by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
December 6, 2024
To oppose the Drug War philosophically, one has to highlight its connections to materialism and to the psychiatric pill mill. And that's a problem, because almost everyone in the west is either a Drug Warrior, a materialist, and/or has a vested interest in the psychiatric pill mill, either because they themselves are dependent upon Big Pharma meds or because they, as psychiatrists, have been prescribing them for ages. In other words, one is left with a very small potential audience once all the vested interests have clapped indignant hands over their ears and gone elsewhere.
I was stunned when reading his "Pills-a-Go-Go" that Jim Hogshire himself is a defender of Big Pharma. He does not seem to realize that antidepressants have some downsides that come with no other drugs: they alter brain chemistry such that it is almost impossible for long-term users to quit them (this is certainly the case with Effexor). This means that these end up being the only drug you're ever even ABLE to take for your depression and disqualifies you for the new psychedelic treatments thanks to the way it has screwed up your serotonin system in advance. Of course, these pills wouldn't be so hard to kick if we hadn't outlawed everything that would help you kick them. That's just common sense. But modern researchers do not have common sense. They want all their drugs to be proven "scientifically," by materialist reductionism, and so they are blind to common sense psychology, like the obvious fact that certain pick-you-up substances could get one through those few tough hours in the we hours of the morning that are the bane of the recidivist.
Here are some more thoughts on Jim Hogshire's odd take on antidepressants What Jim Hogshire Got Wrong about Drugs: . (Does he not even see a problem with the mass dependency of 1 in 4 American women? It's a real-life Stepford Wives but no one notices.
In reality, the antidepressant pill mill is justified on the grounds of reductive materialism; therefore the two are symbiotic and very closely related.
December 5, 2024
The Drug Warrior and the materialist scientist both ignore common sense when it comes to drugs. Neither sees any use in the strategic use of drugs that elevate mood and inspire action. The former believes that such an approach represents an immoral shortcut and the latter claims that such treatments are not "real" cures -- as if we should be in the business of curing sadness in any case. Look at the results of that hubristic materialist attempt when it comes to depression: a nation full of Stepford Wives, 1 in 4 American women dependent upon Big Pharma drugs for life. Anyone so dependent should have the option of choosing another "poison," if we must regard drugs in that superstitious way. But Americans have been taught to judge drug use via worst case scenarios -- unlike any risky activity on Earth. We do not view drinking in this way, nor hunting, nor driving a car, nor even free climbing.
This is why I have a low regard for modern psychology. It has played ball with this naive understanding of human motivation; otherwise, it would be pushing back against the Drug War. Why? Because it outlaws an endless number of potential treatment protocols for the improvement of mind and mentation: treatments based on the wise use of a wide variety of currently outlawed drugs to create virtuous behavioral circles in those who use them.
December 4, 2024
Back in March of this year, I received a "tweet" on X from the Isaac Newton of psychology. He told me that "what goes up must come down" and that therefore, psychoactive drugs were of no help, emotionally speaking. You could tell this guy was a typical Drug Warrior because he had the simplicity to talk about "drugs" as if that meant anything. "Drugs" is a category, and a political category at that: It simply means "psychoactive substances of which politicians disapprove." He might as well have said, "Animals will bite you." It's such a simplistic statement that one scarcely knows how to respond. Yes, but which animals, under which circumstances, at what times and in what places? See my original essay here What Goes Up Must Come Down?: or click here to read my latest update of same.
December 3, 2024
I never was a rabid patriot, but I was raised to believe that America was on the path toward peace and happiness, although clearly following a very tortuous path, indeed. However, after Big Money and Fearmongering persuaded most Americans to give up on democracy in favor of fascism (see the results of the recent presidential vote), I am no longer so sanguine. I mention this for two reasons: first, to set the record straight for future generations as to where my sympathies lay when it comes to the current national nightmare. And to remind them that we came to this pass thanks to fearmongering, which is what the Drug War is all about.
The message is clear: We need to re-invent democracy, not with new principles, but by affirming that we truly believe the old ones, the idea that Mother Nature is ours by right, as is clearly maintained in the doctrine of Natural Law upon which Thomas Jefferson founded America. As John Locke wrote in chapter five of his Second Treatise on Government:
"The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being."1
To men, mind2, NOT to government.
In a new, improved America -- one that is willing to defend the principles upon which it was founded -- it would no longer be possible for natural medicines to be withheld from the public based solely on how the population has been taught to FEEL about them by the propaganda of demagogues. This is the problem with the new batch of authoritarians: they have no interest in principles, only in expedients that will get them where they want to go, politically speaking.
December 2, 2024
The people at Common Sense flag movies for bad language and "drugs." They do not flag movies for promoting fascist Drug War narratives, as when the DEA stages murders and hangs suspects from meat-hooks. Sure, they may flag them for violence, but not for exuding a message that justifies the overthrow of the democratic system of government.
Here are some essays about movies and the Drug War.
All these Sons: Documentary about Chicago gun violence does not even mention the drug war, which caused that violence in the first place.
Attention American Screenwriters: please stop spreading Drug War propaganda: Please remember, scriptwriters: 'drugs' is just a political term for psychoactive substances of which politicians disapprove.
Cop shows as drug war propaganda: How the TV cop show genre promulgates drug warrior lies about mother nature's plant medicines
COPS: TV Show for Racist Drug Warriors: The Drug War is a make-work program for Cops. Without it, they would actually have to fight only REAL crime, and not go around harassing minorities.
Glenn Close but no cigar: Four Good Days reinforces all the usual Christian Science nonsense about plant medicines, advocating science as the way forward when all it offers is 'cold turkey' and a $3,000 bill for a three-day stay in a glorified flophouse.
Harold & Kumar Support the Drug War: How Hollywood comedies support fascist drug war superstitions
How Variety and its film critics support drug war fascism: How movie reviewers ignore the anti-American message of drug war films like "Running with the Devil"
Moonfall: Humanoids will tell you that they want peace, but if they're anything like us purebred human beings, peace comes in a distance second to demonizing the very substances that could make that peace possible.
Running with the DEA -- er, I mean the Devil: Running With the Devil: DEA propaganda film glorifying torture in the name of the war on therapeutic plants
Running with the torture loving DEA: Live from the DEA lounge: a stand-up comedy routine about the fascist practices of the DEA
The Runner: Racist Drug War Agitprop: A celebration of anti-American values in the name of the hateful anti-scientific drug war.
Why Hollywood Owes Richard Nixon an Oscar: for single-handedly created he drug war movie genre -- albeit with a little inspiration from Francis Burton Harrison
December 1, 2024
It is bizarre that we should have "the right to die" in a world that outlaws drugs. That means, in effect, that we have a right to die, but we do not have the right to use drugs that might make us want to live. Bad policy is indicated by absurd outcomes, and this is but one of many absurd outcomes that the policy of prohibition foists upon the world -- and yet which remain unaccountably invisible to almost everyone, including almost all proponents of the aforesaid euthanasia.
For more on this topic, see my previous essays:
Electroshock Therapy and the Drug War: How the drug war makes ECT necessary.
Euthanasia in the Age of the Drug War: Euthanasia meets the Drug War
Science News Unveils Shock Therapy II:
The Drug War and Electroshock Therapy: How the Drug War makes electroshock therapy necessary, and why doctors must start acknowledging that fact
The Right to LIVE FULLY is more important than the Right to DIE:
November 30, 2024
I cited the assisted dying act yesterday on X and was told that I had misspoke: that the act DID allow one to continue using alcohol and tobacco and that technically one could kill oneself, not "be" killed. A trifle frustrating, for as Whitehead reminds us, all sentences are elliptical, and all the more so on X, with its character limitations. English sentences are always lacking some detail which the reader is supposed to understand implicitly. It's obvious, I trust, that one is allowed these days to use alcohol and tobacco, regardless of what other statues may be in effect. As for the latter objection, even if one kills oneself with a drug, that drug is surely provided by someone. No man is an island, even in the act of suicide.
I fear such fine points detract from the real bombshell here: that is, the fact that the assisted dying act is bizarrely dystopian in a world wherein we do not allow the use of drugs to help make people want to live. The frustrating thing is that the law's new proponents would never dream that drug law has any connection with this case. Drug prohibition is hidden in plain sight thanks to well over a century of drug demonization in western countries.
But then I am thin-skinned, I admit it. And, to be honest, I should not be "on" X in any case, owned as it is by a fascist. Thomas Browne could have been speaking of Elon Musk when he wrote the following in his popular 17th-century work entitled "Religio Medici and Hydriotapha":
"There is a rabble even amongst the gentry."
November 29, 2024
The UK just legalized assisted dying3. This means that it is legal to kill someone, but it is not legal to make them want to live. These people would rather have grandpa die than to let him smoke opium or take ecstasy or use coca, laughing gas, or the inspirational drugs synthesized by Alexander Shulgin4.
November 28, 2024
Welcome back. You know, when I write my friends about the subject of drugs, I always have the fear that they're thinking in their heart of hearts, "Oh, here we go again: this guy is always going on about 'drugs'," this despite the fact that the folks in question profess agreement with my positions, or at least have the tact and/or cowardice to refrain from gainsaying me. It's not so much that I distrust them, but I know the power of propaganda, and I know that all Americans have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe that mere honest conversation on this topic is suspicious and betrays an obsessive interest in a subject that good people just do not talk about.
Given these fears, I like to remind my interlocutors that antidepressants are drugs, that alcohol is a drug, that caffeine is a drug, that nicotine is a drug, and that even Red Bull contains drugs. Indeed, many of these people that I contact are taking antidepressants daily (like myself, alas), and so I am really tempted to respond to their seemingly implicit objections with: "Don't talk to ME about an obsessive interest in drugs, you take antidepressants every day of your life!" But then it seems odd to respond to an objection that no one has actually made, one that is merely implicit -- but again, the temptation is there, because I can just hear their brains cranking away in that way.
I may be wrong, of course, but we should never underestimate the power of propaganda to control our thoughts, and especially our knee-jerk attitudes. For to paraphrase William Shirer from his classic book on Hitler:
"No one who has not lived for years in a DRUG WAR SOCIETY can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime's calculated and incessant propaganda."
Oh, by the way, Instagram will not let me set up an account. They provide no explanation. The "sign-up" button simply will not work for me. It looks like Free Speech is now as dead as protection from unreasonable search. I may have to visit Menlo, Park, California, to ask the people at META what gives.
META: 1601 Willow Rd, Menlo Park, California, 94025, USA.
If I am going to be censored like this, I want to know why.
November 27, 2024
Welcome to the Drug War Blog, or what is basically the diary of the Drug War Philosopher, videlicet myself.
I may as well use the first entry to justify my claim to the status of "philosopher," since I am not board-certified as such. If it is any comfort, I was offered a job as TA in the field but I turned it down, a decision that I came to regret when I finally realized that the lack of accreditation had rendered me a nonentity as far as academics were concerned. You can hardly blame them, of course, considering how much money they had to shell out to get that title.
But I would point out that I am the only philosopher (accredited or otherwise) who has protested to the FDA about their recent plans to treat laughing gas as a drug5, nitrous oxide being the substance that helped inspire the ontology of William James, America's preeminent psychologist. He believed that we must study the effects of such substances in order to learn about human perception and about Reality writ large:
"No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded." -- William James6.
Yet, disregard them we must because of the Drug War.
Notes:1 Locke, John,
Second Treatise of Government, Project Gutenberg, 1689
(up)2 i.e, to human beings
(up)3
Assisted dying set to be legalised after historic vote, The Telegraph, 2024
(up)4 Shulgin, Alexander,
PIHKAL: A Chemical Love Story , Transform Press,
(up)5 Quass, Brian,
Why the FDA should not schedule Laughing Gas, 2023
(up)6 James, William,
The Varieties of Religious Experience, Philosophical Library, New York, 1902
(up)
More Essays Here
Some Tweets against the hateful war on drugs
"Dope Sick"? "Prohibition Sick" is more like it. The very term "dope" connotes imperialism, racism and xenophobia, given that all tribal cultures have used "drugs" for various purposes. "Dope? Junk?" It's hard to imagine a more intolerant, dismissive and judgmental terminology.
If MAPS wants to make progress with MDMA they should start "calling out" the FDA for judging holistic medicines by materialist standards, which means ignoring all glaringly obvious benefits.
Drug warriors have taught us that honest tweets like that are "encouraging drug use." Nonsense! That's just their way of suppressing free speech about drugs. Americans are not babies, they can handle the truth -- or if they cannot, they need education, not prohibition.
The Shipiba have learned to heal human beings physically, psychologically and spiritually with what they call "onanyati," plant allies and guides, such as Bobinsana, which "envelops seekers in a cocoon of love." You know: what the DEA would call "junk."
This hysterical reaction to rare negative events actually creates more rare negative events. This is why the DEA publicizes "drug problems," because by making them well known, they make the problems more prevalent and can thereby justify their huge budget.
Did the Vedic People have a substance disorder because they wanted to drink enough soma to see religious realities?
Psychiatrists keep flipping the script. When it became clear that SSRIs caused dependence, instead of apologizing, they told us we need to keep taking our meds. Now they even claim that criticizing SSRIs is wrong. This is anti-intellectual madness.
One merely has to look at any issue of Psychology Today to see articles in which the author reckons without the Drug War, in which they pretend that banned substances do not exist and so fail to incorporate any topic-related insights that might otherwise come from user reports.
We should hold the DEA criminally responsible for withholding spirit-lifting drugs from the depressed. Responsible for what, you ask? For suicides and lobotomies, for starters.
An Englishman's home is his castle.
An American's home is a bouncy castle for the DEA.
More Tweets
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, THE ANTI DRUG WAR BLOG: combatting drug war propaganda and lies, one post at a time, published on November 10, 2024 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)
