Rationality self-destructs in the face of authoritarian abuse of power
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
February 24, 2020
You've heard of Rome burning while Nero played the fiddle? Well, how about human rights floundering while philosophers examined their metaphysical navels?
Do we still need morality?
Yes, this was a recent topic of discussion among a learned body of panelists at the IAI (the Institute of Art and Ideas, artandideas.org), leading me to conclude that modern philosophy is, indeed, dead (though not for the reasons that Stephen Hawking speculated, since philosophy is really just playing dead out of cowardice) -- and that philosophy is useless when it comes to fighting back against the authoritarian tendencies of our time.
This is one case where my response to the IAI topic had to be about the topic itself, rather than the no-doubt brainy way with which it was discussed, parsed and philologically categorized by the esteemed panel convened for that purpose.
My response:
The very fact that modern philosophy is asking this question shows that rationality, pursued in the abstract, leads to self-destructive madness. The United States was created on the notion of natural law, that there is indeed something more important than the arbitrary decisions of despots. Instead of fretting whether this natural law (and hence basic human rights) even exists, philosophers should be engaged in an all-out struggle to castigate tyrants for replacing the natural law with common law, as has been done in the case of the Drug War. The Drug War is the triumph of contingent common law over natural law, imposing arbitrary limits on a human being's right to Mother Nature's plants, and thereby massively incarcerating minorities and keeping a myriad of godsend psychoactive plants not merely from 'druggies' but also from depressed patients and soldiers with PTSD, even blocking research on such godsends. So if we want to see the results of considering morality to be illusory, we have to look no further than America's overcrowded prisons or the record-breaking instances of depression in America, or the Drug War-created violence in impoverished cities. Please, philosophy, stop counting angels on a pin and start dealing with the real world: take natural law (and hence human rights) as a given so that you have a leg to stand on when confronting tyrants such as Donald Trump, who now plan to start executing the minorities that the common law has allowed America to throw in jail for the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, if you're starved for good philosophical topics, how about the following: Resolved: that the Drug War is the enforcement of Christian Science Sharia?
The natural law is premised on the idea that an ultimate morality exists. Once we start questioning that assumption, then any tyrant can justify any action based on force and expediency. Slavery, under such a view, is never fundamentally wrong, but only wrong insofar as it does not prove expedient and/or is incapable of being maintained by force of arms.
Author's Follow-up: March 9, 2025
Of course, philosophy is not to be spurned merely because it is often indecipherable at first glance. I do not deny the occasional importance of using specialized vocabularies to express abstruse concepts. But surely there is also a place in philosophy for pointing out glaringly obvious injustices, and this is something that almost no philosopher is doing these days when it comes to the War on Drugs, even though those injustices can be clearly traced to false premises. Surely, the philosopher as such is the expert in flagging false premises. The fact that they do not do so when it comes to the War on Drugs is frustrating, though, alas, understandable, since one can get fired and/or ostracized for being a Drug War heretic in academia.
I conclude I am on my own here because I am the only philosopher in the world who lodged a protest with the FDA over its recent plans to regulate laughing gas as a 'drug.' I alone seemed to recall that anesthetics like laughing gas 1 gave William James his view of reality and that he had conjured his fellow philosophers to use such substances to study new worlds:
'No account of the universe in its totality,' wrote James, 'can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded.'
I alone seemed to notice that the FDA's plans were a slap in the face of academic freedom and an insult to the memory of the great American psychologist.
The truth is the Drug War represents all that is wrong with America, philosophically speaking. We are all familiar with its connections with racism2 and militarism. But the Drug War is also based on what philosophers call a category error: namely, the idea that materialists are experts when it comes to matters of mind and mood. It follows that the failure for philosophers to push back here against substance prohibition is not entirely cowardice but is also motivated by the recognition by modern materialists that the Drug War serves to outlaw precisely those kinds of drugs whose use conduces to a non-materialist understanding of the world. From this point of view, the materialist philosopher says, 'Good riddance to drugs!' because substance prohibition lets them win their case for materialism 3 by default, by outlawing the opposition.
Reagan paid a personal price for his idiocy however. He fell victim to memory loss from Alzheimer's, after making a career out of demonizing substances that can grow new neurons in the brain!
It's always wrong to demonize drugs in the abstract. That's anti-scientific. It begs so many questions and leaves suffering pain patients (and others) high and dry. No substance is bad in and of itself.
Materialist scientists cannot triumph over addiction because their reductive focus blinds them to the obvious: namely, that drugs which cheer us up ACTUALLY DO cheer us up. Hence they keep looking for REAL cures while folks kill themselves for want of laughing gas and MDMA.
In his treatise on laws, Cicero reported that the psychedelic-fueled Eleusinian Mysteries gave the participants "not only the art of living agreeably, but of dying with a better hope."
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 Drug War is a crime against humanity.
I'm told antidepressant withdrawal is fine because it doesn't cause cravings. Why is it better to feel like hell than to have a craving? In any case, cravings are caused by prohibition. A sane world could also end cravings with the help of other drugs.
Drug use is judged by different standards than any other risky activity in the western world. One death can lead to outrage, even though that death might be statistically insignificant.
I just asked New York Attorney General Letitia James how much she was getting paid to play Whack-a-Mole. I pointed out that the drug war created the gangs just as liquor prohibition created the Mafia.
Even the worst forms of "abuse" can be combatted with a wise use of a wide range of psychoactive drugs, to combat both physical and psychological cravings. But drug warriors NEED addiction to be a HUGE problem. That's their golden goose.
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)