an open letter to Bennett Haeberle of NBC 5 Chicago
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 3, 2025
The media regularly puts on show trials for psychoactive substances, to suggest that they are a threat to American young people, with the implication being that said substances have no positive uses whatsoever and can only be used for a cheap thrill. Lies, lies, lies. The ultimate goal of such yellow journalism is to egg on the prohibitionists to crack down ever further on the few remaining freedoms that Americans still possess when it comes to drug use.
The poster child for such biased articles is the January 2025 hatchet piece on the NBC 5 website entitled "The loophole that allows an illegal, dangerous drug to be delivered to your door,1" an article in which the reporters completely ignore all glaringly obvious benefits of N2O, to say nothing of historical use of the drug and the fact that William James urged philosophers to inhale N2O in order to investigate the nature of ultimate reality.
All such hatchet jobs are based on two demonstrably false assumptions: 1) that there are no upsides to drug use, and 2) that there are no downsides to drug prohibition.
--
Dear Bennett Haeberle,
Your article about Laughing Gas2 illustrates all that is wrong with our Drug War mentality. You consider only the worst possible uses of laughing gas 3 , never mentioning its obvious benefits. The gas has been used safely by a wide variety of people, from Humphry Davy to Robert Southey to Oliver Wendell Holmes. Davy saw great therapeutic potential in its ability to elate and inspire. William James told us that philosophers must study the states produced by such substances to learn about the nature of human consciousness and ultimate reality. And yet your article says nothing about common-sense therapy or the philosophy of William James. Nitrous oxide can inspire glimpses of heaven and yet you say nothing about its obvious potential role in preventing suicide. Instead, your article is written to make us fear the substance rather than to understand it.
Drug prohibition is the problem 4 , Bennett, not drugs. The problem is our failure to educate about substance use. We already live in a police state thanks to drug law: why is NBC 5 determined to make matters even worse?
Kids were not dying in the streets from opiates when opiates were legal in America. It took prohibition to accomplish that. When are prohibitionists going to start accepting their responsibility for the young people whom they have killed? How? By refusing to teach safe use, refusing to regulate product, and refusing to re-legalize a long list of opiate alternatives?
Laughing gas kits should be available for the severely depressed, just as epi pens are made available to those with severe depression. Instead, America would rather that the depressed commit suicide 5 than use drugs. America would prefer that the depressed undergo brain-damaging shock therapy than to use drugs.
Until the media stops putting on show trials for drugs -- and holding them to wildly different safety standards than those for Big Pharma 67 or alcohol -- then America will be living in the Dark Ages.
You guys are not saving anybody. You are causing suicides by demonizing all the substances that could be wisely used to make people want to live. Your reportage ultimately causes suicides by removing all inspiring drugs from the market and refusing to teach or regulate. The Hindu religion was created thanks to the use of a drug that inspired and elated. You guys are committed to demonizing all drugs that inspire and elate. It is not enough for you to merely outlaw use -- you insist on closing all the loopholes as well -- to make sure that use becomes as dangerous, unregulated and uninformed as possible. But like all Drug Warriors, you never take responsibility for all the suffering that you thereby bring about. You seem to feel that if you do not report on the downsides of prohibition, then those downsides do not exist.
I am a philosopher, and I protest on behalf of William James, whose proposed research you guys are helping to outlaw by your fear mongering about substance use.
Please stop putting substances on show trials for crimes that alcohol commits every day. Drugs can be used safely. Any drug can be rendered dangerous, however, when we place a premium on ignorance and prohibition.
Please stop demonizing substances based on the fact that they can be misused by Americans whom we refuse to educate about drugs.
Your MO is too predictable:
1) Find young people who have misused a drug thanks to our refusal to educate about safe use.
2) Pull at the heartstrings by writing about the poor little white kids who have been thrown into harm's way.
3) Write articles in an attempt to have all "loopholes" closed -- so that drug prohibition thrives and so our young people remain as ignorant as possible about safe drug use.
4) Then refuse to take responsibility for the downsides of the drug prohibition to which you have contributed: the outlawing of free research, the unnecessary suicides, the unnecessary drive-by shootings, the un-necessary electroshock therapy, the destruction of the rule of law in Latin America, and the mass incarceration 8 of minorities which has led to the election of tyrants and brought an end to democracy in America.
5) Above all, never mention the potential upsides of drug use or the many obvious downsides of drug prohibition.
Enough! Please, let's have no more show trials for psychoactive substances!
When the FDA tells us in effect that MDMA is too dangerous to be used to prevent school shootings and to help bring about world peace, they are making political judgments, not scientific ones.
The UK just legalized assisted dying. This means that you can use drugs to kill a person, but you still can't use drugs to make that person 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.
Check out the 2021 article in Forbes in which a materialist doctor professes to doubt whether laughing gas could help the depressed. Materialists are committed to seeing the world from the POV of Spock from Star Trek.
"Like Christians burning mosques and temples to spread the word of Jesus, modem drugabuseologists burn crops to spread the use of alcohol." -- Ceremonial Chemistry, p. 48
Just think how much money bar owners in the Old West would have saved on restoration expenses if they had served MDMA instead of whiskey.
They drive to their drug tests in pickup trucks with license plates that read "Don't tread on me." Yeah, right. "Don't tread on me: Just tell me how and how much I'm allowed to think and feel in this life. And please let me know what plants I can access."
If opium and cocaine were legal again in America, the healthcare industry would suddenly have to undergo extensive downsizing, as Americans were once again put in charge of their own health.
David Chalmers says almost everything in the world can be reductively explained. Maybe so. But science's mistake is to think that everything can therefore be reductively UNDERSTOOD. That kind of thinking blinds researchers to the positive effects of laughing gas and MDMA, etc.
Like when Laura Sanders tells us in Science News that depression is an intractable problem, she should rather tell us: "Depression is an intractable problem... that is, in a world wherein we refuse to consider the benefits of 'drugs,' let alone to fight for their beneficial use."
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)