an open letter to Iolanda Ganea, peer review assistant for the Academia Journal on Mental Health and Well-Being
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 28, 2025
Dear Iolanda:
I received a request to review "Psilocybin in Psychiatric Therapeutics" for the Academia Journal of Mental Health and Well-Being1. I would love to help, but I am afraid I do not qualify to be a reviewer according to your own criteria because I have no PhD.
I would add, however, that in a sane world, I WOULD be allowed to review such a paper given my personal history with both psilocybin and psychiatry and the fact that I have written hundreds of essays on this topic over the years. Unfortunately, there is a bias in the whole peer review process that ignores philosophical angles to such papers and that shows no interest in the views of the hoi polloi who are merely on the receiving end of psychiatric nostrums.
Again, I would love to provide a review, but it does not seem that academia today is open to the views of folks on the receiving end of psychiatric therapies.
They bar me from the discussion in the name of professionalism, failing to realize that by doing so, they are "reckoning without their host."
So I must leave the field to allow our credentialed scientists to carry on their private discussions amongst themselves, without input from those whom their policy decisions will ultimately affect. My only role, as my psychiatrist would tell me, is to "shut up and take my meds!"
AFTERWORD
My email to Iolanda was a trifle more diplomatic. I have fleshed out my grievances in the online version of my letter above in order to stress the problematic nature of the incestuous academic status quo, thanks to which our credentialed experts feel free to ignore all highly relevant insights unless those insights come from within the Ivory Tower itself.
Discussion Topics
June 02, 2025
Attention Teachers and Professors: Brian is not writing these essays for his health. (Well, in a way he is, actually, but that's not important now.) His goal is to get the world thinking about the anti-democratic and anti-scientific idiocy of the War on Drugs. You can stimulate your students' brainwashed grey matter on this topic by having them read the above essay and then discuss the following questions as a group!
Behaviorism and professionalism silence the voices of the 'patient.' Explain.
List the many reasons why Iolanda might be disinclined to respond to the above email.
Why does it sometimes seem like the patient's only role is to "shut up and take their meds"?
Author's Follow-up:
October 27, 2025
This is the whole problem with the so-called mental healthcare system. Doctors claim to be the experts on mind and mood, and so they live in their irrelevant world of journals and research papers and self-congratulatory conferences at the Bethesda North Marriott, where they discuss what they're going to do for people like myself -- without my input, of course, for what do I know? I am just a patient, after all, and they are the experts. This is the lucrative world that doctors created for themselves when they destroyed the reputation of cocaine by judging it only by its worst possible uses 23 , exactly as if they had determined the utility of alcohol by studying only alcoholics! No one asked the depressed what they thought about the drug. No one mentioned the fact that cocaine could end depression for literally hundreds of millions of people.
And yet those emperors were wearing no clothes. For it takes no materialist doctor to solve the problem of human depression. There are plenty of drugs which can do just that, and in real-time, virtually all of which are far less dependence-causing than Big Pharma drugs. Of course, when I say "works," I mean that they work as far as the user is concerned -- whereas the materialists mean something quite different. They insist on establishing efficacy by looking under a microscope, not by listening to any mere patient. You remember in high-school how the teachers told you that you should be honest about your feelings, and that feelings were neither right nor wrong in themselves? Well, doctors beg to differ. You may SAY that you feel great thanks to a given drug, but doctors will be the judge of that, thank you very much! This is why materialist doctors like Robert Glatter write articles in Forbes magazine in which they doubt the power of laughing gas to help the depressed: laughing gas, for God's sake 4 .
Freud himself knew that cocaine was a cure for depression for most people 5 -- and, of course, that scared doctors to death. They made a living treating people for depression after all. They could not stand by and let this drug put them out of business. So they evaluated cocaine based on worst-case scenarios only 6, exactly as if they were to judge alcohol by only looking at alcoholics. They then proceeded to launch a media campaign to demonize the drug, writing op-ed scare pieces in which they referred to the drug's worst possible uses, never even noting the fact that the depressed themselves considered cocaine to be a godsend. Nor did these doctors ever acknowledge their vested interest in demonizing cocaine, the fact that the drug was a threat to their very business model. And so they destroyed the reputation of the drug, thereby making it easy for demagogue politicians to outlaw it. It was a win for doctors and racists and authoritarians and Christian Scientists, but not for the hundreds of millions of the depressed who were thereby denied their right to heal.
Those hundreds of millions continue to suffer unnecessarily today thanks to drug prohibition -- while health care "experts" like those on Academia.edu sit in their ivory towers and talk about biochemical pathways and antidepressants and therapies that take a LIFETIME to bear meager fruit, if any. And I can have no say in the matter for the materialist doctors are the experts 7. They will not even TALK to a mere patient, let alone invite him to a big important conference -- not even if a patient has been on their drugs for 30 years and so might have been supposed to have something important to say on the subject. No, patients are children in the age of drug prohibition 8 . Our job is to stay at home and see what second-best cures the doctors can come up with for their captive audience: namely, the depressed who have been rendered hopelessly dependent on Big Pharma drugs for life thanks to the drug prohibition that the doctors themselves so zealously helped to bring about 9.
CONCLUSION
It was the category error par excellence to place materialists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place. In a sane world, the experts would be the drug users themselves -- not the drug-demonizing doctors who wish to scare us into using only their "scientific" drugs. I have been on those "miracle cures" now for over 30 years and so I have some experience on their effects; in a sane world, my views would be purposefully solicited by the "experts." I would be invited on purpose to submit articles to their journals and to attend their ritzy conferences as a guest of honor. Doctors would be waiting, as it were, with bated breath to hear my informed verdict on their nostrums. Hence my excitement when I first received a letter from Academia.edu soliciting a paper on the subject of mind and mood medicine; hence also my subsequent disappointment when I discovered that the solicitation had been sent in error: it had been delivered automatically thanks to a computer algorithm that had yet to learn the difference between a high-and-mighty doctor and a mere patient like myself.
There are neither "drugs" nor "meds" as those terms are used today. All substances have potential good uses and bad uses. The terms as used today carry value judgements, as in meds good, drugs bad.
We've all been taught since grade school that human beings cannot use psychoactive medicines wisely. That is just a big fat lie. It's criminal to keep substances illegal that can awaken the mind and remind us of our full potential in life.
The whole drug war is based on the anti-American idea that the way to avoid problems is to lie and prevaricate and persuade people not to ask questions.
I'm told antidepressant withdrawal is fine because it doesn't cause cravings. Why is it better to feel like hell than to have a craving? In any case, cravings are caused by prohibition. A sane world could also end cravings with the help of other drugs.
Materialist scientists cannot triumph over addiction because their reductive focus blinds them to the obvious: namely, that drugs which cheer us up ACTUALLY DO cheer us up. Hence they keep looking for REAL cures while folks kill themselves for want of laughing gas and MDMA.
The DEA conceives of "drugs" as only justifiable in some time-honored ritual format, but since when are bureaucrats experts on religion? I believe, with the Vedic people and William James, in the importance of altered states. To outlaw such states is to outlaw my religion.
The search for SSRIs has always been based on a flawed materialist premise that human consciousness is nothing but a mix of brain chemicals and so depression can be treated medically like any other physical condition.
Almost all of today's magazine articles about human psychology should come with the following disclaimer:
"This article was written from the standpoint of Drug War ideology, which holds that outlawed substances can have no beneficial uses whatsoever."
Healthline posted an article in 2021 about the benefits of getting off of antidepressants. They did not even mention the biggest benefit: NO LONGER BEING AN ETERNAL PATIENT -- no longer being a child in the eyes of an all-knowing healthcare system.
The line drawn between recreational and medical use is wishful thinking on the part of drug warriors. Recreation, according to Webster's, is "refreshment or diversion," and both have positive knock-on effects in the lives of real people.
There are neither "drugs" nor "meds" as those terms are used today. All substances have potential good uses and bad uses. The terms as used today carry value judgements, as in meds good, drugs bad.
