Why Almost Any Psychoactive Drug Can Be Used for Religious Purposes
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
January 20, 2024
There is a simplistic notion, even on the part of reformers, that only officially "entheogenic1" medicines can be used religiously. To say this is to ignore the obvious, something that modern psychology, alas, has found all too easy to do in the age of the Drug War.
Take the following instance:
For at least 48 hours after I was sedated for dental surgery, I felt an unusual sense of being 'favorably disposed' toward the world. I was thinking of ways to be more generous to folks around me and was, in general, taking my problems a little less seriously. this state of mind was apparently induced by the effects of the anesthesia. and yet the substance(s) used would surely not classify as an entheogen, or even as an empathogen, as the terms are currently defined. yet common sense tells us that such a drug can help us achieve religious goals, such as being more loving toward our fellow human being. Unfortunately common sense has been banned from the laboratory in the age of the Drug War. That's why modern materialists can't figure out whether drugs like laughing gas and MDMA could help the depressed.2.
One could imagine, in fact, a church at which one is given, once a week, say on Sunday, a dose of such anesthetic to help favorably dispose one toward the world during the upcoming week. But Drug Warriors have raised such a big stink about "addiction" that this is literally all that Americans can think of when one writes of such a scheme. They've been given the message since grade school: drugs=addiction. This is about as scientific and unbiased as saying "horse riding equals brain trauma." Now, horse riding is, in fact, the leading cause of brain trauma in the United States, but to say that horse riding can only result in brain trauma is clearly a political statement designed to inspire hatred toward equestrian activities3.
There are endless ways that we could tackle potential habituation issues were we to adopt the proper and scientific mindset toward drugs4, especially if we spent billions on the problem rather than billions on arresting users. We need to start seeing drugs as the amoral inanimate substances that they are: substances that can and should be harnessed for the benefit of humankind. I have already written extensively on this topic so I will not go into detail here. Moreover, when all psychoactive drugs are legal again, we can start fighting drugs with drugs, for the biggest problem with "kicking" most drugs is psychological in nature, and these psychological misgivings can be easily negated and obfuscated when we use other drugs to make the user forget (and perhaps even wish "good riddance" to) the drug with which he or she seems to be having problems. As for physical addiction, there are already sleep cures for opiate addiction - and these can be perfected and then made permanent once we attack the psychological issues as stated above.
Finally, there are worse things than addiction, such as suicide, self-harm, and living a life of what one considers to be absolute meaninglessness. Moreover, "addiction" is really a political term, since we refer to the daily use of Big Pharma drugs as "maintenance therapy" - and there is no logical reason why it's okay to be dependent on Big Pharma but wrong to be dependent on naturally occurring substances.
But for now, my point is simply that almost any drug can be used religiously, given the proper mindset toward use. It depends on the goal of the religion too. If the goal is to encounter godhead, then drugs like coca and anesthetics may not work as directly as some might like -- and yet one is more likely to "encounter godhead" when living a fulfilled life, and non-entheogenic drugs can help that happen.
Even coca could be used religiously, for those who believe in the power of the human mind and reject the idea that it's somehow wrong to improve it with coca -- while yet being somehow right to jangle the brain with caffeine. Coca was considered divine by the long-lived Inca, who chewed the leaf daily for inspiration and endurance5.
In fact, a church in a free world could use a wide variety of drugs to induce states to help achieve various goals; but such an idea is so far ahead of our barbarous drug-demonizing times that I almost do not bother to mention it.
Finally:
I mentioned that the anesthetic left me feeling more friendly and outgoing than usual. Here's one concrete example of that.
My dentist happens to be the founder of a new line of healthy soft drinks, some of which I purchased at the local store after surgery. For the first 48 hours after surgery, I was thinking of writing a letter to him commending his soda and giving him some marketing ideas based on my past sales efforts as part of a start-up. Now, this is just not "like me." I would normally not be so other-minded and indeed the feeling has faded now to the point that I probably will not write such a letter after all.
But what strikes me is that no one ever includes such benefits when they discuss drugs, the benefits of turning the user into a better person. The typical "scientific" approach assumes that drug use is unnecessary and wrong and can have no positive sides. This is sheer propaganda and a Big Lie. Yet it is clearly accepted as gospel truth by the pharmacological powers that be. Otherwise we would be rushing to make laughing gas 6 and MDMA available for the severely depressed. But we have been brainwashed so thoroughly that we would rather Americans kill themselves than use substances of which politicians disapprove.
Author's Follow-up: March 13, 2024
Both physical and psychological addiction can be "beaten" by using drugs to fight drugs (see my many essays on this topic: search the word 'addiction' here), but Drug Warriors do not want to end addiction; they want to use the threat of addiction as an excuse to outlaw the substances that they hate. Moreover, Americans are intensely hypocritical when they tell us that drug dependence is horrible. The fact is that more than 25% of American women are dependent on Big Pharma 78 drugs9. Why is that a good thing, while dependence on other substances is a bad thing? The reason is not scientific, the reason is political.
Author's Follow-up:
September 28, 2025
Antidepressants have never encouraged me to be more friendly with others. And yet our politicians have no problem with the daily use of such drugs. This is just one of many signs that the Drug War presupposes a certain attitude about life and not just a certain attitude toward drugs. It is a hateful attitude that has no problem with drugs per se, but only with drugs that inspire and elate and create compassion. If the reader doubts this fact, consider what happened to the two Summers of Love on both sides of the Atlantic. Politicians used the fear of drugs to crack down on both events -- LSD in America and MDMA 10 in the UK. There is nothing that the racist demagogue politicians hate so much as peace, love and understanding. They want a world in which guns are relevant. Theirs is a religion of selfish mistrust, religious provincialism and beer-swilling prudery.
Magazines like Psychology Today continue to publish feel-good articles about depression which completely ignore the fact that we have outlawed all drugs that could end depression in a heartbeat.
Almost every mainstream article about psychology and consciousness is nonsense these days because it ignores the way that drug prohibition has stymied our investigation of such subjects.
And we should not insist it's a problem if someone decides to use opium, for instance, daily. We certainly don't blame "patients" for using antidepressants daily. And getting off opium is easier than getting off many antidepressants -- see Julia Holland.
Drug warriors think only about young people misusing drugs. They never think about the millions of the depressed whom they're condemning to a lifetime of totally unnecessary misery by outlawing drugs.
For those who want to understand what's going on with the drug war from a philosophical point of view, I recommend chapter six of "Eugenics and Other Evils" by GK Chesterton.
The outlawing of opium eventually resulted in an "opioid crisis"? The message is clear: people want self-transcendence. If we don't let them find it safely, they will find it dangerously.
Besides, why should I listen to the views of a microbe?
NIDA is just a propaganda arm of the U.S. government -- and will remain so until it recognizes the glaringly obvious benefits of drugs -- as well as the glaringly obvious downsides of prohibition. We need a National Institute on Drug Use, not a National Institute on Drug Abuse.
When is the Holocaust Museum going to recognize that the Drug War has Nazified American life? Probably, on the same day that the Jefferson Foundation finally admits to having sold out Jefferson by inviting the DEA onto his estate in 1987 to confiscate his poppy plants.
When we place the FDA in charge of deciding whether a psychoactive drug should be re-legalized or not, we are asking them to decide on things like the relative importance of appreciating a sunset, a task for which the FDA has no expertise whatsoever.
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)