in response to an article by Maria Holynova on Psychedelic Spotlight
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 8, 2024
The following comment is in response to a 2023 article entitled "Oregon's First Licensed Psilocybin Center Charges $2800 for One Session: Are the Costs Justifiable?"1 I submitted it to the page in question, where it is now "awaiting moderation."
Oregon's drug policy is incoherent. They make psilocybin available to the rich and healthy, while locking up the poor and chemically dependent who could profit from it most. This half-baked attempt at a free market in psilocybin won't work until drug prohibition stops wildly distorting costs, thereby making psilocybin unavailable for those who need it most. (Psilocybin, after all, is available for free in mushroom form -- for free.2) For the latter demographic, it makes no difference if the price is reasonable in the long run: if they cannot afford it now when they need it, they are screwed.
Another problem is that Drug War fearmongering has taught us to treat psilocybin (and all other illegal drugs) like they were plutonium, causing liability costs to skyrocket, along with red tape. When I signed up for psilocybin therapy in Oregon, I complained about the endless paperwork. The facilitator apologized, noting that he himself had to fill out less paperwork when he purchased his first house. This implicit terror of drugs is so out of touch with common sense that it qualifies as a modern superstition.
That said, your point is well taken: the high prices are not a result of greed on the part of providers, but — like so many other problems in America today — are a result of an insane and counterproductive drug policy.
Author's Follow-up: May 8, 2024
There is a huge problem with the slow and piecemeal reform of drug laws -- as opposed to the instant repeal of drug prohibition. The problem is that the reform always ends up getting blamed for the problems that are created by the baseline environment of prohibition in which those reforms are enacted. The legalization 3 of opiate possession did not cause the misnamed "opioid crisis" in Oregon, but it provided a good scapegoat for which prohibitionists could blame the homelessness problem and the lack of proper healthcare on "drugs." But then this is the MO of the Drug Warrior -- and even their raison d'etre. They blame all social problems on "drugs," thereby helping selfish politicians like themselves in two ways: 1) saving them from spending time and money on real social problems and 2) providing someone to blame when anything goes wrong. Either they can blame those problems directly on "drugs," or (whenever that seems implausible even to gullible Americans) they can raise a hue and cry about "drugs" in order to distract the public mind from the real problems that the politicians have failed to solve.
For most drugs, dependency is a bug. For Big Pharma antidepressants, it is a feature.
"All these anti-opium articles... are based upon the same model. They assume certain statements as existing and acknowledged facts which have never been proved to be such, and then proceed to draw deductions from those alleged facts." --William Brereton
I'm on SNRIs. But SSRIs and SNRIs are both made with materialist presumptions in mind: that the best way to change people is with a surgical strike at one-size-fits-all chemistry. That's the opposite of the shamanic holism that I favor.
Someone should stand outside Jefferson's estate and hand out leaflets describing the DEA's 1987 raid on Monticello to confiscate poppy plants. That raid was against everything Jefferson stood for. The TJ Foundation DISHONORED JEFFERSON and their visitors should know that!
The December Scientific American features a story called "The New Nuclear Age," about a trillion-dollar plan to add 100s of ICBM's to 5 states, which an SA editorial calls "kick me" signs. This Neanderthal plan comes from pols who think that compassion-boosting drugs are evil!
America legalizes alcohol and then outlaws all the drugs that could help prevent and cure alcoholism.
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.
The "acceptable risk" for psychoactive drugs can only be decided by the user, based on what they prioritize in life. Science just assumes that all users should want to live forever, self-fulfilled or not.
When people tell us there's nothing to be gained from using mind-improving drugs, they are embarrassing themselves. Users benefit from such drugs precisely to the extent that they are educated and open-minded. Loudmouth abstainers are telling us that they lack these traits.
Here are some political terms that are extremely problematic in the age of the drug war:
"clean," "junk," "dope," "recreational"... and most of all the word "drugs" itself, which is as biased and loaded as the word "scab."
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)