no access
Solquinox sounded great, until I found out I wasn't invited
Solquinox sounded great, until I found out I wasn't invited
an open letter to the Psychedelic Society of Vermont
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
August 9, 2025
A few days ago, I saw a Tweet by Dr. Rick Barnett inviting his followers to check out an upcoming annual event that he is hosting in Vermont in September of this year. The profered link took me to a page entitled "Soulquinox: Psychedelic Science and Spirituality Summit," sponsored apparently by the Psychedelic Society of Vermont. The site intro was enticing to me as someone who "has skin in this game," given my intention of using psychedelics to get off of Effexor in the coming year. It was written by Rick himself and begins as follows:
"Each year our community gathers in the Green Mountains of Vermont to "cerebrate" (think deeply about something; ponder) and celebrate the role psychedelics may have in personal growth, healing, and health."
"Great," I thought to myself, "Those topics are right up my alley. I'm going through my own decisions right now about healing with psychedelics." So I clicked on the link that said "register now"... and got a rude awakening. It turns out that mere patients are not welcome at this event, it's only for "health professionals." To be exact, the pop-up notice admonished me as follows:
"This event is for health professionals only. This applies to you and any/all of your +1 attendees."
Well, let me tell you, my "+1 attendees" were not too happy to read THAT!
Okay, I can kind of understand the restriction: the guys want to talk shop. But it seems to me that they are "reckoning without their host" if they do not at least hear from one person who speaks for the millions (including the 1 in 4 American women) who are dependent on Big Pharma meds for life. What is the psychedelic renaissance doing for them -- and more importantly, what do THEY have to say about protocols that THEY believe will work? When it comes to using psychedelics for drug withdrawal, the patients are the experts because they can tell you what would work for them from a psychological point of view, rather than you telling them what should work for them. Perhaps I'm touchy having been ignored for years now, but I get this message all the time from psychiatrists: I should be taking my meds, not speculating on protocols. That's THEIR job, thank me very much. As Professor Lilloman said after interrupting a doubtful Mel Brooks in "High Anxiety":
It IS "nece"! I know what is "nece." Don't tell ME what is "nece." I tell YOU what is "nece."
So thinking, I sent the following message to the Soulquinox sponsor, the Psychedelic Society of Vermont..
I appreciate that you want to have a meeting with service providers only, but shouldn't you be open to the ideas of long-term recipients of mental health services in the USA, so that you can get an idea of what THEY think might work for THEM?
I'm a 65-year-old trying to get off of Effexor and I have a plan that I'd like your folks to discuss: namely, the compounding of Effexor such that I get off it in a year while the dose drops 364/365th every day -- during which time I microdose on psilocybin and any other godsend that makes sense and is (or becomes) legal (for a wonder), such as huachuma cactus.
When I presented this idea to my psychiatrist, he said he had never heard of such a thing and thought I should drop my Effexor dose by 35 mgs every month instead, and then start "counting pilules," though he himself said this would cause brain zaps and the possible return of my depression.
Now, I am not a doctor, but my plan makes perfect psychological sense and does not try to turn me into a compounding pharmacist. Psychological misgivings are minimized, first by the low almost imperceptible changes in dose and second by the fact that one knows they are getting help from natural medicine. For we all know how high recidivism rates are for getting off such drugs without the help of plant teachers. Yet no one wants to hear from me because I'm just a patient.
I have written hundreds of essays on this topic as the Drug War Philosopher at abolishthedea.com and I am still looking for someone in the healing business who thinks a patient is worth listening to on such topics. Too many of them think we should just shut up and take our meds -- that we should have no role in deciding what would work for us.
The healthcare business needs to do better by the millions that it has turned into eternal patients, and one start would be for counselors to actively solicit ideas from those who have been disempowered for decades now by the pill mill of materialist science.
There are no merely recreational drugs. All drugs that elate have obvious potential uses for the depressed.
Everyone's biggest concern is the economy? Is nobody concerned that Trump has promised to pardon insurrectionists and get revenge on critics? Is no one concerned that Trump taught Americans to doubt democracy by questioning our election fairness before one single vote was cast?
The FDA uses reductive materialism to justify and normalize the views of Cortes and Pizarro with respect to entheogenic medicine.
It's a category error to say that scientists can tell us if psychoactive drugs "really work." It's like asking Dr. Spock of Star Trek if hugging "really works." ("Hugging is highly illogical, Captain.")
Some outlawed drugs grow new neurons in the brain. To refuse to use them makes us complicit in the dementia of our loved ones!
Prohibitionists are responsible for the 200,000-plus killed in the US-inspired Mexican drug war in the 21st century.
I can think of no greater intrusion than to deny a person autonomy over how they think and feel in life. It is sort of a meta-intrusion, the mother of all anti-democratic intrusions.
The book "Plants of the Gods" is full of plants and fungi that could help addicts and alcoholics, sometimes in the plant's existing form, sometimes in combinations, sometimes via extracting alkaloids, etc. But drug warriors need addiction to sell their prohibition ideology.
Mad in America solicits personal stories about people trying to get off of antidepressants, but they will not publish your story if you want to use entheogenic medicines to help you. They're afraid their readers can't handle the truth.
To say that taking SSRIs daily is better than using opium daily is a value judgement, not a scientific one.
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)