The Drug War Philosopher of the United States of America -- session 3
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 2, 2025
Ladies and gentlemen, the Drug War Philosopher of the United States of America.
I will make a brief statement and then I will open up the floor to termites. As you know, I have been reading and reviewing the excellent drug histories of Mike Jay1 with an eye toward the philosophical insights that his books either contain or imply. The conclusions that I have drawn to date may be found in the following three essays: End Drug Prohibition Now, The Kangaroo Courts of Modern Science and most recently, How the West turned the world into a police state.
Mr. Philosopher! Mr. Philosopher! Telvar Pipkin from the Tennessee Teapot.
Not THE Telvar Pipkin?
That's right.
From THE Tennessee Teapot?
The same.
Well, I have not officially opened the floor to termites yet, but go ahead, Telvar.
Sorry, but I just have to know: which of Mike Jay's books have you read so far?
Well, I began with Emperors of Dreams2, which I discussed in two essays: namely, the one entitled End Prohibition Now3 and the other entitled The Kangaroo Courts of Modern Drug Science4.
Gotcha.
I have also read Psychonauts: Drugs and the Making of the Modern Mind5, which I discuss in the essay entitled How the West Turned the World into a Police State6.
Vespar Latigan from the Daily World Telegraph and Community Ledger Star, weekend edition.
Cor blimey.
What is your chief takeaway thus far from reading Mike's historical tomes about drugs and drug use?
The biggest takeaway message is that the Drug War mindset was firmly entrenched in the 19th century.
Oh, really? How so?
There was already a knee-jerk belief that the only answer to drug-related problems was criminalization.
I see.
Nobody stopped to think that the world was full of psychoactive substances -- and that the number of such substances would only increase over time as we westerners slowly open our eyes to the psychoactive powers of flowers, trees, plants, animals and fungi -- not to mention the endless drugs that can be synthesized based on the biochemical clues that we garner from Mother Nature.
I hear ya.
It never occurred to anyone that the world would become a police state if we decided to have the police and military playing "whack-a-mole" with this potentially endless supply of psychoactive medicines.
So you're saying, then, that no one talked about educating people rather than arresting them?
Bingo. And that's crazy, right? Already in the 19th century, there was this crazy idea that we should judge the value of drugs "up" or "down," based on how we personally felt about their effects in specific, often notorious cases.. There was already this crazy idea that a substance that could be misused by white young people at one dose when used for one reason, must not be used by anyone at any dose for any reason. It is impossible to think of a more anti-scientific approach to drugs. It is an approach which mindlessly rules out all beneficial uses of drugs in advance based on our biases against the kind of people whom one assumes are using them.
Cash Cheslock from the Hackensack Soundboard.
Cash WHO? From the WHAT?
Inquiring minds want to know, Mr. Philosopher, what other essays have you written or updated lately?
Lord, help my memory. Well, let's see: do you remember that 2022 harangue of mine called "Drug Warriors can go to hell!7"?
Oh, you mean the one in which you let Drug Warriors have it for depriving you of godsend medicines for an entire lifetime?
That's the one.
Mr. Philosopher, Madeline Hayball from the East Hampstead Express and Daily Record, weekend supplement.
Oh, I LOVE that supplement!
My sources tell me that you have updated your article about "The Truth about Opium89" by William H. Brereton and that you have added dozens of insightful citations from the three lectures that it contains.
Did you say thwee?
Oh, you know what I mean!
I'm just kidding you. Yes, I have highlighted dozens of insightful citations from that lecture series, far more than just thwee of them.
Oh, you!
Ladies and gentlemen, the Drug War Philosopher of the United States of America.
We need a Controlled Prohibitionists Act, to get psychiatric help for those who think that prohibition makes sense despite its appalling record of causing civil wars overseas and devastating inner cities.
The drug war is a slow-motion coup against democracy.
If the depressed patient laughs, that means nothing. Materialists have to see results under a microscopic or they will never sign off on a therapy.
Trump's lies about America's voting process are typical NAZI and DRUG WAR strategy: raise mendacious doubts about whatever you want to destroy and keep repeating them. It's what Joseph Goebbels called "The Big Lie."
The existence of a handful of bad outcomes of drug use does not justify substance prohibition... any more than the existence of drunkards justifies a call for liquor prohibition.
Even the worst forms of "abuse" can be combatted with a wise use of a wide range of psychoactive drugs, to combat both physical and psychological cravings. But drug warriors NEED addiction to be a HUGE problem. That's their golden goose.
I knew democracy was in trouble when most Americans in the '80s saw no problem with allowing drug testers to go on a fishing expedition in their bodily fluids for substances of which politicians disapprove.
The Drug War is one big entrapment scheme for poor minorities. Prohibition creates an economy that hugely incentivizes drug dealing, and when the poor fall for the bait, the prohibitionists rush in to arrest them and remove them from the voting rolls.
Materialists are always trying to outdo each other in describing the insignificance of humankind. Crick at least said we were "a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Musk downsizes us further to one single microbe. He wins!
You can get a Ph.D. in healthcare, and not learn a thing about the glaringly obvious benefits of drugs, as demonstrated by history, anecdote and common sense.
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)