Scientists are not the experts on my mind and mood

Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass

Scientists are not the experts on my mind and mood

an open letter to David Gems, in response to his review of Pihkal by Alexander Shulgin

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

June 6, 2026

Dear David,

I would like to share a few ideas about your book review ¹ of Pihkal and Tihkal by Alexander and Ann Shulgin ². I write about this topic from a unique perspective, since I am a 67-year-old chronic depressive who has been turned into a ward of the healthcare state by drug prohibition. In order to "save me" from drugs like cocaine and opium, I was shunted off onto Big Pharma "meds" that are harder to kick than heroin and whose withdrawal aftereffects include cognitive impairment.

You talk about the "Californian effect,"³ but there is another side to this story. There is also the "medicalization effect," in which scientists declare that they are the specialists when it comes to how I personally think and feel in this life. It is because of this hubristic western attitude about human behavior (this biochemical determinism) that I am not even considered a stakeholder in my own disempowerment. I have been on "meds" for over 40 years now, using the drugs that were created for me by pharmaceutical companies, and yet I am told that I am not a stakeholder in this topic, that scientists know best. Google will not even index my essays on this subject. And Mad in America says that I have no "standing." I was even "fired" by my previous psychiatrist last year after I brought these matters up during a session. I am, in short, invisible -- except to a doctor who is one-third my age and whom I have to see every three months of my life in order to request a refill on an expensive, dependence-causing, and underperforming med. Before each session, I am asked if I have considered suicide over the last three months, to which I always want to respond: "Only when I consider how drug prohibition and scientism have turned me into a child for life."

"Scientists are making entire livings trying to figure out what's best for ME as a chronic depressive"

Sure, Leary and McKenna speculated freely about a new way to view drugs, but scientists have their own biases as well, biases which I have found (to my cost) to have huge real-world downsides. Scientists feed us the laughable line that there is no proof of efficacy for substances like laughing gas ⁴ and cocaine ⁵ and opium ⁶-- when such substances have blazingly obvious common-sense strategic uses for chronic depressives, and especially those depressives who are determined to kill themselves or who will relapse on some withdrawal plan if not provided with psychological relief in real-time, now. Science is completely blind to such drug benefits -- completely blind -- and their blindness helps to normalize and "justify" the drug prohibition that has turned me into a ward of the healthcare state -- and led to completely unnecessary suicides, to say nothing of unnecessary shock therapy (like for my uncle). Even as I write this, depressed Canadian Claire Brosseau is demanding her right to assisted suicide, this despite the fact that drugs exist that have inspired entire religions and therefore have prima facie potential for helping the depressed -- at very least to the point that they will no longer demand the right to kill themselves ⁷ ⁸! Did the Vedic people need scientists to tell them that they should found a religion based on the effects of the Soma juice? Would scientists have told them, "No, you are not REALLY having any religious experience?" Can science overrule entire religions?

The benefits of drugs are just too obvious for scientists to see.

The use of MDMA at rave concerts brought about unprecedented peace, love and understanding among different ethnicities, and yet scientists do not see that as a benefit,⁹ this despite the fact that the world is on the brink of nuclear destruction because of interpersonal hatred, this despite the fact that hate-driven gunmen engage in mass shootings everyday somewhere on the globe. Scientists are not being scientific when they ignore these benefits, they are being political. This is why it was a category error to place scientists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place. They are blind to everything but molecules -- and then they tell us that we are luddites if we do not abide by their decisions about the "usefulness" of a drug. Cui bono? Who benefits from this point of view? Not the depressed! Scientists are making entire livings trying to figure out what's best for ME as a chronic depressive -- while, of course, limiting their study to those substances whose effects would pass muster with racist politicians and Christian Science prudes and pharmaceutical executives who want to TREAT a problem rather than CURE it.

This is why drug prohibition is wrong. Once we give up the basic right to control our own minds, literally anything can be plausibly declared to be dangerous for us. As GK Chesterton wrote about liquor prohibition: "People can certainly spoil their health with tea or with tobacco or with twenty other things. And there is no escape for the hygienic logician except to restrain and regulate them all."

"Pharmaceutical companies do not want to end my depression, they want to TREAT it"

This approach to drugs has destroyed my right to heal. As Pihkal and Tihkal make clear, drugs exist that could end my depression in a trice. In a trice. The problem is that pharmaceutical companies do not want to end my depression, they want to TREAT it ¹⁰. That's where all the money is. This is why I have no voice: because everyone to whom I write is making a living by deciding what is best for me. Even without Shulgin, depressed people like myself understood (as did Sigmund Freud) that cocaine was a godsend for the depressed, albeit, like any drug, it has to be used wisely. But self-interested doctors demonized the drug by looking only at downsides, exactly as if they were to judge alcohol by studying drunkards. And this mindset continues to this day. Wade Davis wrote an article about coca in Rolling Stone magazine in 2025 in which he implied that the cocaine alkaloid was justifiably outlawed because doctors discovered 400 cases of cocaine toxicity around the world in the early 20th century ¹¹. What Wade fails to mention is that aspirin is associated with 3,000 deaths a year in the UK alone ¹².

And so millions of folks like myself have to suffer a lifetime from depression because our scientists claim to know better than we do what is good for us.

And this bias is built into the system now. Anyone who researches these subjects will be taken to scientific papers behind academic paywalls, papers full of impressive annotations, hair-splitting titles and lengthy lists of honorifics. Scientists try to overawe us with their professionalism, implicitly telling us that they are speaking ex-cathedra while those of us who feel the effects of drug prohibition are assumed to know nothing.

When I read the user reports in Pihkal, I long and pray to have the kinds of experiences that are documented there. And yet scientists tell me that those experiences could not help me? Please! Surely, that is the height of presumption. I might as well tell YOU that you could not benefit from a cup of coffee in the morning or a "cold one" after a long day at University College London. You would be upset with me, correct? And justifiably so! And this "know-it-all" attitude on the part of science has consequences. It has helped to normalize the deadly policy of drug prohibition and given a veneer of "science" to the absurd claim of America's DEA that time-honored godsends have no positive uses whatsoever. This attitude, in turn, has helped to create an environment in which hundreds of millions of the depressed around the world have no right to heal -- none -- and no right to complain about that fact, either. It is utter disempowerment, courtesy of "medicalization" and drug prohibition.

As for Jay Stevens, he is a typical Drug War pundit. He sees only one stakeholder in the drugs debate: the white young people whom we refuse to educate about safe drug use. The depressed are never considered to be stakeholders. It doesn't make the evening news when we commit suicide -- or simply sit behind closed curtains and wish we were dead. Whenever the modern pundit talks about "the children," I run for my copy of the Bill of Rights, which has already been decimated in America by the idea that we must protect children against chemicals at all cost. That is a childish way to look at substances. That viewpoint is antiscientific, full of willful ignorance and a cruel disdain for the needs of a suffering humanity. We need to learn how to use substances as safely as possible for the benefit of humanity, like grown-ups would do. The US spends over $50 billion a year trying to ruin the lives of drug users ¹³. Imagine if we spent even 1/50th of that amount on teaching kids the true facts of life -- the fact that people in a free society have always desired self-transcendence, as the popularity of alcohol alone makes clear.

We need to realize that saying things like "Drugs kill!" is philosophically equivalent to saying "Fire bad!" This is a caveman attitude, which tells us to fear dangerous things rather than to learn how to use them as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity. We need honest education for kids, both about the adult activity of drug use and about personal responsibility in general. Meanwhile, we need to recognize the following long-ignored fact, that if kids in the west are determined to use drugs unwisely, that tells us something about western society and its policies and attitudes, not about drugs! When we ignore this fact, we invade other countries, in the ultimate case of denial, insisting that they too enact draconian drug laws because of our own country's inability and/or refusal to use drugs as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity.

AFTERWORD

Nor are the depressed the only forgotten stakeholders in the drug debate. Drug prohibition outlaws the philosophical viewpoint of William James by denying us the use of the kinds of substances that changed James' entire view about human consciousness and gave us crucial hints about how to evaluate the Kantian critiques. And yet this is a point that literally no pundit in the world seems to notice except for myself. No one but myself! I alone stood up on behalf of academic freedom in opposition to the FDA's plans to treat laughing gas as a "drug." I alone submitted testimony to the FDA in defense of the legacy of William James.¹⁴ ¹⁵ ¹⁶

And why is everyone so blind to these issues? It's the power of propaganda. For almost a century now, we have been protected by our media from seeing any downsides to drug prohibition and any upsides to drug use.

No one recognizes the power of this self-interested indoctrination to blind them to the obvious. But propaganda works, and freedom-loving westerners ignore that fact at their own peril.

Key Takeaways:

The medicalization effect: when scientists set themselves up as the authorities on how we think and feel.
Drug prohibition turns med-dependent patients into wards of the healthcare state and children for life.
Scientists deny the existence of glaringly obvious drug benefits.
The Vedic people did not need scientists to tell them that Soma juice should inspire the creation of a new religion.
Science is political in the age of drug prohibition.
Pharmaceutical companies want to treat depression, not cure it.
Wade Davis was statistically challenged when he wrote about cocaine in his 2025 article in Rolling Stone, 'The Secret History of Coca'
The depressed have no right to heal, and no right to complain about that disempowerment, either.
Children are not the only stakeholders in the drugs debate.
Saying DRUGS KILL is philosophically identical to saying FIRE BAD.
Drug prohibition outlaws the philosophical viewpoint of William James.
The media censors the positive effects of drug use and the negative effects of drug prohibition.

Notes for essay entitled Scientists are not the experts on my mind and mood: an open letter to David Gems, in response to his review of Pihkal by Alexander Shulgin:

1: Book Review Phikal - A Chemical Love Story / Tihkal - The Continuation Gems, David, London Ageing Research (up)
2: Shulgin, Alexander T, and Ann Shulgin. 2019. Pihkal : A Chemical Love Story. Berkeley, Ca: Transform Press. (up)
3: David disparages drug re-legalization by associating it with worldviews with which he disagrees, like those of Timothy Leary and Terence McKenna. This is just a reminder that fighting drugs is really a proxy fight against unpopular worldviews. Nixon didn't hate marijuana, he hated Hispanics, Blacks and other perceived opponents. (up)
4: Glatter, Robert. 2021. “Can Laughing Gas (Nitrous Oxide) Help People with Treatment-Resistant Depression?” Forbes, June 9, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2021/06/09/can-laughing-gas-nitrous-oxide-help-people-with-treatmentresistant-depre (up)
5: “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)
6: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton DWP (up)
7: Nolen, Stephanie, and Chloë Ellingson. 2025. “Claire Brosseau Wants to Die. Will Canada Let Her?” The New York Times, December 29, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/29/health/assisted-death-mental-illness-canada.html. (up)
8: Open Letter to Claire Brosseau DWP (up)
9: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts DWP (up)
10: Pihkal 2.0: Finding drugs that work for users rather than for pharmaceutical companies DWP (up)
11: The Secret History of Coca Davis, Wade, Rolling Stone magazine, 2025 (up)
12: “Daily Aspirin Linked To More Than 3,000 Deaths Per Year, Scientists Warn.” 2017. HuffPost UK. June 14, 2017. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-aspirin-causes-more-than-3000-deaths-per-year-scientists-warn_uk_593fb481e4b0b13f2c6daa10. (up)
13: “War on Us – the War on Drugs Is a War on All of Us.” 2019. Waronus.com. 2019. http://waronus.com/. (up)
14: How Harvard University Censored the Biography of William James DWP (up)
15: “The Varieties of Religious Experience : William James : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” 2021. Internet Archive. 2021. https://archive.org/details/the-varieties-of-religious-experience_202109. (up)
16: A Philosophical Review of "The Varieties of Religious Experience"-- How William James failed to connect the dots DWP (up)

read more essays here

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

The proof that psychedelics work has always been extant. We are hoodwinked by scientists who convince us that efficacy has not been "proven." This is materialist denial of the obvious.

Prohibition turned habituation into addiction by creating a wide variety of problems for users, including potential arrest, tainted or absent drug supply, and extreme stigmatization.

Just think how many ayahuasca-like godsends that we are going without because we dogmatically refuse to even look for them, out of our materialist disdain for mixing drugs with drugs.

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.

Almost all talk about the supposed intractability of things like addiction are exercises in make-believe. The pundits pretend that godsend medicines do not exist, thus normalizing prohibition by implying that it does not limit progress. It's a tacit form of collaboration.

I've always wondered why we don't just let heroin users be -- or better yet, re-legalize drugs and give them choices. Why are they punished for using heroin daily while we praise 1 in 4 women for taking an even more dependence-causing drug every day of their life?

Psychiatrists refuse to acknowledge that it is hugely disempowering to turn patients into wards of the healthcare state with dependence-causing "meds." End drug prohibition and end the psychiatric pill mill.

The DEA should be tried for crimes against humanity. They have been lying about drugs for 50 years and running interference between human beings and Mother Nature in violation of natural law, depriving us of countless potential and known godsends in order to create more DEA jobs.

All drugs have positive uses. It's absurd to prohibit them because one demographic might misuse them.

Your drug war has caused the disappearance of over 60,000 Mexicans over the last 20 years. It has turned inner cities into shooting galleries. It has turned America into a penal colony. It has destroyed the 4th amendment and put bureaucrats in charge of deciding if our religions are "sincere."

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

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.

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP

(up)

Scientists are not the experts on my mind and mood

an open letter to David Gems, in response to his review of Pihkal by Alexander Shulgin

Key Takeaways:

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

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

Diary of a Drug Fiend