introduction to the Drug War Philosopher website at abolishthedea.com
orange rss icon with stylized radio waves orange rss icon with stylized radio waves bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter


back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow


Libertarians as Closet Christian Scientists

by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

July 4, 2021



You'd think libertarians would see through all the Drug Warrior censorship and demonization of amoral substances, but even they are unwittingly hobbled by Drug War lies. Take Christian libertarian Jake Offenhartz. He sees the Drug War as a flagrant overreach of government, however, his own argument is weakened by his tacit acknowledgement of the Drug War lie that there is no necessity for using the psychoactive substances of which politicians disapprove. Jake himself professes a kind of scorn for such substances, declaring that he would never personally use them.

But how -- and why -- would he say that? The kind of medicine that he's referring to has scarcely been examined for its therapeutic potential (how could it be with the outlawing of any plant that manifests potential useful psychopharmacological
qualities?) and the hints of their efficacy are overwhelming. There are thousands of plants out there that we are forbidden to even begin investigating for therapeutic purposes. Given this Nazi state of affairs, what sense does it make to forswear those medicines a priori, unless the libertarian who does so is actually a closet Christian Scientist, convinced that drugs are to be avoided on principle -- a standard, however, that they surely do not hold for aspirin and Pepto Bismol, let alone tobacco and alcohol.

By outlawing psychoactive medicine, the Drug War is deciding how and how much people can think. This is the great crime of the Drug War, and yet libertarians like Jake cannot confront it since they essentially agree with the Drug Warrior about the lack of necessity for what is hypocritically called "drug use." Such a limit upon thinking itself is also a violation of religion to those who believe with Plato that the unexamined life is not worth living, since freedom of thought itself is controlled by a government which (like the Christian Science libertarian) has a scorn for mental states of which they disapprove. The libertarian is thus powerless to confront the Drug War for its greatest sins against human freedom -- sins, however, which only follow after we have allowed the original sin of the Drug Warrior, which was outlawing plants in the first place, in clear violation of natural law.











read more essays here





Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US




The DEA should be put on trial for crimes against humanity for withholding godsend medicine from the depressed. Here is just one typical drug-user report that appeared in "Pihkal": "A glimpse of what true heaven is supposed to feel like..."

Psychedelics and entheogens should be freely available to all dementia patients. These medicines can increase neuronal plasticity and even grow new neurons. Besides, they can inspire and elate -- or do we puritans feel that our loved ones have no right to peace of mind?

Someone tweeted that fears about a Christian Science theocracy are "baseless." Tell that to my uncle who was lobotomized because they outlawed meds that could cheer him up -- tell that to myself, a chronic depressive who could be cheered up in an instant with outlawed meds.

When Americans "obtain their majority" and wish to partake of drugs safely, they should be paired with older adults who have done just that. Instead, we introduce them to "drug abusers" in prerecorded morality plays to reinforce our biased notions that drug use is wrong.

The Drug War is a religion. The "addict" is a sinner who has to come home to the true faith of Christian Science. In reality, neither physical nor psychological addiction need be a problem if all drugs were legal and we used them creatively to counter problematic use.

It's funny to hear fans of sacred plants indignantly insisting that their meds are not "drugs." They're right in a way, but actually NO substances are "drugs." Calling substances "drugs" is like referring to striking workers as "scabs." It's biased terminology.

Irony of ironies, that the indignant 19th-century hatred of liquor should ultimately result in the outlawing of virtually every mind-affecting substance on the planet EXCEPT for liquor.

The FDA will be accepting comments through September 20th on the subject of ways to fight PTSD. PTSD@reaganudall.org Ask them why they support brain-damaging shock therapy but won't approve drugs like MDMA that could make ECT unnecessary.

Most people think that drugs like cocaine, MDMA, LSD and amphetamines can only be used recreationally. WRONG ! This represents a very naive understanding of human psychology. We deny common sense in order to cater to the drug war orthodoxy that "drugs have no benefits."

So he writes about the mindset of the deeply depressed, reifying the condition as if it were some great "type" inevitably to be encountered in humanity. No. It's the "type" to be found in a post-Christian society that has turned up its scientific nose at psychoactive medicine.


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






back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow


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.


Copyright 2026, Brian Ballard Quass Contact: quass@quass.com

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP (up)