bird icon for twitter

Searching Peru for Sacred Plant Medicine

in response to 'Entheogens and Sacred Psychology,' by Samuel Bendeck Sotillos

by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

April 18, 2024

In response to "Entheogens and Sacred Psychology," by Samuel Bendeck Sotillos, published 2024 on Academia.edu1.

Good afternoon, Samuel.

I have just read your wonderful paper entitled "Entheogens and Sacred Psychology." It is one of the few papers about "drugs" in which I find nothing to gainsay. However, it has inspired me to make a series of observations based on my own experience with these topics. As I believe I have mentioned, I am a 65-year-old chronic depressive and I have just traveled to Peru in order to learn about psychedelic plant medicine, aka master plants or plant teachers, from a philosophical and psychological point of view. I had hoped to use some of those medicines as well (particularly the huachuma cactus) to gain some of the routinely acknowledged benefits of that drug (a feeling of love and oneness with humanity), thinking I could eventually find therein the motivational mindset needed to break my lifelong dependence on Big Pharma meds (the kind upon which one and four American women are dependent for life). But I have been forced to delay the experience until an upcoming trip to Peru in June.

I will not give you a blow-by-blow account of the obstacles that I encountered in my attempts to use huachuma on my first trip to South America, but those experiences, frustrating as they were, highlighted some interesting issues yet to be explored about the fusion of psychoactive drugs and the western mindset, such as: "Should I feel guilty about trying to 'score' huachuma powder in Cusco in order to create a drinkable concoction of the San Pedro cactus by myself and for my own psychological, religious, philosophical and spiritual purposes?" I certainly felt rather low as I was slinking around Cusco, in my unexpectedly difficult quest to find the drug (coca leaves, on the other hand, were prominently available in every other street stall) though maybe that's a good thing: maybe shaman should be the gatekeepers of substances like huachuma cactus. That said, I am not sure how that situation would jibe with the western ideal of free academic inquiry, to have all my psychedelic experiences mediated through the rites and ceremonies of a religious tradition of which I am largely ignorant, especially when that religion is itself being mediated in many cases merely through the informed imaginations of well-meaning outsiders with respect to those shamanic traditions of the Inca that were so ruthlessly suppressed by the Spanish in colonial times.

After all, William James himself exhorted us as philosophers to study altered states2. For me, that would mean systemically using the substance under various circumstances, at various doses, at various times, in various situations and environments, in order to see what can and perhaps cannot be learned and/or felt thanks to such use. So the idea that I must necessarily associate a drug and its effects with Andean rituals seems problematic to me, it seems to me a bit of a "science stopper," even though I personally love what I'm learning about the Andean Cosmovision and the religious culture of the Inca. It is true, as I think you say, that westerners really do not have a religious tradition that they can "bring" to such drugs, but I would also point out that the DEA is doing everything it can to keep this from happening. If one wants to have their religion outlawed in America, all they need do is announce that the use of a drug like huachuma is part of their religious rites. The DEA will hound that church to the Supreme Court if necessary to prevent sacred usage. Even if the DEA fails in court, they will subsequently bind the church in question with such bureaucratic red tape and expensive "safety" requirements as to effectively nullify the victory thus obtained.

Thanks again for the fascinating paper. If you find time, I invite you to read below some further thoughts that occurred to me while reading it.

Sincerely Yours


As you correctly point out, materialist dogma and presuppositions make it difficult for westerners to approach drugs from a spiritual mindset. I would add the following: that materialist dogma blinds doctors to common sense. This is why Dr. Robert Glatter could publish an article in Forbes Magazine in 2021 with the following hilarious title: "Can laughing gas help those with treatment-resistant depression?3" As a 65-year-old lifelong depressive, I say, "Of course it could." And why? For the same reason that MDMA could, and the coca leaf could, and even opium and cocaine could. Because feeling good is feeling good - materialist dogma notwithstanding - and "looking forward" to feeling good also makes one feel good. This is common psychological sense - or it used to be until doctors decided that they would henceforth believe in "empirically validated techniques only." Such doctors forget that psychoactive drug use is not just about chemicals but also about the hopes and dreams of the user, regarding which the doctor has no expertise whatsoever. Psychologically speaking, drug use is not just about a cheap high, or even about spiritual ecstasy, but it is about the health-producing ANTICIPATION of such experiences4.

This reductionist bias helps normalize drug-war tyranny by telling us, in effect, that psychoactive drugs have no positive uses after all, so why should we complain about the new prohibition? This is why I consider modern scientists to be co-conspirators in the government's war on drugs. Most of this normalization, however, comes from the fact that scientists today have "damned" drugs in the sense that Charles Fort used that term in "The Book of the Damned.5" As far as many scientists are concerned, psychoactive drugs do not exist. That is why we see endless articles in Psychology Today, and Science News, and Scientific American, announcing some new treatment for depression, which we're told is a tough nut to crack, and yet the authors never tell us that they are ignoring drugs that could obviously cheer up the user. For just one instance: Laughing gas kits could be made available to the suicidal in the same way that Epi pens are made available for the allergic6. But instead of taking this common sense step to prevent suicides, the FDA is currently considering laws to treat laughing gas like a drug, thereby making it even less available to the suicidal7 (not to mention the followers of William James). Instance two: the outlawing of "feel good" drugs means, in practice, that we would rather fry the brains of the depressed than to let them use "drugs.8" Thus the Drug War is nothing less than the perversion of the normal values of Christianity into those of a fanatical form of Christian Science.

Western Doctors

A number of providers of plant medicine retreats conspicuously involve a number of western doctors in their ceremonies, complete with white lab coat, which to me is something of a turnoff (not to mention a kind of cultural appropriation, replacing the shaman, at least for the nonce, with a chart-holding western doctor). Certainly, we should be informed of all contraindications for any upcoming drug experience - but at some point this care becomes infantilization and is completely outside the spirit of shamanic care, at least as I understand it. It smacks of the Drug Warrior effort to keep us all children when it comes to drugs: to make drug use the one area of human risk in which "one swallow makes a summer," in which any risk is too much risk - a viewpoint that we westerners do not adopt with regard to any other risky activity on earth - not to the free-climbing of mountains nor even to the shooting of guns.


The term "hallucinogens" is problematic in the light of Aldous Huxley's 'filter theory' and the bifurcationist critique of Whitehead. To use the term "hallucinogens" seems to imply that there is one single visual impression that all normal people should perceive at any given time and that to see the world otherwise is to be pathological. "Hallucinogens" seems to imply that there is an ultimate indisputable reality out there, and that sounds like the noumena to me, of which Immanuel Kant said that we can know nothing.

Cultural Appropriation?

I am wary of the term "cultural appropriation" because as a westerner (and one who has gone without godsend medicine for a lifetime now), I fear that the response to such a threat will introduce yet another roadblock to my eternally postponed use of naturally-occurring entheogens even before they have been entirely legalized (or rather re-legalized) in the States and, perhaps ultimately, in the world. A couple comments, therefore:

First, I think the issue of appropriation arises mainly because of drug prohibition, which naturally results in psychedelic tourism, in which both spirit seekers and "drug fanatics" feel compelled to travel to countries in which psychoactive substances are legal. No "thrill seekers" would need to travel south if prohibition were ended. To paraphrase a recent thrill seeker on Reddit (one who deemed the use of huachuma cactus to be both gastrically problematic and unnecessarily labor-intensive): "Why would I travel to Peru when I can just pop a tablet of XYZ in the States?" Of course, most of us are deterred by the illegality of the latter drug, but in the absence of prohibition, there would be far fewer Americans traveling to South America to buy their drugs and thus far less potential for the erosion of local religious purity in the name of international capitalism.

I do not deny that cultural appropriation is a problem, however, especially when it seeks to turn the experience of time-honored medicinal drug use into yet another capitalist product. But the worst appropriation for me is exemplified by the FDA's recent fast-tracking of a form of LSD to fight anxiety9. It sounded great, until I read that visions and euphoria were to be considered adverse reactions for this medication. Then it was so clear to me: the FDA was approving the drug only because the manufacturer had emasculated it, removing everything that had made it popular in the past. In this way, the manufacturer could benefit from the notoriety of the drug while not incurring the wrath of the "straight" community in so doing. They could no doubt do this with a clear conscience because as materialists, they saw no value in fluffy-feely outcomes like "visions and ecstasy," whereas, for myself and many others, the visions and ecstasy were the whole reason for using LSD. This is a clear case of cultural appropriation. The manufacturer seeks to profit from LSD's notoriety in the Bohemian community while yet suppressing all the aspects of the drug that made it objectionable to the power broker culture in Washington, D.C.

It's as if the FDA had spoken to the manufacturers as follows: "We will approve the drug, as long as there is no chance of it inspiring the user with a new religion or a new way of viewing the world. Above all, they must not enjoy it too much!" I need hardly add that these are ideological stipulations, not medical ones.

Also, taken to their extreme, the arguments used in attacking cultural appropriation can be uncomfortably reminiscent of the racist views in many U.S. courts today that access to certain drugs and religions may be restricted based on ethnicity10. Thus a Native American may use peyote in the Native American Church on a legal basis, whereas I am unable to use peyote because I am a Caucasian and have no genetic linkage to such a practice. I find that kind of reasoning ignorant, hateful and prejudiced in the extreme, and far from any American value that I have ever heard of. Therefore I think we need to progress carefully in rectifying perceived cultural appropriation, lest our cure proves worse than the illness.

Safety First? (How about second?)

Avicenna once said that he valued a "wide" life over a "long" one. This is a world view that Drug Warriors cannot seem to understand. For most of us, safety is not the number-one goal in our life. And yet when science is in charge of determining the legality of drugs, safety is always placed first, leaving the goals and aspirations of the potential drug users in a distant second. This is why laughing gas is close to being completely illegal: it might hurt a few ignorant teens - those teens whom we have refused on "principle" to educate about safe use. (Somehow the millions of depressed who have to go without drugs like laughing gas are never considered as stakeholders in America's criminalization debates.) This is also why we have a National Institute of Drug Abuse rather than a National Institute of Drug Use. The government's ideology is that use is unsafe and therefore wrong. Needless to say, such an attitude when applied to horseback riding would result in the immediate end of all equestrian activity, the more so in that horseback riding is the number-one cause of traumatic brain injury in America11.

The Psychedelic Renaissance

The Psychedelic Renaissance ignores the one demographic that has the most right to profit from it: namely, the millions of depressed Americans who have been turned into eternal patients thanks to the War on Drugs, which outlawed all drugs that really work for depression, shunting the depressed off onto Big Pharma medicines that cause the very chemical imbalances that they purport to solve12. This is why I went to Peru: because I am having to perform clinical trials on myself that materialist doctors refuse to perform, based largely on liability and PR fears over a wildly overblown threat called "serotonin syndrome." No, I am not a scientist, but I know some prima facie truths: like, "feeling good is good," and "looking forward to feeling good" is good, and "feeling a sense of oneness with the world and my fellow human being cannot HELP but increase my ability to rely less on the psychoactive substances that I have come to detest, insofar as they have turned me into a ward of the healthcare state.13"

Tech Crazy

We Americans are excited about Elon Musk inserting technology into the bodies of human beings, but I think it's bizarre that we would seek to solve problems like depression with technology in a world in which we refuse to solve such problems with plants and fungi14. It bespeaks a truly hubristic faith in "the latest thing" and an ignorant disdain for the blessings of Mother Nature.

Mind Control

Americans fret about mind control with drugs: but it is already happening! One in four American women take a Big Pharma med every day of their life. This is the greatest mass pharmacological dystopia of all times. But as we might expect, such REAL dystopias are invisible to its victims because of the existing weltanschauung. These women are not on DRUGS after all, they are on blessed MEDS! Cui bono? The drug industry and its fat-cat champions in media and Washington.

Since these drugs do not end the depression that they are targeting, it begs the question: what are they for? Keeping women from committing suicide? If 1 in 4 American women would kill themselves without these "meds," there is something wrong with America, not with women. One can only conclude that the drugs are meant to keep American females content (if not actually happy) with the spiritually meaningless world of unfettered capitalism. That sounds like "The Stepford Wives" to me, but it seems that science is America's new religion, and no one doubts the power of science to "solve" problems like depression. Surely only a Creationist could think otherwise.

The question is not, are SSRIs and SNRIs worthwhile in the abstract? It is rather: does it make sense to use them while yet denying access to an untold number of Mother Nature's potential godsends that clearly inspire love and peace of mind, almost none of which are as dependence-causing as Big Pharma meds? Surely the answer is no!


Finally, you rightly say that there are no cure-alls. However, opium is pretty close. It was considered a panacea by most ancient doctors. That's why it seems so ignorant that America increasingly claims that it has no positive uses whatsoever. This defamation campaign against opium has consequences in the real world: hundreds of Indian hospitals no longer carry morphine because of the bureaucratic hurdles that have been put in place in response to stateside fearmongering. In reality, opium is actually a cure for the common cold - but don't look to find that on any politically correct list of facts. And there would be no euthanasia debate if opium were re-legalized, for everyone would have the right to decide on a peaceful death without the approval of their government, merely by taking what Edgar Allan Poe would describe as "an immoderate dose of morphine."

As Jim Hogshire wrote in "Opium for the Masses":

"The poppy's central and indispensable position in our civilization makes access to it important, and thus forbidding public access to the poppy is staggeringly cruel. Ceding control of opiates means ceding control of pain relief to the State." --Jim Hogshire15

As for psychedelics, Paul Stamets cured his teenage stammering problem in one afternoon "on mushrooms." It helped him "get outside of himself" and see what was really going on, psychologically speaking, with his pervasive tic, thus giving him the power to change16.

Everyone knows that no drug is a cure-all. Unfortunately, many also claim to know that "drugs" have no positive uses whatsoever, except those that are illusory and or fatal. Of course, to the extent that this is true, it is so because of Drug War prohibition itself, which results in a corrupt drug supply while refusing to teach safe use.


1 Sotillos, Samuel Bendeck, Entheogens and Sacred Psychology, Academia.Edu, 2024 (up)
2 James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Philosophical Library, New York, 1902 (up)
3 Can Laughing Gas Help People with Treatment Resistant Depression?, Forbes Magazine, 2021 (up)
4 Quass, Brian, The Therapeutic Value of Anticipation, 2020 (up)
5 Fort, Charles, The Book of the Damned, (up)
6 Quass, Brian, Suicide and the Drug War, 2022 (up)
7 Quass, Brian, Why the FDA should not schedule Laughing Gas, 2023 (up)
8 Quass, Brian, Electroshock Therapy and the Drug War, 2020 (up)
9 Quass, Brian, LSD for puritans, 2024 (up)
10 Quass, Brian, Too White to Use Mushrooms, 2019 (up)
11 Horses Kill, The Partnership for a Death Free America, (up)
12 Quass, Brian, The War on Drugs and the Psychiatric Pill Mill, 2023 (up)
13 Quass, Brian, How the Drug War Makes Americans Stupid, 2022 (up)
14 Quass, Brian, This is your brain on Neuralink, 2019 Elon Musk (up)
15 Quass, Brian, Opium for the Masses by Jim Hogshire, 2023 (up)
16 Stamets, Paul, Fantastic Fungi: The Big-Screen Revival Tour, (up)

Next essay: Replacing antidepressants with entheogens
Previous essay: Stop Treating Drug Users Like Children

More Essays Here

LSD Tweets

Typical materialist protocol. Take all the "wonder" out of the drug and sell it as a one-size-fits all "reductionist" cure for anxiety. Notice that they refer to hallucinations and euphoria as "adverse effects." What next? Communion wine with the religion taken out of it?
I looked up the company: it's all about the damn stock market and money. The FDA outlaws LSD until we remove all the euphoria and the visions. That's ideology, not science. Just relegalize drugs and stop telling me how much ecstasy and insight I can have in my life!!
The MindMed company (makers of LSD Lite) tell us that euphoria and visions are "adverse effects": that's not science, that's an arid materialist philosophy that does not believe in spiritual transcendence.
The FDA says that MindMed's LSD drug works. But this is the agency that has not been able to decide for decades now if coca "works," or if laughing gas "works." It's not just science going on at the FDA, it's materialist presuppositions about what constitutes evidence.
I have dissed MindMed's new LSD "breakthrough drug" for philosophical reasons. But we can at least hope that the approval of such a "de-fanged" LSD will prove to be a step in the slow, zigzag path toward re-legalization.
Clearly a millennia's worth of positive use of coca by the Peruvian Inca means nothing to the FDA. Proof must show up under a microscope.
Another problem with MindMed's LSD: every time I look it up on Google, I get a mess of links about the stock market. The drug is apparently a godsend for investors. They want to profit from LSD by neutering it and making it politically correct: no inspiration, no euphoria.

Prohibition Tweets

Democratic societies need to outlaw prohibition for many reasons, the first being the fact that prohibition removes millions of minorities from the voting rolls, thereby handing elections to fascists and insurrectionists.
When folks die in horse-related accidents, we need to be asking: who sold the victim the horse? We've got to crack down on folks who peddle this junk -- and ban books like Black Beauty that glamorize horse use.
Today's Washington Post reports that "opioid pills shipped" DROPPED 45% between 2011 and 2019..... while fatal overdoses ROSE TO RECORD LEVELS! Prohibition is PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE.
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.
Drugs like opium and psychedelics should come with the following warning: "Outlawing of this product may result in inner-city gunfire, civil wars overseas, and rigged elections in which drug warriors win office by throwing minorities in jail."
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.
If we let "science" decide about drugs, i.e. base freedom on health concerns, then tea can be as easily outlawed as beer. The fact that horses are not illegal shows that prohibition is not about health. It's about the power to outlaw certain "ways of being in the world."
The formula is easy: pick a substance that folks are predisposed to hate anyway, then keep hounding the public with stories about tragedies somehow related to that substance. Show it ruining lives in movies and on TV. Don't lie. Just keep showing all the negatives.
Then folks like Sabet will accuse folks like myself of ignoring the "facts." No, it is Sabet who is ignoring the facts -- facts about dangerous horses and free climbing. He's also ignoring all the downsides of prohibition, whose laws lead to the election of tyrants.
That's the problem with prohibition. It is not ultimately a health question but a question about priorities and sensibilities -- and those topics are open to lively debate and should not be the province of science, especially when natural law itself says mother nature is ours.
I personally hate beets and I could make a health argument against their legality. Beets can kill for those allergic to them. Sure, it's a rare condition, but since when has that stopped a prohibitionist from screaming bloody murder?
I can think of no greater intrusion than to deny one autonomy over how they think and feel in life. It is sort of a meta-intrusion, the mother of all anti-democratic intrusions.
Enforced by the blatantly rights-crushing solicitation of urine from the king's subjects, as if to underscore the fact that your very digestive system is controlled by the state.
Until prohibition ends, rehab is all about enforcing a Christian Science attitude toward psychoactive medicines (with the occasional hypocritical exception of Big Pharma meds).
Philip Jenkins reports that Rophynol had positive uses for treating mental disorders until the media called it the "date rape drug." We thus punished those who were benefitting from the drug, tho' the biggest drug culprit in date rape is alcohol. Oprah spread the fear virally.
This is the "Oprah fallacy," which has led to so much suffering. She told women they were fools if they accepted a drink from a man. That's crazy. If we are terrified by such a statistically improbable event, we should be absolutely horrified by horses and skateboards.
This hysterical reaction to rare negative events actually creates more rare negative events. This is why the DEA publicizes "drug problems," because by making them well known, they make the problems more prevalent and can thereby justify their huge budget.
The Partnership for a Death Free America is launching a campaign to celebrate the 50th year of Richard Nixon's War on Drugs. We need to give credit where credit's due for the mass arrest of minorities, the inner city gun violence and the civil wars that it's generated overseas.
In 1886, coca enthusiast JJ Tschudi referred to prohibitionists as 'kickers.' He wrote: "If we were to listen to these kickers, most of us would die of hunger, for the reason that nearly everything we eat or drink has fallen under their ban."
Drug Warriors never take responsibility for incentivizing poor kids throughout the west to sell drugs. It's not just in NYC and LA, it's in modest-sized towns in France. Find public housing, you find drug dealing. It's the prohibition, damn it!
I don't believe in the materialist paradigm upon which SSRIs were created, according to which humans are interchangeable chemical robots amenable to the same treatment for human sadness. Let me use laughing gas and MDMA and coca and let the materialists use SSRIs.
What prohibitionists forget is that every popular but dangerous activity, from horseback riding to drug use, will have its victims. You cannot save everybody, and when you try to do so by law, you kill far more than you save, meanwhile destroying democracy in the process.
Prohibition is based on two huge lies: 1) that there are no benefits to drug use; and 2) that there are no downsides to prohibition.
The 1932 movie "Scarface" starts with on-screen text calling for a crackdown on armed gangs in America. There is no mention of the fact that a decade's worth of Prohibition had created those gangs in the first place.
The worst form of government is not communism, socialism or even unbridled capitalism. The worst form of government is a Christian Science Theocracy, in which the government controls how much you are allowed to think and feel in life.
The Shipiba have learned to heal human beings physically, psychologically and spiritually with what they call "onanyati," plant allies and guides, such as Bobinsana, which "envelops seekers in a cocoon of love." You know: what the DEA would call "junk."
And where did politicians get the idea that irresponsible white American young people are the only stakeholders when it comes to the question of re-legalizing drugs??? There are hundreds of millions of other stakeholders: philosophers, pain patients, the depressed.
Yes, BUT when they say "drugs plus therapy," they don't mean drugs in general. They mean a small selection of drugs that pass muster with pharmacologically clueless politicians.
I agree that Big Pharma drugs have wrought disaster when used in psychotherapy -- but it is common sense that non-Big Pharma drugs that elate could be used to prevent suicide and obviate the need for ECT.
There are a potentially vast number of non-addictive drugs that could be used strategically in therapy. They elate and "free the tongue" to help talk therapy really work. Even "addictive" drugs can be used non-addictively, prohibitionist propaganda notwithstanding.
We need to start thinking of drug-related deaths like we do about car accidents: They're terrible, and yet they should move us to make driving safer, not to outlaw driving. To think otherwise is to swallow the drug war lie that "drugs" can have no positive uses.
The DEA outlawed MDMA in 1985, thereby depriving soldiers of a godsend treatment for PTSD. Apparently, the DEA staff slept well at night in the early 2000s as American soldiers were having their lives destroyed by IEDs.
Imagine someone starting their book about antibiotics by saying that he's not trying to suggest that we actually use them. We should not have to apologize for being honest about drugs. If prohibitionists think that honesty is wrong, that's their problem.
I, for one, am actually TRYING to recommend drugs like MDMA and psilocybin as substitutes for shock therapy. In fact, I would recommend almost ANY pick-me-up drug as an alternative to knowingly damaging the human brain. That's more than the hateful DEA can say.
A pharmacologically savvy drug dealer would have no problem getting someone off one drug because they would use the common sense practice of fighting drugs with drugs. But materialist doctors would rather that the patient suffer than to use such psychologically obvious methods.
If there's any doubt about this, check out the 2021 article in Forbes in which a materialist doctor professes to doubt whether laughing gas could help the depressed. Materialists are committed to seeing the world from the POV of Spock from Star Trek.
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.
Oregon's drug policy is incoherent and cruel. The rich and healthy spend $4,000 a week on psilocybin. The poor and chemically dependent are thrown in jail, unless they're on SSRIs, in which case they're congratulated for "taking their meds."
Prohibitionists have blood on their hands. People do not naturally die in the tens of thousands from opioid use, notwithstanding the lies of 19th-century missionaries in China. It takes bad drug policy to accomplish that.

William James Tweets

William James knew that there were substances that could elate. However, it never occurred to him that we should use such substances to prevent suicide. It seems James was blinded to this possibility by his puritanical assumptions.
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.

front cover of Drug War Comic Book

Buy the Drug War Comic Book by the Drug War Philosopher Brian Quass, featuring 150 hilarious op-ed pics about America's disgraceful war on Americans

You have been reading an article entitled, Searching Peru for Sacred Plant Medicine: in response to 'Entheogens and Sacred Psychology,' by Samuel Bendeck Sotillos, published on April 18, 2024 on For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)