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!
In an article about Mazatec mushroom use, the author says: "Mushrooms should not be considered a drug." True. But then NOTHING should be considered a drug: every substance has potential good uses.
Heroin versus Antidepressants https://abolishthedea.com/heroin_versus_antidepressants.php
Meanwhile, no imaginable downside could persuade westerners that guns and alcohol were too dangerous. Yet the DEA lies about almost all psychoactive drugs, saying there are no good uses. That's a lie! Then they pass laws that keep us from disproving their puritanical conclusion.
Ann Lemke's case studies make the usual assumptions: getting free from addiction is a morality tale. No reference to how the drug war promotes addiction and how banned drugs could solve such problems. She does not say why daily SSRI use is acceptable while daily opium use is not. Etc.
We should start taking names. All politicians and government officials who work to keep godsends like psilocybin from the public should be held to account for crimes against humanity when the drug war finally ends.
The fact that drugs have positive uses for human beings is a psychological corollary of Husserl's phenomenology and Whitehead's philosophy of organism.
The "scheduling" system is completely anti-scientific and anti-patient. It tells us we can make a one-size-fits-all decision about psychoactive substances without regard for dosage, context of use, reason for use, etc. That's superstitious tyranny.
The so-called "herbs" that witches used were drugs, in the same way that "meds" are drugs. If academics made that connection, the study of witchcraft would shed a lot of light on the fearmongering of modern prohibitionists.
Imagine educational documentaries showing how folks manage to safely incorporate today's hated substances into their life and lifestyle.
Americans were always free to take care of their own health -- until drug warriors handed doctors a monopoly on providing mind and mood medicine.
(up)