no access
Clueless Doctors in the age of the War on Drugs
Clueless Doctors in the age of the War on Drugs
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
October 20, 2025
Forty-nine thousand Americans kill themselves every year, mainly because America has demonized and/or outlawed everything that could cheer them up, like laughing gas and cocaine, which Freud knew was a cure for depression.
I am one of those heretics who says that it is a category error to put materialists and doctors (and especially materialist doctors!) in charge of mind and mood medicine1. The benefits of illegal drugs come about through holistic processes, whereas materialist science is all about judging drugs outside of all context. This is why our "betters" in the medical industry are so laughably out of touch with reality on these subjects, as for instance when Dr. Robert Glatter 23 has to ask the question whether laughing gas could REALLY help the depressed! Laughing gas, for god's sake! (Gee, I wonder if it would help for a depressed person to feel wonderful?? What a poser??!) While they're studying that proposition in the laboratory, our materialists might also want to study whether having a "cold one" after work REALLY helps people relax! Or whether parents are REALLY helping their kids by giving them a hug now and then! What tough questions!!! These are the kinds of questions that only a DOCTOR could answer -- but then they are also the kinds of questions that only a doctor would even THINK of asking!!!
And so we are told that drugs like cocaine and laughing gas and opium 4 have no positive uses! What absurdity! What gaslighting 5 ! What they really mean to say is that those drugs cannot be shown to "work" in the reductive fashion that scientists demand of a drug. But so what? They work in an holistic fashion that doctors refuse to understand -- not just because these doctors are typically materialists, but also because they insist on toeing the line when it comes to Drug War orthodoxy, according to which drugs must be supposed to have no beneficial uses whatsoever. And so they practice their pharmacological colonialism. And so they gaslight the depressed. By demanding proof under a microscope, they elevate themselves to the role of experts on human emotions -- and tell the actual users of the drugs that "Hey, WE know more about how you feel and how you SHOULD feel than you do! Don't tell us what works for YOU -- WE'LL tell YOU what works for YOU!"
In case doctors are someday interested, though, here is what I mean by the holistic benefits of drugs. Drugs like cocaine help one get work done -- in the same way that coffee does, without jangling one's nerves. This means that one feels a sense of accomplishment in life and so feels better about themselves. Get it, doc? From this fact alone, a whole raft of knock-on benefits begin to accrue. The cocaine user stops procrastinating, they become more outgoing, they remember that family member's birthday that they might have forgotten -- or else have been too depressed to worry about. In other words, doc, the drug use establishes a virtuous circle. Any drug that inspires and elates can establish such a virtuous circle -- not because it moves chemicals about in a way that flatters materialist expectations, but because the positive feelings (and mood-improving anticipation) that the user feels creates a virtuous circle full of knock-on benefits! Freud understood this: he understood that cocaine was a godsend for the depressed67. But the doctors of his time saw nothing but evil in the drug -- and no wonder: They knew that their jobs were in jeopardy if depression ceased to be an epidemic. Better that hundreds of millions of the depressed should go without a cure than doctors should lose their jobs!
I feel silly pointing out such basic psychological truths to adults, that inspiration helps, that feeling good helps -- but these are truths that our behaviorist doctors ignore in their effort to medicalize and pathologize human behavior and thus set themselves up as experts in "curing" our psychological diseases. Such doctors help demonize cocaine by focusing only on misuse by a vast MINORITY of users, exactly as if we were to study alcohol use by focusing on drunkards. They completely ignored the needs of the depressed. We were not stakeholders, it seems. They never asked the depressed how THEY felt about using cocaine. Instead, they trashed the drug by associating it with only downsides -- and thereby utterly destroyed its reputation for healing. In so doing, they ensured their own careers. They ensured that depression would be "a thing" for years to come. They could now set themselves up as the well-paid experts for treating such "illnesses," the illnesses that they themselves had helped to bring about.
This reminds me of the Three Stooges episode in which the trio secretly releases mice into a mansion and then knocks on the front door to ask the lady of the house if she requires exterminating services.
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.
Americans believe scientists when they say that drugs like MDMA are not proven effective. That's false. They are super effective and obviously so. It's just that science holds entheogenic medicines to the standards of reductive materialism. That's unfair and inappropriate.
We need a scheduling system for psychoactive drugs as much as we need a scheduling system for sports activities: i.e. NOT AT ALL. Some sports are VERY dangerous, but we do not outlaw them because we know that there are benefits both to sports and to freedom in general.
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.
Rick Strassman reportedly stopped his DMT trials because some folks had bad experiences at high doses. That is like giving up on aspirin because high doses of NSAIDs can kill.
I'm interested in CBD myself, because I want to gain benefits at times without experiencing intoxication. So I think it's great. But I like it as part of an overall strategy toward mental health. I do not think of CBD, as some do, as a way to avoid using naughty drugs.
The DEA outlawed MDMA in 1985, thereby depriving soldiers of a godsend treatment for PTSD. Apparently, the DEA staff slept well at night in the early 2000s as American soldiers were having their lives destroyed by IEDs.
Prohibitionists have the same M O they've had for the last 100+ years: blame drugs for everything. Being a drug warrior is never having the decency to say you're sorry -- not to Mexicans, not to inner-city crime victims, not to patients who go without adequate pain relief...
I've found that almost no one in the medical establishment has a clue about the endless positive uses that there would be for drugs in a world in which we decided to use them as wisely as possible for human benefit.
Big pharma drugs are designed to be hard to get off. Doctors write glowingly of "beta blockers" for anxiety, for instance, but ignore that fact that such drugs are hard -- and even dangerous -- to get off. We have outlawed all sorts of less dependence-causing alternatives.
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)