another American author reckons without the drug war
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
January 15, 2023
How do you write a book about the end times and fail to even mention the power of love-inspiring substances to help humanity ward off Armageddon? This is what Bryan Walsh manages to do, but then he is just like almost every other non-fiction writer today in that he reckons without the Drug War. Americans like to think that the only downside to the Drug War is that it keeps hippies from getting "high," but it does so much more than that: it censors authors, for starters, and "End Times" is an example1. Of course, the censorship here is self-censorship. Bryan, after all, has grown up in a society whose media and academics is purposefully designed to ignore all positive reports on drug use. So all Bryan knows is that drugs are unnecessary problems, and as such should not figure in his books.
He has swallowed the Drug War lie, which tells us that the vast majority of psychoactive substances (aside from Big Pharma meds and a few drugs, like nicotine and alcohol) have no positive uses, for anyone, anywhere, ever, under any circumstances.
This is the Big Lie of the Drug War, which Bryan uncritically accepts: otherwise a book about end times would be unimaginable without mentioning the power of empathogens like MDMA and psilocybin to bring people together in defense of humanity.
Another issue with the book: Walsh keeps referencing the notion that information wants to be free, information wants to be free. But he tellingly cites the case of Napster, which is actually an example of how information can be jailed if moneyed interests put some effort into that task.
I was just looking for a free public domain download of the song Gaudeamus Igitur (for reasons that are beyond the scope of this essay). And I could find absolutely none. There were sites that seemed to promise a download, but most of them now stream such music, and those that promise downloads often deliver malware instead. Even the Library of Congress encourages you to stream old music -- a process that they have bizarrely farmed out to Sony Entertainment Corp., which is graciously allowing LOC to use ancient Sony tunes that actually should be in the public domain in any case.
The point here is that information can be jailed almost completely when there's a financial incentive for that to happen.
I think it would be easier for me to download the genome of the Black Plague than it would be for me to download a recorded book from Audible that was not in a proprietary format.
So the idea that we cannot put a lid on information is clearly false. We can actually do it, if we have the financial incentive to get it done.
To fight existential threats from science, we need to recognize that such action can be taken and be largely effective.
Such policies, combined with a policy of encouraging the use of drugs like MDMA 2 , may not save the earth, but they would surely cut down on school shootings as hotheads are given heart-felt evidence about the value of friendship and caring.
Author's Follow-up: January 17, 2024
Here is my new review of Walsh's book "End Times" posted on the Goodreads website:
Like almost all non-fiction authors these days, Bryan Walsh reckons without the Drug War. If humankind is going to be annihilated by nuclear war 345 , it is going to be because we have demonized the drugs that inspire peace. Ecstasy brought unprecedented peace, love and understanding to the British dance floor in the late '80s and early '90s, but British politicians did not want peace, they wanted a Drug War. When they cracked down on ecstasy, the ravers switched to hate-facilitating drugs like alcohol, creating so much violence that concert organizers had to hire special forces troops to keep the peace. Special forces!
Ecstasy is one of the safest drugs on the planet. It is only dangerous to those with whom we have refused on principle to discuss "safe use." Meanwhile Big Pharma 67 drugs like Rinvoq have side effects that include cancer and death, and yet they are advertised openly on prime-time television.
The Drug War has already given a victory to Trump by arresting millions of his opponents and removing them from the voting rolls, Trump, the guy who now wants to kill the minorities that we were formerly happy with merely arresting.
The anti-democratic trend continues. The Fourth Amendment was long ago suspended on behalf of the Drug War. Until authors like Walsh stop pretending that there is no Drug War, nothing is going to change -- except for the worse. To the extent that we are approaching "end times," it is because of the Drug War and the militaristic anti-democratic mindset that it represents.
Alcohol is a drug in liquid form. If drug warriors want to punish people who use drugs, they should start punishing themselves.
The Cabinet of Caligari ('62) ends with a shameless display of psychiatric triumphalism. Happy shock therapy patients waltz freely about a mansion in which the "sick" protagonist has just been "cured" by tranquilizers and psychoanalysis. Did Robert Bloch believe his own script?
The whole drug war is based on the anti-American idea that the way to avoid problems is to lie and prevaricate and persuade people not to ask questions.
The Drug War treats doctors like potential criminals and it treats the rest of us like children. Prohibition does not end drug risks: it just outsources them to minorities and other vulnerable populations.
The FDA approves of shock therapy and the psychiatric pill mill, but they cannot see the benefits in MDMA, a drug that brought peace, love and understanding to the dance floor in 1990s Britain.
Drug War propaganda is all about convincing us that we will never be able to use drugs wisely. But the drug warriors are not taking any chances: they're doing all they can to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Scientists are censored as to what they can study thanks to drug law. Instead of protesting that outrage, they lend a false scientific veneer to those laws via their materialist obsession with reductionism, which blinds them to the obvious godsend effects of outlawed substances.
Like when Laura Sanders tells us in Science News that depression is an intractable problem, she should rather tell us: "Depression is an intractable problem... that is, in a world wherein we refuse to consider the benefits of 'drugs,' let alone to fight for their beneficial use."
If opium and cocaine were legal again in America, the healthcare industry would suddenly have to undergo extensive downsizing, as Americans were once again put in charge of their own health.
When scientists refuse to report positive uses for drugs, they are not motivated by power lust, they are motivated by philosophical (non-empirical) notions about what counts as "the good life." This is why it's wrong to say that the drug war is JUST about power.
(up)