine.
Modern drug attitudes are beyond parody. Depressed westerners demand that the state use drugs to kill them, but they don't demand their right to the drugs that could make them want to live.
Let us, however, ignore the fact that drug prohibition is rendering suicide necessary here (at least in the indoctrinated mind of Claire), and let us look at the case in isolation, as do all other pundits on this issue, more's the pity. Even if we assume the big lie here, namely that no drugs could help Claire, there is something ironic about granting the right to die to an ardent activist on that topic. For the mere fact that Claire can function enough to put her cause on the map -- with the drug-bashing New York Times, no less -- and to argue for herself so effectively makes me doubt her need for suicide. What a paradox, in fact: the more powerful her arguments, the more I question whether she really needs such a drastic measure. Of course, in reality it is Claire's decision -- but it can only REALLY be her decision were we to end drug prohibition, and that is not Claire's goal, unfortunately. Instead of fighting for the return of a time-honored right to heal, she is seeking instead for a recherché new right to have the government help her to kill herself -- and this, to repeat, is the same government that is denying her the medicines that could make her want to live!
If I have no right to mother nature's bounty, then I surely have no right to manmade guns. If hysterical fearmongering justifies the eradication of the Fourth Amendment, then the Second Amendment should go as well.
Alcohol makes me sleepy. But NOT coca wine. The wine gives you an upbeat feeling of controlled energy, without the jitters of coffee and without the fury of steroids. It increases rather than dulls mental focus.
"I can take this drug that inspires me and makes me compassionate and teaches me to love nature in its byzantine complexity, or I can take Prozac which makes me unable to cry at my parents' funeral. Hmm. Which shall it be?" Only a mad person in a mad world would choose SSRIs.
We know that anticipation and mental focus and relaxation have positive benefits -- but if these traits ae facilitated by "drugs," then we pretend that these same benefits somehow are no longer "real." This is a metaphysical bias, not a logical deduction.
An Englishman's home is his castle.
An American's home is a bouncy castle for the DEA.
In the Atomic Age Declassified, they tell us that we needed hundreds of thermonuclear tests so that scientists could understand the effects. That's science gone mad. Just like today's scientists who need more tests before they can say that laughing gas will help the depressed. Science today is all about ignoring the obvious.
If they're going to throw doctors in jail for prescribing too much pain medication, they should also throw them in jail for prescribing too LITTLE.
Getting off some drugs could actually be fun and instructive, by using a variety of other drugs to keep one's mind off the withdrawal process. But America believes that getting off a drug should be a big moral battle.
My approach to withdrawal: incrementally reduce daily doses over 6 months, or even a year, meanwhile using all the legal entheogens and psychedelics that you can find in a way likely to boost your endurance and "sense of purpose" to make withdrawal successful.
Don't the Oregon prohibitionists realize that all the thousands of deaths from opiates is so much blood on their hands?
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.
(up)