Drug Testing and the Christian Science Inquisition

introduction to the Drug War Philosopher website at abolishthedea.com

Drug Testing and the Christian Science Inquisition

how the drug war protects Christianity from competition

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

July 9, 2022

written in response to Julian Buchanan's excellent blog post on Drug Testing entitled Drug Testing: Misleading Simplicity Masking Complex Issues

Hi, Julian. Thanks for the refreshing honesty about drug testing. I'd like to add just a few thoughts to expand on what you've said.

Ad for Schedule 1 Laundry Detergent 'for those special moments', bottle on top left. In center, young proud father fixing tie on his preteen son, with the caption 'It's his very first drug test!' — Schedule 1 Laundry Detergent -- because it's not enough to pass your drug test anymore, you need to pass it with flying colors!

First, I would stress that "drug testing" only makes sense to the average person because "drugs" is a politically created word meaning "substances that have no value whatsoever and therefore should be completely avoided." The fact is, there are no substances of this kind in the world: even the highly toxic Botox has legitimate uses. In the cases of psychoactive substances, all of them have potential uses in some dosage, for some reason, in some therapeutic, religious or psychosocial setting. Drug war hysteria notwithstanding, substances like morphine ¹ , opium and coca (and indeed even crack cocaine ² ³ ) can be used non-addictively, if an educated person sets out to use them in that way. But the Drug Warrior never explains how to use drugs safely since the party line is to insist that such a thing is not possible. Joe Biden ⁴ ⁵'s Office of National Drug Policy actually worked by a rule that beneficial uses of criminalized "drugs" were never even to be considered. But to think that substances can be bad without regard for how they are used is to adopt the view of Mary Baker Eddy toward drugs, which is that they are morally wrong, period, full stop. But this is a religious view, not a scientific one.

The real problem is that the Drug Warrior completely ignores the most obvious reason for drug use: and that is the human desire for self-transcendence. Only by ignoring this "primum mobile" for drug use can they seem to plausibly maintain such use has no positive purpose. Having drawn that misguided conclusion, they then feel justified in "treating" the "substance user" as a sick person, one who is to be cured by forcing him or her to become "sober" (at least as that term is hypocritically defined in a pill-popping and booze ⁶-swilling country). Recidivism is the natural result of such "cures" because the treatment fails to acknowledge, let alone cater to, the "user's" original motivation for "using": namely to acquire self-transcendence. Why? So that they could escape the limitations imposed upon them by their own personal psychology, as well as the stark perceptual limitations imposed upon human beings in general by what Maupassant called our five "miserable senses":

"...our eyes which are unable to perceive what
is either too small or too great, too near to, or too far from us...
our sense of smell which is smaller than that of a dog ...
our sense of taste which can scarcely distinguish the age of a wine!"
- Le Horla, Maupassant

The drug users know (at least at some level) that there are substances in this world that let us see and feel more in life - and even help us BE more by quieting those niggling inner voices (arising from nature and/or nurture) that have otherwise continually told us to "hang it up," that "the likes of YOU can never accomplish that!"

Far from being pathological, this desire for pharmacological self-transcendence has been the inspiration for entire religions, including the Vedic religion in the Indus Valley, the mushroom cults in Mesoamerica, and the psychedelic Eleusinian Mysteries, from which Plato is thought to have gleaned his concepts of an afterlife ⁷.

Seen in this light, drug-testing is the tool of a Christian Science inquisition, designed to "out" those who seek transcendence in ways that are unacceptable to WASP westerners, which is another way of saying that the Drug War is a war on religion - indeed, a war on the very wellspring of the religious impulse. It is not just a way to shield alcohol and liquor from competition; it is a way to shield Christianity itself from competition - Christianity, that is, as practiced in the politically non-threatening way that western capitalists are familiar with.

Related tweet: October 14, 2022

Drug testing (in the rare cases that it's needed) should be for identifying impairment. It should not be a fishing expedition to find traces of substances that are hated by botanically clueless politicians.

Author's Follow-up: January 15, 2025

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up

If Labor hadn't been hornswoggled by Drug War ideology, the outlawing of indiscriminate drug testing would be their cause célèbre. Why? Because such drug testing represents the political castration of the American worker. What could be more humiliating than being required to submit your urine to a potential employer -- not to find out if you're impaired, but simply to make sure that you practice the drug-hating faith of Christian Science with respect to psychoactive substances?

I also state above that drug testing is a way to shield Christianity from competition. Let me add here that there is a long history of this oppression. The time-honored psychedelic-fueled Eleusinian Mysteries inspired renowned westerners like Plato and Cicero for almost 2,000 consecutive years. But it was finally outlawed by a Christian Emperor in 392 A.D. as a threat to Christianity.

Regarding my allusion to the failure of rehab, I have since realized that prohibition ensures the failure of rehab. It does this by outlawing all the drugs that could get one through those few tough weary hours of the day that are the bane of the recidivist -- when they sit alone in a quiet house, typically in the early hours of the morning, ready to climb the walls.

If such sufferers had access to laughing gas ⁸ , or opium ⁹ , or coca, or MDMA ¹⁰ , or any of a wide list of empathogens created by Alexander Shulgin -- or better yet, to all of these drugs in a go-to pharmacopoeia -- there would be no recidivism. Those seeking to get off a specific drug would find the psychological ability to do just that. This is just plain psychological common sense. But Drug Warriors ignore common sense -- as do the myopic materialist scientists that advise on drug policy these days. For more on this topic, please see my essay on "Fighting Drugs with Drugs."

For more on how Drug Warriors, doctors and scientists ignore psychological common sense, please see my essay entitled "Common Sense and the Drug War."

Christian Science

Drug Testing

Religion

Notes:

1: Three takeaway lessons from the use of morphine by William Halsted, co-founder of Johns Hopkins Medical School DWP (up)
2: Sigmund Freud's real breakthrough was not psychoanalysis DWP (up)
3: “Freud on Cocaine : Freud, Sigmund, 1856-1939 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” 2023. Internet Archive. 2023. https://archive.org/details/freudoncocaine0000freu/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater. (up)
4: Joe Biden (up)
5: Joe Biden’s Drug War Record Is So Much Worse Than You Think Bienenstock, David, Leafly, 2019 (up)
6: Blast-off for Planet Hypocrisy! DWP (up)
7: The Eleusinian Mysteries: A Gateway to the Afterlife in Greek Beliefs (up)
8: Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide DWP (up)
9: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton DWP (up)
10: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts DWP (up)

read more essays here

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

I can't believe that no one at UVA is bothered by the DEA's 1987 raid on Monticello. It was, after all, a sort of coup against the Natural Law upon which Jefferson had founded America, asserting as it did the government's right to outlaw Mother Nature.

There are hundreds of things that we should outlaw before drugs (like horseback riding) if, as claimed, we are targeting dangerous activities. Besides, drugs are only dangerous BECAUSE of prohibition, which compromises product purity and refuses to teach safe use.

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.

The government makes psychoactive drug approval as slow as possible by insisting that drugs be studied in relation to one single board-certified "illness." But the main benefits of such drugs are holistic in nature. Science should butt out if it can't recognize that fact.

Even if the FDA approved MDMA today, it would only be available for folks specifically pronounced to have PTSD by materialist doctors, as if all other emotional issues are different problems and have to be studied separately. That's just ideological foot-dragging.

Don't the Oregon prohibitionists realize that all the thousands of deaths from opiates is so much blood on their hands?

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!!!"

All the problems that folks associate with drugs are caused by prohibition. Thousands were not dying on the streets when opioids were legal in America. It took prohibition to bring that about.

As great as it is, "Synthetic Panics" by Philip Jenkins was only tolerated by academia because it did not mention drugs in the title and it contains no explicit opinions about drugs. As a result, many drug law reformers still don't know the book exists.

This is why I call the drug war 'fanatical Christian Science.' People would rather have grandpa die than to let him use laughing gas or coca or opium or MDMA, etc. etc.

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

No cookies, no ads.

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.

The Partnership for a Death Free America is a proud sponsor of The Drug War Philosopher website @ abolishthedea.com.

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP

(up)