Ten Points that no one ever makes about so-called Drugs
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
April 24, 2023
1) The Drug War outlaws free research by preventing and/or discouraging researchers from searching for cures for Alzheimer's 1 (in psychedelics that grow new neurons) and from following up the philosophical research of William James (viz. his use of laughing gas 2 and related substances).
2) Substance prohibition violates Natural Law insofar as it criminalizes the plants and fungi which God himself told us were "good." Instead, we're told that they have no positive uses, for anybody, ever. That is an anti-scientific stand, since there are no such substances in the world. Even cyanide and botox have positive uses.
3) Western science has long been biased on this topic. You can see this in the fact that almost no academic articles have been written on the positive uses of "drugs," but thousands upon thousands are written about drug "abuse" and "misuse." In other words, academicians have swallowed the Drug War lie that "drugs" can have no positive uses, for anyone, ever.
4) The treatment of addiction is hobbled by the fact that the Drug War establishes the goal of sobriety for the user. In this way, addiction treatment is the enforcement of the Christian Science religion according to which a hypocritically defined sobriety is godly (especially given that the goal is to make the addict accept a thinly disguised Christian God known as a "higher power"). If empathic individuals could, shaman-like, treat "addicts" with any substance on earth, the outlook for "addicts" would be so much better. In fact, I say that we have no right to opine on the ability of therapy to overcome addiction as long as we're denying the therapist a whole pharmacy full of useful drugs for that purpose -- not the least of which are the hundreds of non-addictive godsends formulated by Alexander Shulgin, promoter of MDMA 3 . If a boxer had one hand tied behind his back and kept losing fights, we would not claim that he was not strong enough to win, but we would rather point out indignantly that he, in fact, had one hand tied behind his back. Likewise if addiction seems unbeatable, let's also consider that we have tied one hand behind the back of any therapist by outlawing almost all the substances that could help effect a real change in the "user."
5) The term "drug abuse disorder" is a political label. The government first outlaws a plant that it had no right to outlaw. Then it claims that those who still want to access that plant are merely showing the symptoms of a "disease."
6) Most overdoses on heroin 4 are due to uncertain dosages. I think when we write about such overdoses, we need to point this out -- otherwise when we say "heroin overdose," the reader immediately tends to blame the "drug" rather than the prohibition which promoted fear rather than knowledge about safe use.
7) The original charter of the ONDCP (the Office of National Drug Control Policy) forbade board members from even discussing positive uses of "drugs." In other words, the ONDCP is a propaganda arm of the US government and its policies help explain why academia almost never talks about positive uses of drugs -- as, for instance, morphine 5 can give users a deep appreciation of Mother Nature and coca can bring about mental clarity a la Sherlock Holmes. Likewise, opium 6 has inspired poets such as Poe and Lovecraft.
8) The Drug War has taught us that addictive drugs can only be used addictively. This attitude rules out a legion of positive uses for drugs when used at the right dose in the right circumstance. So sure are we of this credo, that no one has stopped to think of how mental sufferers could be therapeutically treated with a variety of drugs under a variety of circumstances. We close our eyes to a plethora of options (limited only by the imagination) because of this drug-war superstition that addictive drugs cannot be used non-addictively.
9) As a lifetime "junkie" on Big Pharma antidepressants 7, the discussion of heroin always seems odd to me: Heroin addiction is always taken as a great evil. But how can that be in a country in which 1 in 4 American women are dependent on SSRIs for life? Not only is this not seen as a problem, but we actually encourage the chemically dependent women to "take their meds" -- whenever they begin to act in a way that bothers us. It seems like addiction bothers us because it's an esthetic thing -- we see the problems associated with it -- which are really problems caused by prohibition in any case. Whereas the chemically dependent never bother us because they always get their supply -- and if they don't, they'll just feel horrible inside, without bothering us by robbing banks or sitting idly on a street corner like the poor heroin addict, for whom the Drug War has made safe and affordable supply impossible.
10) Much writing about drugs seems to suggest that there's no possible cause for it -- except maybe despair. That is just not true. People's number-one goal in life is to succeed, NOT to live safely. If a "drug" helps them think more clearly or perform a job that they might otherwise "choke" at, the sane choice is drug use -- rather than to accept a tranquilizing drug from Big Pharma which dulls the mind and turns the user into a ward of the healthcare state. People want to transcend their own limitations -- and we should be helping them do that safely -- not punishing them en masse for valuing self-actualization over abstract "safety."
Most of all: We should be helping folks live the life of their dreams using any drug or drugs necessary for that purpose (unless, of course, the person being treated professes a belief in Christian Science, in which case they would presumably turn down Big Pharma 89 meds as well).
Author's Follow-up: April 24, 2023
I don't mean to imply that a therapist will always be necessary. Once we re-legalize Mother Nature and -- for the first time in history -- learn everything we can about every single psychoactive substance in the world, a savvy individual can leverage the knowledge thus obtained to engage in safe and productive substance use. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is more than a new protocol -- it's a new way of looking at the world, or rather an old way finally acknowledged: namely, the idea that Mother Nature produces godsends and that psychoactive medicines are tools to personal growth -- and not just moral traps for lapsed votaries of the drug-hating Christian Science religion.
The whole idea of addiction is a creation of the Drug War mentality: it is promoted by prohibition, first by outlawing popular godsends, thus turning users from "habitues" into "addicts" -- and then by outlawing all the substances that could be used to help a user get off a substance which they no longer desire to use. When I think of our dim prognosis for addicts these days, I think of a nation that has outlawed antibiotics and then gripes about the prevalence of bacterial infections.
This new way of life will not just tolerate drugs, but actually encourage their use in cases where they can bring love to a stubborn heart or make life livable for someone whose mindset -- for no fault of their own -- has a purblind focus on doom and gloom.
I hope that scientists will eventually find the prohibition gene so that we can eradicate this superstitious way of thinking from humankind.
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.
Endless drugs could help with depression. Any drug that inspires and elates is an antidepressant, partly by the effect itself and partly by the mood-elevation caused by anticipation of use (facts which are far too obvious for materialists and drug warriors to understand -- let alone materialist drug warriors!).
Even fans of sacred medicine have been brainwashed to believe that we do not know if such drugs "really" work: they want microscopic proof. But that's a western bias, used strategically by drug warriors to make the psychotropic drug approval process as glacial as possible.
Saying "Fentanyl kills" is philosophically equivalent to saying "Fire bad!" Both statements are attempts to make us fear dangerous substances rather than to learn how to use them as safely as possible for human benefit.
Scientists are responsible for endless incarcerations in America. Why? Because they fail to denounce the DEA lie that psychoactive substances have no positive medical uses. This is so obviously wrong that only an academic in an Ivory Tower could believe it.
Americans love to hate heroin. But there is no rational reason why folks should not use heroin daily in a world in which we consider it their medical duty to use antidepressants daily.
Imagine educational documentaries showing how folks manage to safely incorporate today's hated substances into their life and lifestyle.
Until prohibition ends, rehab is all about enforcing a Christian Science attitude toward psychoactive medicines (with the occasional hypocritical exception of Big Pharma meds).
The front page of every mycology club page should feature a protest of drug laws that make the study of mycology illegal in the case of certain shrooms. But no one protests. Their silence makes them drug war collaborators because it serves to normalize prohibition.
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)