Three Problems With Rick Doblin's MAPS

Three Problems With Rick Doblin's MAPS

by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

September 26, 2023

Rick Doblin conceived of MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) as an end run around stubborn drug law. Since the DEA was so intent on keeping drugs illegal, Rick figured he would work WITH them in order to eventually achieve his legalization goal for psychedelics. Although the goal was worthy and Rick brave (if not downright mad, given the Herculean and time-consuming labor involved in such a task), there are downsides to his approach to drug re-legalization , at least one of which has never been mentioned before (see item number 2 in the following list).

1) By working with the government to legalize psychedelic medicine (and conceptually related meds like MDMA ), Rick has contributed to the creation of what Julian Buchanan calls a Drug War apartheid. The good guys, according to the current Drug War apartheid, are caffeine, nicotine, Big Pharma pills, and alcohol. The bad guys, what we deride as "drugs" today, are psychedelics, coca, opium , iboga, ayahuasca. Rick's approach does not seek to change this political and ideological framework, but merely to shove psychedelics from the bad guy to the good guy side of the equation.

This ignores the real problem of the Drug War and prohibition: namely, its anti-scientific (and indeed anti-Christian) propensity to blame evil on inanimate substances (naturally occurring ones at that) rather than on people and the laws and societies that they create. The MAPS organization is therefore, however unintentionally, collaborating with the DEA to take America's eyes off the prize and to continue referring all social problems to the big bad evil American boogieman called "drugs." (And so when the wildly overfunded DEA says "BOO!", Americans leap to attention and ask: "What shall we outlaw NEXT?!")

No schools need to be fixed, no health care reform is needed, despite the overwhelming popular support for all such social goals. No, we need to crack down ever harder on the scapegoat of drugs. Such counsel seems highly convenient coming from a right-wing Congress full of hypocritical skinflints, whose motto seems to be: "Billions for law enforcement, not one cent for social problems." Have Americans never stopped to ask if the goal here might be the militarization of local police forces, not the protection of our white suburban teens whom we have refused to educate about "drugs"?

But there's an additional problem that literally nobody has mentioned but myself (well, credit where credit's due, I suppose, right?).

2) If America is going to launch a sort of Manhattan Project to promote the use of therapeutic psychedelic drugs, the first beneficiary of that project should be the tens of millions of depressed Americans who have become dependent on mind-numbing big pharma meds for life. It is prohibition, after all, that shunted 1 in 4 Stateside women off onto those meds in the first place. Surely they should be the first candidates to benefit from the liberating power of psychedelics. *

To the contrary. The MAPS organization still touts the party line, namely that we pill users should keep "taking our meds," that the psychedelic breakthrough is only for those with no SSRIs in their body chemistry (for fear of a poorly studied and - as far as I can tell - overhyped fear of the so-called Serotonin Toxicity Syndrome). In other words, they will never let poor Rudolphs like myself join in any psychedelic reindeer games. The vast majority of the depressed in America, therefore, have nothing to gain from the MAPS organization, except perhaps the privilege of seeing their own children grow up with options that their parents never had.

Sadly, Dr. Carl Hart believes in this exclusionary setup as well. In "Drug Use for Grown-Ups," he makes it clear to his readers that the depressed should keep taking their meds, that his problem-free use of other drugs is only to be emulated by emotionally healthy individuals. I found this very disappointing, since I have been waiting all my life to be allowed to use the medicines that grow at my feet, and now even a proponent of legalization ¹ is telling me that such medicines are not for me: that materialist science has the answer instead, in the form of pills that I have to take every day of my life, thus turning me into an eternal patient.

But if 40-plus years of pill popping means anything, then these pills do not work.** But they have turned me into a modern Ancient Mariner, who has to hove into HealthCare Port every three months to share his innermost thoughts with a stranger half (or even one-third) his own age. That's not exactly empowerment, Carl and Rick. Besides, do we really believe that 1 in 4 women are so badly depressed that they need to take Big Pharma ² ³ pills every single day of their life? If that is the case, then I would suggest that there is something wrong with America, not with American women.

In an uncharitable mood, one might say that the MAPS program is really designed to let well-to-do ex-hippies use psychedelics legally and even take up a lucrative practice to help others use - meanwhile ignoring the human roadkill that prohibition has left behind by shunting the depressed off onto substances whose long-term use of SSRIs and SNRIs disqualifies them even for psychedelic trials, let alone psychedelic therapy.

3) Finally, there is something wrong with any right-thinking agency collaborating with the DEA. This lends legitimacy to an organization that has lied about psychoactive medicines for 40-plus years now and knowingly poisoned Americans with paraquat and other chemicals, in the same way that past governments poisoned drinkers with liver-destroying "rotgut" during prohibition ⁴. The DEA, as Rick well knows, also went against the advice of its own counsel when it outlawed MDMA ⁵ in 1985, thus throwing hundreds of thousands of PTSD victims, many of them soldiers, under the bus, in order to protect DEA jobs.

Finally, if I want to use the kind of drugs that have inspired entire religions, fight depression, or follow up on the research of William James into altered states, I should not have to live in fear of the DEA crashing down my door and shouting: "GO! GO! GO!"

And until the DEA renounces that mindset entirely, the MAPS collaboration with the DEA will indeed seem to me like collaboration in the sinister sense of that term.

*The more so given that the meds in question have not cured depression as promised, but have led instead to the greatest mass drug dependency in American history. That habituation level is many times greater than the 1 in 10 Americans who smoked opium ⁶ regularly (according to Jim Hogshire) prior to 1914. In other words, the Drug War is not about ending drug use: it's about making sure that Americans are using what the politicians considered to be the RIGHT drugs.

**For more on this topic, see Why SSRIs are Crap.

Note that I do not say that such antidepressants ⁷ are completely useless. They may even keep someone from committing suicide. But then any pill that sufficiently addles or fogs the brain might do that. They purportedly work according to materialist criteria that turned out to be false: they do not fix a chemical imbalance, they cause one instead (Robert Whitaker). Whatever good they do is therefore gratuitous. And they muck around with serotonin in such a way that makes the use of many other substances problematic. This has the look of a puritan conspiracy almost: You give me a drug that will not make me TOO happy but will make it impossible for me to use drugs that TRULY make me happy. These drugs bring with them a lot of materialist and puritanical baggage and capitalist baggage. These are drugs that one has to take every day of their lives, after all -- which is obviously in the interests of big pharma, who handsomely pay off politicians to keep the Drug War status quo. (See Billionaire Democracy by George R. Tyler)

Notes:

1: National Coalition for Drug Legalization (up)
2: How Drug Company Money Is Undermining Science (up)
3: Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of The FDA’s Drug Division Budget? (up)
4: Prohibition's Death Toll: Alcohol's Deadly Legacy (up)
5: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts (up)
6: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton (up)
7: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs (up)

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

The drug war has created a whole film genre with the same tired plots: drug-dealing scumbags and their dupes being put in their place by the white Anglo-Saxon establishment, which has nothing but contempt for altered states.

Immanuel Kant wrote that scientists are scornful about metaphysics yet they rely on it themselves without realizing it. This is a case in point, for the idea that euphoria and visions are unhelpful in life is a metaphysical viewpoint, not a scientific one.

There will always be people who don't use drugs wisely, just as there are car drivers who don't drive wisely, and rock climbers who fall to their death. America needs to grow up and accept this, while ending prohibition and teaching safe use.

Americans heap hypocritical praise on Walt Whitman. What they don't realize is that many of us could be "Walt Whitman for a Day" with the wise use of psychoactive drugs. To the properly predisposed, morphine gives a DEEP appreciation of Mother Nature.

Folks point to the seemingly endless drugs that can be synthesized today and say it's a reason for prohibition. To the contrary, it's the reason why prohibition is madness. It results in an endless game of militaristic whack-a-mole at the expense of democratic freedoms.

By reading "Drug Warriors and Their Prey," I begin to understand why I encounter a wall of silence when I write to authors and professors on the subject of "drugs." The mere fact that the drug war inspires such self-censorship should be grounds for its immediate termination.

In a sane world, we'd package laughing gas for safe use and give it to the suicidal -- saying, "Use before attempting to kill yourself." But drug warriors would rather have suicide than drug use.

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.

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.

In response to a tweet that "some drugs cannot be used wisely for recreational purposes": The problem is, most people draw such conclusions based on general impressions inspired by a media that demonizes drugs. In reality, it's hard to imagine a drug that cannot theoretically be used wisely for recreation at some dose, in some context.

Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us

Physics has found a theory of everything
Noam Chomsky on Drugs

Copyright 2025 abolishthedea.com, Brian Quass

(up)