Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass
blog icon orange rss icon with stylized radio waves bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter substack icon


back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow


Michael Pollan on Drugs

how Michael ALMOST 'gets it'

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

September 28, 2022



Michael Pollan is a great writer when it comes to giving the world an inkling of the power of psychoactive medicines to 'change minds' for the better, and yet he is holding his punches when it comes to combating the Drug War. Indeed, his book about changing minds strikes a very cautious tone about reforming laws that he himself was violating as part of his own research into the subject of psychedelics. After expressing a hope that psychedelics will "someday" become more available, he goes on to worry about the potential for "bad trips" for American young people. That is one reasonable concern, of course, but like everyone else these days (the media, 1 politicians, and academia) he considers this the one and only concern, thereby paying incredibly short shrift to the needs and desires of the millions - indeed billions - who are going without godsend cures even as we speak, folks who will never be featured in dramatic press accounts because rare but spectacular cases of drug misuse are far more newsworthy these days than the silent psychological suffering of millions. Why is a hypothetical threat to the well-being of a relatively small handful of poorly educated white American youths so much more worrisome to Michael than the silent suffering of hundreds of millions of people experiencing severe anxiety and depression?

Moreover, it's not clear why Michael thinks that the status quo is going to help things when the MO of the Drug War is not to educate people about safe use, but rather to keep users in ignorance of the psychoactive drugs that they use. The Office of National Drug Control Policy actually was founded on a charter that forbids it from considering beneficial uses of the substances that politicians have pejoratively designated as "drugs." It is therefore a propaganda arm of the US government, not a health and safety arm. (Likewise in England, where Psychiatrist DJ Nutt was fired for daring to say that some criminalized plant medicines were safer than Big Pharma meds when it came to treating psychological conditions. He wasn't fired for lying: he was fired for failing to toe the drug-war party line according to which substances that we label "drugs" have no good uses, for anyone, ever, at any time. Of course, in reality, there are no such substances on planet earth. Even the deadly Botox toxin can be used wisely for the benefit of humankind.)

I'm writing this as a chronically depressed 64-year-old American who has been denied godsend plant medicine his entire life thanks to the fearmongering of Drug Warriors, thanks to which I was shunted off onto Big Pharma meds four decades ago and have been chemically dependent on those ineffective but mind-numbing medicines ever since, including a ten-year stint when I struggled to "get off" of the Valium that I was prescribed. I've yet to find a Drug Warrior who finds my own fate to be problematic; they're too busy worrying about potential downsides for American kids who might be given free access to Mother Nature, completely ignoring every other consideration on earth, including the fact that Drug War ideology has spawned civil wars overseas and so demonized drugs like morphine 2 that some hospices will allow children to suffer rather than to prescribe that drug for them on their death beds.

How long are folks like myself to continue waiting for pharmacologically clueless politicians to green-light the use of plant medicine, which many of us feel they had no right to outlaw in the first place, that being an obvious contravention of natural law, which, according to Locke himself, gives us a right to the use of the earth "and all that lies therein"? Michael says, "Not so fast," when it comes to legalization , but some of us have already waited a full lifetime while America tries to wrap its mind around the fact that drugs which have inspired entire religions might actually have some beneficial uses after all. In fact, the outlawing of such drugs is a violation of religious freedom because it criminalizes the very fountainhead of the religious impulse, as Soma inspired the Vedic-Hindu religion, mushrooms inspired Mayan worship, and coca leaf was divine in the life of the Inca.

My answer to Michael is, we never had a right to outlaw the bounty of Mother Nature in the first place, ask the ghost of Thomas Jefferson, which was rolling in its grave when the DEA stomped onto Monticello 3 in 1987 and confiscated the Founding Father's poppy plants, in a scene right out of a Ray Bradbury story, the government confiscating plants instead of burning books. So if we're worried about "bad trips," then the answer must be education, not criminalization. But even if Michael disagrees with that conclusion, surely the disastrous downsides of the Drug War should make that modern witch hunt an enemy of all rational thinkers, for substance prohibition has incentivized a drug trade which has armed inner cities to the teeth, killing blacks by the thousands each year, including 797 in Chicago in 2021. It has arrested and disfranchised millions of blacks, thereby leading to the election of drug-war zealots like Donald Trump, who now want to execute the blacks that the Drug Warrior was formerly happy merely to incarcerate.

The Drug War has censored scientists and resulted in a "mind medicine" monopoly for Big Pharma that has led to the creation of a psychiatric pill mill 4 upon which 1 in 4 American women are now chemically dependent for life. It has Nazified our language, turning fellow Americans into "scumbags" and encouraging us to cheer on the DEA agent in movies 5 6 where she shoots an unarmed "drug dealer" at point-blank range, all because he was selling a plant medicine that the Peruvian Indians have used for millennia to successfully combat the sorts of psychological problems that drug-war academia still considers to be insoluble. Why? Because American researchers self-censor themselves, refusing (like the ONDCP itself) to even consider the positive use of the substances that we have demonized and criminalized for political reasons. They know that they could meet the same fate as Dr. DJ Nutt if they dare to point out that, say, the Peruvian Indians might have been "onto something" when it comes to their time-honored chewing of the coca leaf to increase endurance and spiritual harmony.

Michael seems at least to sense that the Drug War is problematic. He speaks favorably of the new movement to "decriminalize Mother Nature." But he fails to realize that the drug-war is wrong root and branch, for it teaches us to fear and demonize substances rather than to understand them. Most Americans, for instance, make no distinction between using cocaine and chewing the coca leaf, and yet these are two different drugs. Yes, the coca leaf contains the cocaine 7 8 alkaloid, but to demonize it on that account is like demonizing peaches because they contain prussic acid. We need to teach honestly about all psychoactive substances, their upsides and downsides, both objective and subjective, rather than giving some drugs (like alcohol and anti-depressants) a huge Mulligan when it comes to criticism, meanwhile lambasting super-safe drugs like Ecstasy for merely being connected to a mere handful of deaths -- deaths which were caused by the Drug War itself, which discouraged honest talk and research about drugs and so thwarted the creation of safe-use guidelines that would have protected the victims in question.

In conclusion, I just watched a 2019 documentary entitled "Fantastic Fungi," featuring enlightened-sounding insights by Michael Pollan, but chiefly hosted by mycologist superstar Paul Stamets9. The entrepreneurial Ohioan related how he cured his chronic childhood stuttering problem in one afternoon after ingesting what he has subsequently learned was an unusually large dose of the shrooms. i repeat: He cured his chronic childhood stuttering problem in one afternoon. How? Because the shroom experience somehow helped him to step outside his problems and to see them as the impediments to his life that they were. Inspired by this insight, he was then able to rise above the knee-jerk tendency to stutter and to tell himself authoritatively: "You will stop stuttering!" And it worked.

I did not stutter as a teenager, but I had my own issues for which the externalization of the self that Paul experienced could have worked wonders for me as a kid, absolute wonders, giving me insights that it has instead taken me a lifetime of painful missteps to obtain. Such an experience could have changed my entire life for the better and saved me from a lifetime addiction to Big Pharma meds, thanks to which I have become a ward of the healthcare state, with all of the expensive and demoralizing downsides which that entails. Every three months of my life, I have to visit a stranger who is one-third my age and tell her my innermost feelings in order to get approval to receive another 3-month supply of expensive brain-numbing "meds," for the DEA so demonizes psychoactive medicines (even legal ones) that they still don't trust me to use even Big Pharma 10 11 wisely after 40 long years! You would think that "drugs" were fissionable material, not medicines.

That's why I am bothered when authorities like Michael Pollan tell me that I still have to wait for the privilege of accessing the medicines that grow at my very feet. Enough waiting. The government has already succeeded in denying me the godsends I needed for an entire lifetime. Let's spare the youths of the future and start educating them how to use psychoactive substances safely, rather than lying to them by suggesting, as per Drug War ideology, that the safe and beneficial use of demonized substances is impossible.

Author's Follow-up: September 29, 2022





Three more points:

1) If America cannot live with the fact that the world is full of psychoactive medicines from Mother Nature, then there is something wrong with America, not with psychoactive medicines, demonize them as we will with the pejorative term "drugs."

2) Even if we believe that the Drug War makes sense for America (which I find an horrendous conclusion, especially for a botanist to endorse), can we possibly be humble enough to allow other countries to disagree? Does Mother Nature worldwide have to be off-limits because botanically clueless politicians in America have decided to demonize her rather than benefit from her? Does the entire world really have to profess the religion of Christian Science with respect to psychoactive medicines?

3) Do Drug Warriors realize they are outlawing our only chance of avoiding nuclear annihilation by outlawing precisely those substances that could help human beings live peaceably with one another?

Author's Follow-up: April 30, 2023


Prohibitionists are at it again today, pretending that "one swallow makes a summer." Today they're bashing MAPS12 on Twitter, talking about a few supposedly negative outcomes of psychedelic research. They are only comfortable in a world wherein we take one-size-fits-all medicines that promise one specific thing that they provide without our help. The fact that a "user" should have the correct attitudes is anathema to them. "What?" they cry. "Surely, the drug itself should do all the heavy lifting."

We've got to work to discredit this childish mindset, which I'm sad to say that Pollan himself holds (see page 405 of "How to Change Your Mind"): that the only stakeholders in the re-legalization 13 game are our poor little American white children. No, no, no! Here are just a few of the other stakeholders: scientists who will be censored by prohibition, denizens of Planet Earth who will lose their natural right to the flora that grows around them, philosophers who will be prevented from following up the ontological hints that William James received from substance use, the millions of depressed who will go without godsend medicines, the people of Mexico who have been killed, relocated, maimed, and rendered homeless thanks to the fact that prohibition has destroyed the rule of law in Central America.

I hate to beat up on Michael Pollan, but I still cannot understand how any botanist could agree with the unprecedented viewpoint of the Drug War that we should be outlawing Mother Nature in the first place. If anybody should be outraged by such governmental overreach, it should be botanists -- especially since the prohibitionists spread the patently anti-scientific lie that the plants and fungi thus outlawed have no positives uses for anybody, anywhere, ever. That's not true of any substance. And even if it were, so what? Nature is under no obligation to pass muster with the FDA. Besides, a child could tell you that criminalizing nature is madness. That's no doubt why we indoctrinate them as early as possible in the drug-hating ideology of Christian Science, so that they learn to fear "bad evil drugs" instead of understanding them.











Notes for essay entitled Michael Pollan on Drugs: how Michael ALMOST 'gets it':

1: How the Media Puts Drugs on Show Trials: an open letter to Bennett Haeberle of NBC 5 Chicago DWP (up)
2: Three takeaway lessons from the use of morphine by William Halsted, co-founder of Johns Hopkins Medical School DWP (up)
3: The Dark Side of the Monticello Foundation DWP (up)
4: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs DWP (up)
5: Glenn Close but no cigar DWP (up)
6: Running with the torture loving DEA DWP (up)
7: Sigmund Freud's real breakthrough was not psychoanalysis DWP (up)
8: “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)
9: Paul Stamets The Joe Rogan Experience (podcast), 2017 (up)
10: Seife, Charles. 2012. “Is Drug Research Trustworthy?” Scientific American 307 (6): 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1212-56. (up)
11: LaMattina, John. n.d. “Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of the FDA’s Drug Division Budget?” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2022/09/22/why-is-biopharma-paying-75-of-the-fdas-drug-division-budget/. (up)
12: Three Problems With Rick Doblin's MAPS DWP (up)
13: “National Coalition for Drug Legalization.” n.d. National Coalition for Drug Legalization. https://www.nationalcoalitionfordruglegalization.org/. (up)




read more essays here





Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US




The goal of drug-law reform should be to outlaw prohibition. Anything short of that, and our basic rights will always be subject to veto by fearmongers. Outlawing prohibition would restore the Natural Law of Jefferson, which the DEA scorned in 1987 with its raid on Monticello.

Almost every article about suicide is shallow because it takes drug prohibition as a natural baseline, even though drug prohibition outlaws substances that could so clearly elevate mood.

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!"

No imaginable downside could persuade westerners that guns and alcohol were too dangerous. Yet the DEA lies about almost all psychoactive drugs, saying there are no good uses.

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.

We drastically limit drug choices, we refuse to teach safe use, and then we discover there's a gene to explain why some people have trouble with drugs. Science loves to find simple solutions to complex problems.

I knew democracy was in trouble when most Americans in the '80s saw no problem with allowing drug testers to go on a fishing expedition in their bodily fluids for substances of which politicians disapprove.

I could tell my psychiatrist EXACTLY what would "cure" my depression, even without getting addicted, but everything involved is illegal. It has to be. Otherwise I would have no need of the psychiatrist.

Drug warriors have taught us that honesty about drugs encourages drug use. Nonsense! That's just their way of suppressing free speech about drugs. Americans are not babies, they can handle the truth -- or if they cannot, they need education, not prohibition.

That's why we damage the brains of the depressed with shock therapy rather than let them use coca or opium. That's why many regions allow folks to kill themselves but not to take drugs that would make them want to live. The Drug War is a perversion of social priorities.


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






back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow
Book Cover

Break the ice with a sledgehammer: place this book on your coffee table.

This book features 150 annotated images, designed to force brainwashed Americans to confront the fact that drug prohibition is wrong. Here is what author Richard Parrish II says of the book's compiler: "The drug prohibition philosopher provides first-hand, principled, persuasive, and insightful arguments against the current drug prohibition regime..."

Purchase Your Copy
Book Cover

Diary of a Drug Fiend

This is the only full-cast recording of Aleister Crowley's 1922 classic paeon to common sense. It is the first book -- and so far almost the only book -- to stake out a philosophy of drug use that is compatible with human freedom, one in which we learn to use drugs as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity. This recording was produced by the Drug War Philosopher and your purchases help support his effort to push back against the tragically counterproductive policy of drug prohibition, in the name of human freedom and of humanity's right to heal.

Purchase Your Copy



No cookies, no ads paid for by amoral and immoral billionaires (or trillionaires).


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)