The Drug War as a Litmus Test for Philosophical Wisdom
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 12, 2022
At the risk of flattering myself, I have concluded that an American's level of philosophical sophistication is in direct proportion to their ability to see through Drug War lies, for the Drug War is based on a variety of unspoken assumptions which do not stand up to logical scrutiny. That's why I say that Thomas Fleming is a great historian but a lousy philosopher. That's why I say that Francis Fukuyama is a great sociocultural critic but a lousy philosopher. That's why I say that Michael Pollan is a great naturalist but a lousy philosopher. For each of these authors fails to see the Drug War for the vast system of lies and misrepresentations that it is.
Thomas Fleming, for instance, tells us how racial prejudice, witch hunting and McCarthyism are prime examples of "a disease in the public mind", and yet the late historian ignored the fact that he himself was living and writing during the time of perhaps the greatest of all such diseases, namely the Drug War, which, like its fellows, gave Americans a disastrous lens through which to view the world around them - an ideologically blurred lens that blinded us to the thousands of deaths that the Drug War caused every year in inner cities, including over 800 deaths in Chicago alone in 2021, thanks to the gun violence 1 that was a direct result of prohibition.
Francis Fukuyama writes compellingly about the excesses of the left and right and how they are placing Liberalism in jeopardy, and yet he tells us that the push to defund the police is one of these excesses. Why? Because, he says, the police are needed in the inner cities to fight drug-related violence. To which the true philosopher responds, "Wait a minute, Francis: the police CAUSED that drug-related violence thanks to their enforcement of the new prohibition, which created gangs and cartels as surely as the old prohibition created the Mafia. To call on the police to help solve the problem of inner-city violence then is like calling on an arsonist to help battle the fire that he himself created."
Michael Pollan is certainly receptive to the idea that Drug War ideology blinds us to certain truths, as for instance he acknowledged after criticism that the term "recreational drug use" is fraught at best, since one person's recreational use could be another person's therapy and/or spiritual experience. That said, Michael fails to realize that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Drug War linguistic misdirection. The very idea of "drugs" as defined today is a modern creation, designed to demonize politically despised psychoactive substances. "Drugs" is a political term, meaning "substances of which historically and pharmacologically clueless politicians disapprove." To start discussing the topic of "drugs," as Pollan does, without acknowledging this fact, is to render everything one says on this topic problematic at best.
In short, a modern Diogenes would not need a lantern to find a wise human being. He would simply need to ask the candidates what they thought about the "drug" problem. Any respondent who did not begin their answer by discoursing at length on the pejorative and hypocritical nature of the term "drug" itself could be quickly scratched off the list of potential know-it-alls.
The proof that psychedelics work has always been extant. We are hoodwinked by scientists who convince us that efficacy has not been "proven." This is materialist denial of the obvious.
I've found that almost no one in the medical establishment has a clue about the endless positive uses that there would be for drugs in a world in which we decided to use them as wisely as possible for human benefit.
If we let "science" decide about drugs, i.e. base freedom on health concerns, then tea can be as easily outlawed as beer. The fact that horses are not illegal shows that prohibition is not about health. It's about the power to outlaw certain "ways of being in the world."
There would be little or no profiling of blacks if the Drug War did not exist.
How would we even KNOW that outlawed drugs have no positive uses? We first have to incorporate them in a sane, empathic and creative way to find that out, and the drug war makes such a sensible approach absolutely impossible.
Someday those books about weird state laws will be full of factoids like: "In Alabama, you could be jailed for 20 years for conspiring to eat a mushroom."
It's funny to hear fans of sacred plants indignantly insisting that their meds are not "drugs." They're right in a way, but actually NO substances are "drugs." Calling substances "drugs" is like referring to striking workers as "scabs." It's biased terminology.
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.
What is the end game of the drug warrior? A world in which no one wants drugs? That's not science. It's the drug-hating religion of Christian Science. You know, the American religion that outsources its Inquisition to drug-testing labs.
In his book "Salvia Divinorum: The Sage of the Seers," Ross Heaven explains how "salvinorin A" is the strongest hallucinogen in the world and could treat Alzheimer's, AIDS, and various addictions. But America would prefer to demonize and outlaw the drug.
(up)