What Jim Hogshire Got Wrong about Drugs

Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass

What Jim Hogshire Got Wrong about Drugs

a philosophical review of Pills-a-Go-Go

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

October 19, 2023

I never thought I would say that Jim Hogshire is completely wrong about something, especially after reading his refreshingly clear-headed "Opium for the Masses." But in his 1999 book "Pills-a-Go-Go," his rhetorical ship founders before it's even left its home port. That's because Hogshire starts out by taking the layperson's disdain for anti-depressant pills, mainly Prozac, as a telltale sign of "Medical Calvinism" in America and a puritanical refusal to be cheered up by "drugs."

Update: May 04, 2025
Author's follow-up for September 08, 2025
Author's follow-up for September 10, 2025
Author's follow-up for September 11, 2025

Now, I agree that this is the likely motivation for most Prozac critics, including Elizabeth Wurtzel and William Styron, whom Hogshire quotes in defense of this thesis. It's probably even the likely motivation for the vast majority of Prozac critics. But that's only because most Americans have their heads screwed on backwards when it comes to drugs. Most Americans are also, quite frankly, lousy at philosophy and logic. How else do we account for the fact that demagogue Drug Warriors have won such easy victories in America over their perennial foe called "common sense"?

Question: What's the difference between Big Pharma antidepressants ¹ and other drugs?
Answer: For other drugs, dependency is a bug; for antidepressants, dependency is a feature.

There are, however, a raft of philosophical reasons why Prozac use is problematic, to put it mildly, none of them prompted by a Calvinistic fear of happiness and the good life. First of all, drugs like Prozac would not even exist in a society in which all drugs were legal AND we actively sought to benefit from their psychoactive effects. In such a situation, we would be profiting from the wise use of opiates, coca, MDMA , peyote, shrooms, "speed," and the wide range of non-addictive ecstasy-facilitating substances synthesized by Alex Shulgin, along with the thousands of naturally occurring medicines that our fear of drugs has kept us from even investigating, let alone harnessing for the psychological, religious and philosophical benefit of humankind. No one would be clamoring for a drug that changes their personality in a subtle way without elating them, especially when that drug cannot be stopped at will and, indeed, often results in a lifetime dependency on chemically related Big Pharma meds.

Ironically, Hogshire is guilty here of the same sin practiced by all non-fiction authors in the age of the Drug War: he is reckoning without the effects of that Drug War!

To see how, consider this quotation that he provides us from Elizabeth Wurtzel:

"By the time I was put on Prozac, they'd tried everything else possible, I'd had my brain fried and blunted with so many other drugs."

But neither Elizabeth nor Hogshire realize that Wurtzel had most definitely NOT tried everything else possible! To the contrary, she had only tried everything LEGALLY possible, which is but a fraction of the psychoactive pharmacy from which she might have profited in a free world. She had not tried laughing gas , she had not tried MDMA , she had not tried coca, she had not tried mescaline, she had not tried smoking opium on weekends with her friends. She may have even had her brain fried literally, and not just figuratively speaking, with the "modern" and "scientific" treatment of shock therapy. Why? Because according to the perverse ideology of the Drug War, it is better to damage the brain than to use the psychoactive plant medicine that grows at our very feet.

But rather than acknowledging the stingy and scientistic nature of the existing legal pharmacopoeia, Hogshire touts its benefits. He derides the notion of Dr. Peter Breggin that such pills are being used to tranquilize inner-city residents, adding dismissively that, "he wants disturbed people to stay that way, at least without pharmaceutical treatment." Again, this may be true, as far as it goes, but that's not far. I can't speak for Breggin, but if he's like many Americans, doctors included, he would indeed recoil from the idea that "pharmaceutical drugs" could or should help the depressed. But that's not the point. The point is that folks like Breggin would also recoil from the idea that outlawed psychoactive substances could (or even should) help the depressed. That's the problem with drug policy: not that folks are anti-pharmaceuticals, but that they are anti-drugs, period, full stop. They do not want us to use time-honored substances that could help with depression. They thus tacitly sign off on the puny size of the drastically limited psychoactive pharmacopoeia of Drug War America.

In fairness to Hogshire, he wrote this book over ten years before the publication of "Anatomy of an Epidemic," in which Robert Whitaker shows how modern anti-depressants cause the very imbalances that they were meant to fix. Had he known that 1 in 4 American women were going to be using such medicines by 2017 (as Julie Holland reports in "Psychedelic Medicines," 2017, by Richard Louis Miller), he might have been a little less sarcastic about anti-Prozac conspiracy theories. Would Hogshire really claim that 1 in 4 American women do, indeed, need a daily pill (or pills) to help them overcome depression? Would he not rather accept the thesis of Ivan Illich ("Limits to Medicine: Medical Nemesis: the Expropriation of Health") that our diagnoses are designed to privilege and protect a depressing social system that desperately requires changing?

And I would suggest to Hogshire that the biggest change needed is an end to prohibition itself: the puritanical social policy which outlaws all drugs that could help us get through down patches and help give us a broader and less self-obsessed view of the world, meanwhile even giving us insights into deeper realities, as William James himself maintained about the use of altered states in The Varieties of Religious Experience.

Here's the most I can say about Prozac: If there was nothing else available for depression (thanks to prohibition), then the severely depressed should use it or a related drug - insofar as anything that even SEEMS to work in the minds of the depressed is obviously better than suicide. But even in the age of prohibition, it is absurd to believe that 1 in 4 American women are so depressed that it makes sense for them to use Prozac (or any other SSRI or SNRI) every single day of their life, until death do they part. This is a dystopia reminiscent of "The Stepford Wives" by Ira Levin. It turns women into eternal patients and wards of the healthcare state. Even IF prohibition is taken as a given, this is still not a consummation devoutly to be wished. If women are really that depressed, then America should start looking at the man in the mirror, so to speak, and stop implicitly claiming that women are pathological for not enjoying the status quo of capitalist society.

For these reasons (and many more), I was racking my brains, trying to figure out why Hogshire was so determined to protect Prozac from all comers. I came up with the following three possibilities.

1) He believes that Big Pharma drugs are "scientific" and so must obviously make sense and be appropriate (a bias that he shares not simply with most science-worshipping Americans, but even with such otherwise sane anti-prohibitionists as DJ Nutt, Carl Hart, and Rick Doblin).

2) He is receiving money from Eli Lilly, makers of Prozac, and/or has some unmentioned connection with that company.

3) He is so focused on making a pill-friendly point that he pays drastically short shrift to the philosophical problems posed by pills like Prozac; he therefore sets up a straw man representing only the shallow anti-pill thinking of "medical Calvinists," ignoring the deeper philosophical problems with such drugs, the sort that would never occur to the average morality-obsessed prohibitionist.

I consider myself something of an authority on this subject, having been on SSRIs and SNRIs for 40 years of my life (so far).

I'm hoping to get off them entirely, by the way, beginning in five years when I retire from my freelance work at 70 ("should I live so long!"), at which point I hope to move to a section of the globe that has the least possible restrictions on the use of godsend psychoactive medicine. For my belief is that getting "off" something need not imply the commitment to a drug-free Christian Science lifestyle, as modern Drug War ideology suggests. I believe that drugs, indeed, can and should be used to "fight drugs."

But something too much of this, as Hamlet was wont to say, lest these biographical musings of mine should distract from the topic at hand.

Returning to Prozac, here are three problems with the same:

Such drugs are hard to quit because they muck about with brain chemistry in unpredictable ways, which makes the physical withdrawal symptoms last for months, rather than the week generally required for opium withdrawal (see reference for Julie Holland).

The real goal of the depressed is to THRIVE, not just to survive.

The question is therefore not, are these pills okay in the abstract? The question is: do they make sense in a world in which the depressed could freely use laughing gas , opiates, MDMA ² , shrooms, peyote, ibogaine, etc.?

The answer is a resounding no in my view. Why? Because the makers of drugs like Prozac clearly define "depression" differently than I define it (the proof is in their sleep-inducing pudding!) - and therefore they cannot be "fixing" what I "have" even if, in some reductionist sense, their pills may be said to "work."

Depression to me is expressed in an inability to live large, not merely in the possibility that I might kill myself.

And scoff as Hogshire might (and does), SSRIS DO indeed change personalities - and not for the better in my view. I say this based on both my own experience of 40 years of use and on my observation of family members before and after their "use" began. I telephoned a cousin about a year ago shortly after he began use. I got a creepy feeling upon hearing his voice, for it was an intonation that I had never heard from him before, as if he had stepped back a level or two, psychically speaking, from the conversation that he was having with me. It confirmed (or at least boosted) my existing impression that the use of SSRIs had subtly taken me "out" of life, made me more of a spectator and less of an actor.

Of course all psychoactive drugs may be said to change the personality in some way; but the changes with drugs like Prozac are more likely to be permanent, if only because the drug is used every day. The question is: what sort of change is made? Is it a change that the user actually wants?

The goal of the drug makers seems to have been to make me peaceable and help me survive life. But these were never MY goals. I wanted to live like the opium -loving Avicenna, who is said to have wanted a "wide" life, not a "long" one. I wanted to join the ranks of Jack Kerouac's friends:

"The ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn burn like fabulous yellow roman candles." -Jack Kerouac from "On the Road"

But pills like Prozac do not facilitate this kind of life. To the contrary, they render its achievement far less likely, first by tranquilizing the user and then by rendering their biochemistry inimical to more vivifying treatments. The long-term users of SSRIs like myself are not eligible to participate in clinical trials of psychedelic use for depression for fear of a little studied phenomenon known as Serotonin Toxicity Syndrome.

So not only do the pills fail to help me achieve my goals in life, they also bar me from trying other treatments, treatments with a long historical backstory that vouches for their efficacy.

I am sorry to have to disagree with Hogshire because he is one of the very few authors who sees the vast majority of the hydra-headed injustices of the Drug War. It's just that he doesn't seem to even notice the ninth and final head of the monster. He fails to recognize that the psychoactive pills that he's promoting have been created according to the very puritanical Drug War ideology that he criticizes: namely, the idea that a "cure" for depression must not elate the user too much (that's a no-no) and that the use must not conduce to spiritual insights and self-transcendence (like those naughty mushrooms and cacti).

By serving as a friendly witness for Big Pharma , Hogshire deprives himself of the use of one of the biggest arguments against the War on Drugs: namely, that it has created the biggest medical dystopia of all time by rendering 1 in 4 American women dependent on Big Pharma meds for life. (It did this through prohibition legislation which gave the pharmaceutical companies -- and the liquor industry -- a monopoly on mood and mind medicine in America.)

The point bears repeating: 1 in 4 American women are dependent on Big Pharma ³ ⁴ meds for life. This means that they are eternal patients, which is perhaps the most disempowering status of all, even worse than the status of "addict," which, in itself, does not render the user dependent upon the government and the healthcare industry. One does not have to be a medical Calvinist to find this state of affairs troubling - especially when the same Drug War that protects and privileges Prozac has kept folks like myself from accessing the medicines that grow at their very feet.

Author's Follow-up:

May 04, 2025

picture of clock metaphorically suggesting a follow-up

In his book about pills, Jim Hogshire seems to write under the impression that antidepressants have got depression "sorted," as the Brits would say. This is a tempting assumption given the dizzying pace of technological innovation over the last half a century. Since science does so well in the physical realm, why can't it handle mind and mood medicine as well? "How hard can it be?" Jim seems to ask.

But those who believe in "science uber alles" fail to realize that it was a category error to place materialist scientists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place. And this claim can be proven.

Consider the following quote by Alfred North Whitehead in "The Concept of Nature":

"The substantial reason for rejecting a philosophical theory is the 'absurdum' to which it reduces us."

And the application of materialist philosophy in the realm of mind and mood has led to palpably absurd results.

We live in a world in which our scientific researchers are blind to the glaringly obvious benefits of drugs. Why? Because they are materialists, and materialists are passion-scorning behaviorists when it comes to psychology. They are dogmatically blind to anecdote, history and common sense about glaringly obvious drug benefits. The Hindu religion would not exist today if materialists had been in charge of mind and mood medicine in the Punjab in 1500 BCE -- because Soma ⁵ merely "worked," you see, and that is never enough for the materialist. For them, psychoactive drugs must work in a way that flatters the reductionist mindset. Indeed, materialist doctor Robert Glatter wrote a piece in Forbes magazine in 2021 in which he doubted whether laughing gas could help the depressed. Laughing gas, for God's sake! Dear Robert! Let me remind you, please, that I am not an alien from Mars just because I am a chronic depressive. If a drug like nitrous oxide gives "normal" users a glimpse of heaven, that glimpse could even be beneficial for me -- yea, even me -- even though materialists have reified my "illness" into a discrete and disconnected condition in the DSM for the benefit of insurance companies. Besides, drugs like nitrous oxide have obvious potential for helping folks get through the downsides of drug withdrawal -- or rather this potential WOULD be obvious were Americans not wearing materialist blinders when it comes to assessing the merits of various mind and mood medicines.

The extent of this absurdum can scarcely be exaggerated, this absurdity brought about by the fact that America views godsend medicines from a materialist perspective. Consider the reports of the use of phenethylamines in Pihkal or the obvious fact that opium can inspire and elate. Such drugs cry out for use by the suicidal and depressed! And yet literally no one in the mainstream scientific world is advocating the use of phenethylamines or opium . We would literally prefer that Americans kill themselves than to use such drugs. This of course is due first and foremost to fearmongering, which childishly tells us that Homo sapiens will never be smart and mature enough to ever use drugs wisely. But Drug Warriors would not get away with this fearmongering if our materialist scientists did not tacitly maintain that there are no benefits to the use of the drugs that are thus demonized. Why should we end prohibition after all if all those outlawed substances have no good uses anyway? And so materialists help to normalize drug prohibition.

To be honest, Hogshire tees me off in this book, because just like Carl Hart in "Drug Use for Grown-Ups," he is essentially telling chronic depressives like myself to "shut up and keep taking our meds," this while Hogshire and Hart themselves are both enjoying far more inspiriting medicines like coca and opium -- and even phenethylamines, if they know what's good for them, as they seem to do. In other words, the drugs that THEY use elate rather than sedate. Meanwhile they fob me off on the kinds of tranquilizing drugs that have turned me into an eternal patient and a ward of the healthcare state. And if I complain, I am dismissed as a pharmacological Luddite and a Medical Calvinist.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, Jim Hogshire, but dependence-causing materialist medicines will never satisfy me.

Of course, pharmacists like Alexander Shulgin can work wonders -- but only when they think as a human being rather than a scientist. The minute that Shulgin starts thinking as a scientist in "Pihkal," he begins doubting whether the wonder drugs that he is reporting on would have any use as anti-depressants -- as if merely cheering up a human being and inspiring them -- and giving them states of rapture -- were not enough. The minute he thinks as a scientist, Shulgin seems to think that the depressed individual is from Planet Mars.

This happens because the "scientific" mindset searches for a one-size-fits-all pill that will pass muster with public sentiment -- in other words, a pill that will not give any excessive pleasure or insight to the user. He will also be searching for a drug that will need to be taken for life -- if he really wants to please his clients. So we see that the absurdity to which I allude even has sinister overtones.

Author's Follow-up:

September 08, 2025

The Effexor ⁶ that I am on is harder to kick than heroin ⁷. It changes brain chemistry in such a way that withdrawal symptoms can continue for YEARS. Meanwhile, the physical effects of opium dependence can be gotten over in a week ⁸! And yet even Effexor is not the villain of the piece. Common sense tells us that the drug could be "kicked" relatively easily if I were allowed to use any other drugs to accomplish that task. What is recidivism after all but an intense psychological angst that typically lasts a few hours -- and those downsides could be obfuscated and transcended with the help of other drugs: drugs that inspire and elate. I am talking about substances like laughing gas ⁹ , opium ¹⁰ , coca, and the phenethylamines synthesized by Alexander Shulgin. Consider just a few user reports of those latter drugs published in Pihkal ¹¹ in 1991:

"A glimpse of what true heaven is supposed to feel like..."

"A wonderful feeling of converting energy into action."

"This is total energy, and I am aware of my every membrane. This has been a marvelous experience, very beautiful, joyous, and sensuous."

We do not need lab technicians to tell us if outcomes like these could inspire and motivate people in my position. When government tries to tell us so, they are clearly attempting to gaslight us.

The fact is, there are endless uplifting psychoactive substances in Mother Nature -- in trees, in fungi, in lichen, in animals -- about which we are only now beginning to learn -- or rather we are trying to learn, since our government is always dogging the heels of our researchers, determined to make sure that nothing beneficial is ever put to work for the benefit of human beings. In fact, if an alien came from Mars to study drug policy, they would deduce that the goal of our government is to completely disempower citizens when it comes to psychological healthcare. How? By outlawing every substance that might possibly be of benefit to them.

What Jim did not realize, however, is that antidepressants are a life sentence in the age of the Drug War. Why is it Medical Calvinism for a depressed person not to wish to become a patient for life!!! That is demoralizing, expensive, and time-consuming. Imagine, a 65-year-old seeing a nurse practitioner one-third his age every three months of his life to bear his soul for the privilege of being allowed to purchase more dependence-causing medicine that does not inspire and elate.

Only in a free world with re-legalized drugs would I consider talking about antidepressants as "just another drug," as Jim would have us do.

Author's Follow-up:

September 10, 2025

In a free world, almost all depressed individuals could do WITHOUT doctors: these adult human beings could handle their own depression with the informed intermittent use of a wide variety of psychoactive substances. There are endless drugs out there that could cheer up the depressed "in a trice." In the age of the Drug War, however, all of these adults are shunted off onto medicines that DO NOT INSPIRE AND ELATE -- THAT DO NOT FIX DEPRESSION -- and yet these "meds" turn the user into patients for life! THIS is what Jim does not understand about antidepressants. I am not a Medical Calvinist merely because I demand the right to REAL inspiration from the medicines that politicians have chosen to slander with the pejorative epithet of "drugs." I am not a Medical Calvinist just because I complain about being turned into a ward of the healthcare state thanks to the use of medicines for which dependency is a feature, not a bug.

No one can just take antidepressants like Effexor intermittently and expect to profit by it. The drug actually must change the user's brain chemistry before it begins "working" -- and this takes time: just enough time, in fact, for the user to become dependent on the drug for life! Such drugs then are unique -- and uniquely insidious -- for they actually REQUIRE that the user become dependent upon them in order for them to have their full effect, such as it is. The effects would have to be damn good to justify such an enormous time-consuming, expensive and demoralizing downside. And yet Effexor never "cured" my depression -- at best it made life bearable -- whereas the use of its many outlawed rivals could have helped me to thrive in life.

Author's Follow-up:

September 11, 2025

As much as I criticize the psychiatric pill mill, I find that all my fellow critics of the status quo miss the point. Every single one of them derides the constant prescription of dependence-causing antidepressants without mentioning how drug prohibition created this dystopia in the first place by giving a monopoly on mood medicine to self-interested corporations. If we do not hold the Drug War accountable for the problems that it causes, then the Drug War will never end.

Meanwhile, these critics talk as if the answer to this problem of mass dependency is for folks to stop taking these kinds of pills. That is kind of like telling the survivors of a shipwreck that they should abandon their life raft because it is not seaworthy. That is terrible advice. Clearly, they should not simply abandon their life rafts, but they must, at the same time, find a replacement for it!

Just so with drugs. The answer to the psychiatric pill mill is not to turn all the pill takers into drug-hating Christian Scientists. The answer is to let them use the godsend medicines that grow all around them: those drugs that can inspire and elate WITHOUT causing a lifelong dependency -- except in the fevered imagination of drug demonizers who judge all drugs by the worst-case use scenario -- a scenario that they turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy thanks to their refusal to educate, regulate and provide true drug choice.

This is a particularly hateful policy when one considers the unfathomable hypocrisy of those who maintain it. Most such politicians consider gun control to be anathema. They have not one word to say about the hundreds of thousands who have been killed in inner cities over the last half a century by the gun violence ¹² that was brought about by their drug prohibition ¹³. Moreover, they have no problems whatsoever with alcohol, which is associated with 178,000 deaths a year in America alone ¹⁴.

Pharmacologically Savvy Empaths

Notes for essay entitled What Jim Hogshire Got Wrong about Drugs: a philosophical review of Pills-a-Go-Go:

1: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs DWP (up)
2: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts DWP (up)
3: Seife, Charles. 2012. “Is Drug Research Trustworthy?” Scientific American 307 (6): 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1212-56. (up)
4: LaMattina, John. n.d. “Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of the FDA’s Drug Division Budget?” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2022/09/22/why-is-biopharma-paying-75-of-the-fdas-drug-division-budget/. (up)
5: Blue Tide: The Search for Soma: a philosophical review of the book by Mike Jay DWP (up)
6: How Drug Prohibition makes it impossible to get off of Effexor and other Big Pharma drugs DWP (up)
7: Hall, Wayne, and Megan Weier. 2016. “Lee Robins’ Studies of Heroin Use among US Vietnam Veterans.” Addiction 112 (1): 176–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13584. (up)
8: Hogshire, Jim. 2009. Opium for the Masses. Feral House. (up)
9: Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide DWP (up)
10: The Truth About Opium by William H. Brereton DWP (up)
11: Shulgin, Alexander T, and Ann Shulgin. 2019. Pihkal : A Chemical Love Story. Berkeley, Ca: Transform Press. (up)
12: Firearm Violence in the United States Center for Gun Violence Solutions, Johns Hopkins University (up)
13: Gun Deaths in Big Cities Big Cities Health (up)
14: CDC. 2024. “Facts About U.S. Deaths from Excessive Alcohol Use.” Alcohol Use. July 8, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/facts-stats/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html. (up)

read more essays here

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

Psychiatrists prescribe drugs that muck about with a patient's biochemical baseline, making them chemically dependent and turning them into patients for life.

Addiction was not a big thing until the drug war. It's now the boogie-man with which drug warriors scare us into giving up our freedoms. But getting obsessed on one single drug is natural in the age of choice-limiting prohibition.

AI is like almost every subject under the sun: it takes on a very different and ominous meaning when we view it in light of the modern world's unprecedented wholesale outlawing of psychoactive medicine.

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.

The Drug War shows us that American democracy is fundamentally flawed. Propaganda and fearmongering has persuaded Americans to give up freedoms that are clearly enunciated in the U.S. Constitution. We need a new democracy in which a Constitution actually matters.

Kids should be taught in grade school that prohibition is wrong.

Freud thought cocaine was a great antidepressant. His contemporaries demonized the drug by focusing only on the rare misusers. That's like judging alcohol by focusing on alcoholics.

Judging from research articles, they do not even teach the many obvious benefits of drugs in med school.

In "The Book of the Damned," Charles Fort writes about the data that science has damned, by which he means "excluded." The fact that drugs can inspire and elate is one such fact, although when Fort wrote his anti-materialist broadside, drug prohibition was in its infancy.

When scientists discuss suicide without mentioning the fact that their government has outlawed drugs, it is like scientists discussing deaths from bacterial infection without mentioning the fact that their government has outlawed antibiotics.

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

No cookies, no ads paid for by amoral and immoral billionaires (or trillionaires).

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.

The Partnership for a Death Free America is a proud sponsor of The Drug War Philosopher website @ abolishthedea.com.

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP

(up)

What Jim Hogshire Got Wrong about Drugs

a philosophical review of Pills-a-Go-Go

Author's Follow-up:

May 04, 2025

Author's Follow-up:

September 08, 2025

Author's Follow-up:

September 10, 2025

Author's Follow-up:

September 11, 2025

Pharmacologically Savvy Empaths

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

Break the ice with a sledgehammer: place this book on your coffee table.

Diary of a Drug Fiend