bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter


Drug Prohibition and the Metaphysical Search for 'Real' Religious Inspiration

a review of essay number 6 in Hallucinogens: A Reader, edited by Charles Grob

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher





June 26, 2025



The following remarks are part of a series of responses to the essays contained in the 2001 book "Hallucinogens: A Reader," edited by Charles Grob1. The comments below are in response to essay number 6: "Chemical and Contemplative Ecstasy: Similarities and Differences" by Roger Walsh, M.D., Ph.D.


Walsh confronts the metaphysical question of whether drugs "really" increase religiosity, but I contend that this is an ill-conceived question. It is based on the presumption that there is an identifiable one-size-fits-all "sober" state against which we are to judge the effects of psychedelics. There is no such paradigmatic ideal and baseline state however. Each individual has a unique biochemistry and psychology and life story that renders their reactions to life very different from those of their fellows. They already have drugs in their "systems," even if we consider them to be stone sober. Everybody has drugs in their system. That is their biochemistry. To ask about the role that chemicals play in producing a specific behavior or impulse is therefore misconceived -- for behavior is produced by the totality of inputs -- chemical and otherwise -- and the unique way that they interact in an individual at a certain time and in a certain environment and so on. The very term "biochemistry" reminds us that we are all on drugs all the time. The question is therefore NOT: how do those drugs effect us -- but rather how does the wide array of chemical and non-chemical incentives combine (with our upbringing, our psychology, our default biochemistry, etc.) to influence behavior?

Does mescaline increase religiosity? That is a meaningless question. The drug experience is dependent on a vast array of factors besides the use of mescaline by itself. This is why Sartre2 experienced hell on mescaline while many others (most notably Aldous Huxley) experienced pure joy. The outcome of drug use always depends on the unique combination of a vast array of inputs. We should therefore resist the temptation to reify psychoactive drugs as all-powerful causative agents that have one specific outcome of use.

Meanwhile, the idea that drug-aided religiosity is not "real" is highly problematic. It begs endless philosophical questions, such as:

1) If I sharpen my mind with the use of cocaine and feel closer to nature for having done so (and therefore feel more "religious" according to my definition of that term), is that somehow not a "valid" religious benefit? Why not, exactly?

2) If morphine gives me a deep appreciation of the intricacies of Mother Nature and I view this as a religious advancement on my part, in what sense am I "wrong"?

The moralist's attempt to say that drug-aided religiosity is not "real" reminds me of the materialist's attempt to tell us that drugs like laughing gas and morphine and coca and phenethylamines cannot "really" help the depressed. Both moralist and materialist are blinded to the obvious. The moralists are blinded by their preconceived ideas about what constitutes a "real" religion. In the case of the materialist, they are biased by the Behaviorist doctrine that real benefits must be discovered under a microscope and can never be seen by the naked eye -- or divined easily by common sense. Common sense tells me that laughter would help the depressed and that states of extreme concentration would help a writer -- and yet Drug War morality and materialist ideology both teach us to pretend that no such help is available, that such help is somehow illusory.

Of course, exceptions are made when money is at stake. Thus speed is rebranded as Ritalin so that we can give it to grade schoolers to improve their concentration levels -- but if we tried to improve the concentration levels of adults with speed, it is considered wrong and demonized as the use of "meth." It makes you wonder how stupid Drug Warriors think we are... and if they might be right about that, at least when it comes to substances that we demonize as "drugs."

Hallucinogens: a Reader, edited by Charles Grob




Essays about the opinions expressed in Hallucinogens by Charles Grob.

  • Cocaine and Ecstasy are not evil
  • Drug Prohibition and the Metaphysical Search for 'Real' Religious Inspiration
  • How Ralph Metzner was bamboozled by the Drug War ideology of substance demonization
  • Sartre and Speed
  • The Drug War is One Big Branding Operation to Demonize Mind and Mood Medicine
  • The metaphysics of drug use and how the Drug War outlaws religious liberty
  • The thin line between honesty and fearmongering in the age of the War on Drugs
  • Want to end freedom in America? Just terrify philosophically clueless parents about the boogieman called drugs
  • Why America cracked down on LSD


    • Notes:

    1: Hallucinogens: a reader (up)
    2: Sartre and Speed: a review of essay number 4 in Hallucinogens: A Reader, edited by Charles Grob (up)







    Ten Tweets

    against the hateful war on US




    Drug Prohibition is a crime against humanity. It outlaws our right to take care of our own health.

    I'm going to get on the grade-school circuit, telling kids to say no to horses. "You think you can handle horses, kids? That's what Christopher Reeves thought. The fact is, NOBODY can handle horses!!!"

    Mayo Clinic is peddling junk. They are still promoting Venlafaxine, a drug that is harder to kick than heroin. The drug is only a problem, though, because of prohibition. It would be easy to get off of with the help of other drugs!!! WAKE UP, MAYO!

    The real value of Erowid is as a research tool for a profession that does not even exist yet: the profession of what I call the pharmacologically savvy empath: a compassionate life counselor with a wide knowledge of how drugs can (and have) been used by actual people.

    "The Legislature deliberately determines to distrust the very people who are legally responsible for the physical well-being of the nation, and puts them under the thumb of the police, as if they were potential criminals." -- Aleister Crowley on drug laws

    Scientists are responsible for endless incarcerations in America. Why? Because they fail to denounce the DEA lie that psychoactive substances have no positive medical uses. This is so obviously wrong that only an academic in an Ivory Tower could disbelieve it.

    Mad in America publishes stories of folks who are disillusioned with antidepressants, but they won't publish mine, because I find mushrooms useful. They only want stories about cold turkey and jogging, or nutrition, or meditation.

    Many articles in science mags need this disclaimer: "Author has declined to consider the insights gained from drug-induced states on this topic out of fealty to Christian Science orthodoxy." They don't do this because they know readers already assume that drugs will be ignored.

    What I want to know is, who sold Christopher Reeves that horse that he fell off of? Who was peddling that junk?!

    Drug-designing chemists have no expertise in deciding what constitutes a cure for depression. As Schopenhauer wrote: "The mere study of chemistry qualifies a man to become an apothecary, but not a philosopher."


    Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us






    Want to end freedom in America? Just terrify philosophically clueless parents about the boogieman called drugs
    Sartre and Speed


    Copyright 2025 abolishthedea.com, Brian Quass

    (up)