how drug policy turns the depressed into patients for life
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
September 3, 2025
In Ceremonial Chemistry, 1974, Thomas Szasz introduced a crucial word for understanding our modern society in the age of drug prohibition.
"Inasmuch as we have words to describe medicine as a healing art, but have none to describe it as a method of social control or political rule, we must first give it a name. I propose that we call it pharmacracy, from the Greek roots pharmakon, for 'medicine' or 'drug,' and kratein, for 'to rule' or 'to control.'1"
This pharmacracy is all about disempowering human beings when it comes to their ability to take care of their own health, including, most critically, their most intimate mental and emotional states. This state of affairs could (and should) be challenged on all sorts of grounds by all sorts of stakeholders in the drugs debate -- including religious seekers, philosophical researchers, the anxious, pain patients, etc. -- but perhaps the best way to elucidate its tyrannous nature is to review the status quo from the point of view of the chronically depressed. In the age of pharmacracy, such individuals are forced to go without time-honored godsends like coca and opium while yet being shunted off onto modern Big Pharma meds which are harder to kick than heroin2. Freud considered cocaine to be a godsend for depression3. Opium has been extolled by all the great ancient doctors -- including Galen, Avicenna and Paracelsus -- as a panacea4. And yet drug law outlaws these empowering substances. And why? On the grounds that they can be misused by the young people whom we refuse to educate about drugs.
The impact of such inhumane and anti-scientific prohibition drug policy is most egregious for the depressed; they are literally denied the ability to heal in such a world. Instead, they are turned into wards of the healthcare state by being shunted off onto modern dependence-causing antidepressants.
Amazingly, no one seems to be raising this objection in the pushback against drug prohibition. This is due to the unfortunate fact that many Drug War critics are materialists and so they themselves believe in the category error whereby Westerners placed materialists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place. Even Carl Hart declares in "Drug Use for GrownUps5" that "drugs" are not to be used for mental health issues -- even though Sigmund Freud himself was convinced that cocaine was a godsend antidepressant6.
In reality, we have two causes of pharmacracy: first, drug prohibition which gave scientists a monopoly on treating mind and mood disorders, and second, the hubris of the scientists, which made them gladly except the lucrative baton and to run with it -- like a pharmacological Midas, pathologizing everything they touch so that all the psychological issues that can no longer be treated easily with coca and opium must now be treated by board-certified doctors. How? With Big Pharma drugs that cause lifelong dependency and are harder to kick than heroin7.
And so our materialist scientists are gaslighting us. They tell us -- by their actions and their words -- that there are no benefits for drugs that have glaringly obvious benefits: like the time-honored panaceas of coca and opium. Consider the following positive drug use reports from Pihkal8 and then try to tell me that such emotional states could not be of enormous benefit to the depressed, to the point of even convincing them to refrain from committing suicide.
I experienced the desire to laugh hysterically at what I could only describe as the completely ridiculous state of the entire world.
I learned a great deal about myself and my inner workings.
I acknowledged a rapture in the very act of breathing.
The feeling was one of great camaraderie, and it was very easy to talk to people.
These are just a few of the reports of users on the phenethylamines synthesized by Alexander Shulgin. And yet our FDA sees no positive uses for the depressed. Surely they are gaslighting us! This is the same FDA that promotes shock therapy for the severely depressed! This is the same FDA that approves of drugs whose side effects as advertised on prime-time television include death itself.
This is what pharmacracy means for the so-called "mental health patient" in the age of the Drug War. It is very simply "the world turned upside down," a world wherein all obvious pharmacological aids are outlawed and all dubious and fiercely dependence-causing materialist remedies are foisted upon the depressed as the only game in town.
What I want to know is, who sold Christopher Reeves that horse that he fell off of? Who was peddling that junk?!
This is why "rock stars" use drugs: not just for performance anxiety (which, BTW, is a completely UNDERSTANDABLE reason for drug use), but because they want to fully experience the music, even tho' they may be currently short on money and being hassled by creditors, etc.
If the depressed patient laughs, that means nothing. Materialists have to see results under a microscopic or they will never sign off on a therapy.
Cocaine is not evil. Opium is not evil. Drug prohibition is evil.
Problem 2,643 of the war on drugs:
It puts the government in charge of deciding what counts as a true religion.
"There has been so much delirious nonsense written about drugs that sane men may well despair of seeing the light." -- Aleister Crowley, from "Essays on Intoxication"
Why does no one talk about empathogens for preventing atrocities? Because they'd rather hate drugs than use them for the benefit of humanity. They don't want to solve problems, they prefer hatred.
Prohibitionists have nothing to say about all other dangerous activities: nothing about hunting, free climbing, hang-gliding, sword swallowing, free diving, skateboarding, sky-diving, chug-a-lug competitions, chain-smoking. Their "logic" is incoherent.
If I want to use the kind of drugs that have inspired entire religions, fight depression, or follow up on the research of William James into altered states, I should not have to live in fear of the DEA crashing down my door and shouting: "GO! GO! GO!"
It's a category error to say that scientists can tell us if psychoactive drugs "really work." It's like asking Dr. Spock of Star Trek if hugging "really works." ("Hugging is highly illogical, Captain.")
What I want to know is, who sold Christopher Reeves that horse that he fell off of? Who was peddling that junk?!