Homepage of the Drug War Philosopher, Brian Quass
blog icon orange rss icon with stylized radio waves bird icon for twitter bird icon for twitter substack icon


back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow


What the psychiatrist said when I told him I wanted to get off Effexor

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

June 28, 2024



For those who haven't noticed, I have somewhat strong feelings about issues related to psychoactive drugs, especially when it comes to the psychiatric pill mill 1 and the War on Drugs. (No, seriously. You'd be surprised!) And yet I am always trying to keep an "open mind." That's why I went into my new psychiatrist's office yesterday with the firm intention of listening to everything he said, without cutting him off or rolling my eyes. I would raise neither my eyebrows nor my voice. I was going to state my own point of view first, of course, but then I was going to "stand down" and actually listen. In this way, I would learn what the "party line" was in present-day psychiatry and just how open its votaries were to change.

Historically speaking (which is to say over the last 20+ years), these in-person visits had just been a pro forma requirement for me to continue receiving "my meds." The psychiatrist would weigh me with my shoes on, apologize for the notorious imprecision of the scale, guide me into the confession booth - er, the psychiatrist's office - and then give me the 10-question form to find out how well I was sleeping at night and whether I was contemplating suicide. (I always wanted to answer that latter question as follows: "Yes, whenever I think about the fact that the Drug War has turned me into an eternal patient by shunting me off onto dependence-causing Big Pharma drugs.") To be fair, however, this psychiatrist skipped the humiliating 10-question quiz entirely. But I still threw him a curveball when the conversation - or rather his monologue - came around to the subject of how I had been feeling since my last office visit, just six months ago.

I wanted to get off Effexor 2 , I told him.

His response reminded me of the incredulous reaction that Josef K. received when he announced that he was going to fire his lawyer and represent himself in Kafka's "The Trial." I recall the psychiatrist saying something like, "Oh, don't do that," which irritated me a little, to be honest, but I soldiered on, without so much as rolling one single eyeball. In retrospect, his attitude seemed to be: "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I say this based on his subsequent praise for Effexor as an antidepressant and the fact that I was not reporting any psychological or physical problems. I realized, however, that the only way I could protest this misplaced sanguinity on his part would be to reference a bunch of psychological and philosophical considerations that I could never conjure up coherently on the fly: for instance, the fact that I abhor the materialist program of improving mentality through reductively-informed surgical strikes at brain chemistry, based as it is on the false idea that human beings are interchangeable widgets when it comes to treating their emotional lives.

I also believe that it's absurd to remain on dependence-causing materialist-designed drugs in the year 2024, given all that we have learned about the curative powers of natural medicines like psilocybin3, San Pedro Cactus4 and ayahuasca5 - a list of life-changers that is sure to keep growing as the world finally learns to reject the anti-scientific idea that drugs can be voted "good" or "bad" without regard for context of use.

Fortunately, I realized that it would be worse than useless to try to argue these points in a half-hour session with a professional who had been educated in the materialist tradition, especially given my determination to keep this meeting friendly. So I soldiered on by explaining the details of my proposed protocol for getting off of Effexor.

"I have a theory about how I can get off Effexor in one year. It would involve compounding my prescription such that each successive pill that I take contains only 364/365th as much Effexor as its predecessor. During this year, I would be using psilocybin, not just in macrodoses but in microdoses, because there is ample evidence from user reports that such medicine can inspire change and fortitude, especially when used in conjunction with the sorts of empathic human guides that I intend to employ in this protocol. See more from Paul Stamets himself on the promise of psilocybin microdosing6."


The psychiatrist responded so politely and in such a melodious voice that I actually thought he was making sense at the time.

He told me that he had never heard of such a thing, that he had never heard of compounding being used in such a way. He then told me that his preferred procedure would be to immediately drop my daily 225 mg dose by 37.5 mg for three weeks and then drop it by another 37.5 mgs after that. He warned me that I may have what some people call "brain zaps" and tingling sensations, etc., but this was normal and that I would be just fine. The worst problem, he said, is that your depression could return during this time. Naturally, I would require additional appointments during this withdrawal process to make sure that these relatively large dosage decreases were not causing me problems.

What could I say? I had determined not to argue with the guy and besides, he truly sounded like he knew what he was talking about.

I only realized the uselessness of his answers that night as I lay in bed thinking.

He was not making sense at all! He completely ignored the obvious psychological reasons for reducing the drug slowly and steadily with compounding: it was precisely to AVOID the brain zaps and the return of depression. Nor did he place any store in the value of plant medicine to buoy my attitude during the withdrawal process. Drugs like psilocybin, etc., are still being studied, he said, and their usefulness has not been determined.

Of course, in 20-20 hindsight, I should have responded as follows:

"Their usefulness has not been determined by materialist science, perhaps, but indigenous people around the world have known such medicines to be effective for tens of thousands of years. The problem is that materialists are psychologically challenged. They still cannot even figure out if laughing gas 7 could help the depressed8. Even the Reader's Digest figured out that laughing was the best medicine, over a century ago. Surely such drug use would at least be better than suicide 9 or electroshock therapy! And don't get me started on the many elating and inspiring substances synthesized by Alexander Shulgin, none of which turn the user into a patient for life10. Such substances would HAVE to help me, psychologically speaking, to make the tapering routine WORK, by helping me wrap my mind around the process and inwardly commit to a Big Pharma 11 12 -free life."


But it was just as well that I kept quiet and let the psychiatrist talk. Now I better understand the anti-patient nature of the psychiatric party line and why I need to stop being dependent on psychiatrists altogether.

PS I forgot to mention: I asked the psychiatrist what I would do when the dosage got down to the 37.5 mg capsule, given that 37.5 is the smallest capsule that pharmaceutical companies make for Effexor. He said "No problem. You can just open the 37.5 capsules and count the itty-bitty pilules inside until you get the dosage that you want."

WHAT? Surely, that's what compounding pharmacies are for, to count the itty-bitty pilules!

Conclusion: When psychiatrists tell you the best way to get off of Effexor, they mean the best way for THEM as a psychiatrist, not for you as a patient.











Notes for essay entitled What the psychiatrist said when I told him I wanted to get off Effexor:

1: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs DWP (up)
2: How Drug Prohibition makes it impossible to get off of Effexor and other Big Pharma drugs DWP (up)
3: Ancient History of Psilocybin Mushroom Use MycoMeditations, 2020 (up)
4: My Experience With San Pedro in Peru - Shamanic Healing and Plant Medicines Revitalize From the Inside Out, 2019 (up)
5: Ayahuasca Foundation Blog Tanner, Carlos, Ayahuasca Foundation (up)
6: The Treasure Called the Psilocybes: Paul Stamets Science and Nonduality, 2019 (up)
7: Forbes Magazine's Laughable Article about Nitrous Oxide DWP (up)
8: Glatter, Robert. 2021. “Can Laughing Gas (Nitrous Oxide) Help People with Treatment-Resistant Depression?” Forbes, June 9, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2021/06/09/can-laughing-gas-nitrous-oxide-help-people-with-treatmentresistant-depre (up)
9: Why Americans Prefer Suicide to Drug Use DWP (up)
10: Alexander Shulgin: American Hero DWP (up)
11: Seife, Charles. 2012. “Is Drug Research Trustworthy?” Scientific American 307 (6): 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1212-56. (up)
12: 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)




read more essays here





Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US




In Mexico, the same substance can be considered a "drug" or a "med," depending on where you are in the country. It's just another absurd result of the absurd policy of drug prohibition.

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 drug war is a slow-motion coup against democracy.

Saying "Fentanyl kills" is philosophically equivalent to saying "Fire bad!" Both statements are attempts to make us fear dangerous substances rather than to learn how to use them as safely as possible for human benefit.

If daily drug use and dependency are okay, then there's no logical or scientific reason why I can't smoke a nightly opium pipe.

Freud had the right idea: He noticed that cocaine use actually ended depression in his patients. Unfortunately, he was ambitious and was more interested in making a name for himself than in pushing back against the statistically challenged fear mongering of prohibitionists.

The Drug War is a crime against humanity.

When we place the FDA in charge of deciding whether a psychoactive drug should be re-legalized or not, we are asking them to decide on things like the relative importance of appreciating a sunset, a task for which the FDA has no expertise whatsoever.

The DEA conceives of "drugs" as only justifiable in some time-honored ritual format, but since when are bureaucrats experts on religion? I believe, with the Vedic people and William James, in the importance of altered states. To outlaw such states is to outlaw my religion.

The healthcare industry turns all the emotional downsides of drug prohibition into "illnesses."


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






back navigation arrow forward navigation arrow
Book Cover

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

This book features 150 annotated images, designed to force brainwashed Americans to confront the fact that drug prohibition is wrong. Here is what author Richard Parrish II says of the book's compiler: "The drug prohibition philosopher provides first-hand, principled, persuasive, and insightful arguments against the current drug prohibition regime..."

Purchase Your Copy
Book Cover

Diary of a Drug Fiend

This is the only full-cast recording of Aleister Crowley's 1922 classic paeon to common sense. It is the first book -- and so far almost the only book -- to stake out a philosophy of drug use that is compatible with human freedom, one in which we learn to use drugs as wisely as possible for the benefit of humanity. This recording was produced by the Drug War Philosopher and your purchases help support his effort to push back against the tragically counterproductive policy of drug prohibition, in the name of human freedom and of humanity's right to heal.

Purchase Your Copy



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.


Copyright 2026, Brian Ballard Quass Contact: quass@quass.com

tombstone for American Democracy, 1776-2024, RIP (up)