in response to a 2015 Vice article by Adam Rothstein
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 15, 2025
n his 2015 article about Erowid1 in Vice magazine, Adam Rothstein makes the following bizarre claim:
"Erowid wouldn't pass peer-review standards for medical science journals—and perhaps not even the objectivity-standards of Wikipedia." 2
What? Whatever gave Adam the idea that peer-review journals are objective when it comes to drugs - let alone that Wikipedia is? Such sources are enormously biased because they focus almost exclusively on abuse and misuse and scarcely at all on the godsend potentials of outlawed medicines.
Consider the following description of a "trip" on morphine as quoted from "A Tale of the Ragged Mountains" by Edgar Allan Poe.
"In the meantime the morphine had its customary effect- that of enduing all the external world with an intensity of interest. In the quivering of a leaf- in the hue of a blade of grass- in the shape of a trefoil- in the humming of a bee- in the gleaming of a dew-drop- in the breathing of the wind- in the faint odors that came from the forest- there came a whole universe of suggestion- a gay and motley train of rhapsodical and immethodical thought.3"
This is the description of an enormously positive upside of morphine use - its ability to help us to cultivate a deep appreciation of Mother Nature - and yet how often do peer-review journals trumpet such benefits as something to investigate and to take advantage of for the benefit of humankind? Answer: Never. The materialist scientists start their cost-benefit analyses about such drugs by first dogmatically ignoring all such glaringly obvious benefits of use! This is not objectivity. This is dogmatic blindness.
Consider the following descriptions of the use of phenethylamines as recorded in Pihkal by Alexander Shulgin4:
"I experienced the desire to laugh hysterically at what I could only describe as the completely ridiculous state of the entire world."
"I feel that it is one of the most profound and deep learning experiences I have had."
"I find that I can just slightly redirect my attention so that it applies more exactly to what I am doing. I feel that I can learn faster. This is a `smart' pill!"
"I acknowledged a rapture in the very act of breathing."
Again, these are enormous drug benefits! But the materialist scientists of our peer-review journals approach such anecdotes like Dr. Spock of Star Trek, completely unimpressed and eager to get back to their microscopes.
To be objective means to be fair and to be open to ALL evidence - and not just the stuff that casts drugs in a suspicious light. It is clear, therefore, that Erowid is far more objective about drugs than peer-review journals, to say nothing of the brainwashed mainstream on Wikipedia, which has been shielded for a lifetime from positive news about drugs thanks to media censorship. Scientists are passion-scorning behaviorists56 when it comes to psychology and so they feel free to ignore anecdote, history and common sense when evaluating drugs. This is not objectivity on their part; it is rather a sign that they have an agenda when it comes to drugs: a materialist agenda to dismiss obvious drug benefits out of hand in the name of behaviorist principles - which is "convenient," as the Church Lady would say, because it allows them to toe the Drug War party line that drugs have no benefits and so absolves them of what would otherwise be their moral duty to speak up against the science-stopping public policy known as drug prohibition.
Objective? We are talking about scientists who actually promote brain-damaging shock therapy for the depressed but will not approve of drugs that would make such brain damage unnecessary7. Objective? We are talking about scientists who cannot find anything but abuse potential in the kinds of drugs that have inspired entire religions8. Objective? We are talking about scientists who cannot even figure out if laughing gas could help the depressed9. Laughing gas, for God's sake! In an objective world, we would give laughing gas kits to the suicidal, just as we now give epi pens to those with severe allergies. Instead of doing so, our scientists have stood by as the government seeks to treat laughing gas like a "drug," thus making it even less practical to use than ever, this despite the fact that William James encouraged philosophers to use the substance to investigate the nature of perception and reality10.
The idea that scientists are objective about drugs in the age of the Drug War is completely false. To the contrary, today's scientists live in a make-believe world: they pretend that the kinds of godsend drug benefits mentioned above do not even exist. That's why magazines like Science News and Scientific American keep telling us that depression is tough to beat, failing to mention that we have outlawed all the substances that could do just that, and not in weeks, months, or years, either, but in mere seconds. But then we have all been taught since grade school that we are eternal children when it comes to drugs and so will never be able to use them wisely for the benefit of humanity. And our scientists help support this defeatist attitude by pretending that the benefits in question do not even exist. Far from being objective, then, today's scientists are helping to normalize drug prohibition by gaslighting us about obvious benefits of drug use. That's why I say thank God for Erowid, the only source that treats the subject of drug use objectively by discussing both the potential dangers of drugs AND their many common-sense benefits.
There are no recreational drugs. Even laughing gas has rational uses because it gives us a break from morbid introspection. There are recreational USES of drugs, but the term "recreational" is often used to express our disdain for users who go outside the healthcare system.
I've been told by many that I should have seen "my doctor" before withdrawing from Effexor. But, A) My doctor got me hooked on the junk in the first place, and, B) That doctor completely ignores the OBVIOUS benefits of indigenous meds and focuses only on theoretical downsides.
Someone tweeted that fears about a Christian Science theocracy are "baseless." Tell that to my uncle who was lobotomized because they outlawed meds that could cheer him up -- tell that to myself, a chronic depressive who could be cheered up in an instant with outlawed meds.
Only a pathological puritan would say that there's no place in the world for substances that lift your mood, give you endurance, and make you get along with your fellow human being. Drugs may not be everything, but it's masochistic madness to claim that they are nothing at all.
The FDA should have no role in approving psychoactive medicine. They evaluate them based on materialist standards rather than holistic ones. In practice, this means the FDA ignores all glaringly obvious benefits.
But that's the whole problem with Robert Whitaker's otherwise wonderful critique of Big Pharma. Like almost all non-fiction authors today, he reckons without the drug war, which gave Big Pharma a monopoly in the first place.
"When two men who have been in an aggressive mood toward each other take part in the ritual, one is able to say to the other, 'Come, let us drink, for there is something between us.' " re: the Mayan use of the balche drink in Encyc of Psych Plants, by Ratsch & Hofmann
Being less than a month away from an election that, in my view, could end American democracy, I don't like to credit Musk for much. But I absolutely love it every time he does or says something that pushes back against the drug-war narrative.
"Now, now, Sherlock, that coca preparation is not helping you a jot. Why can't you get 'high on sunshine,' like good old Watson here?" To which Sherlock replies: "But my good fellow, then I would no longer BE Sherlock Holmes."
That's another problem with "following the science." Science downplays personal testimony as subjective. But psychoactive experiences are all ABOUT subjectivity. With such drugs, users are not widgets susceptible to the one-size-fits-all pills of reductionism.
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, Thank God for Erowid: in response to a 2015 Vice article by Adam Rothstein, published on May 15, 2025 on AbolishTheDEA.com. 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 abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
n his 2015 article about Erowid1 in Vice magazine, Adam Rothstein makes the following bizarre claim:
You have been reading an article entitled, Thank God for Erowid: in response to a 2015 Vice article by Adam Rothstein, published on May 15, 2025 on AbolishTheDEA.com. 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 abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
