Who really speaks for the depressed in the age of drug prohibition?
another open letter to Robert Whitaker of Mad in America
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 8, 2026
You could have knocked me down with a prescription bottle when Robert Whitaker refused to give me a voice on his Mad in America website. I had written Robert to tell him that depressed Canadian Claire Brosseau was on "death row" because of America's mad attitude about drugs. Claire was asking for her right to assisted suicide despite the fact that endless drugs exist that could make her wish to live -- a fact that can only be denied by those who are either unaware of, or are indifferent to, the state of the art in pharmacology and ethnobotany, to say nothing of the history of world religions and common sense psychology. If Robert did not like my writing style, he could have interviewed me on the subject, but to claim that I have no standing on this time-sensitive matter is infuriating. Does someone need to have "standing" in order to report that a populated building is on fire and threatening to engulf the residents? I am one of the most experienced people in the world on the subject about which Robert writes. I was on the receiving end of the disempowering psychiatric pill mill long before Robert was writing books about the scientistic myths behind modern antidepressants. I have written hundreds of essays on the subject. I am the proverbial grizzled elder in the field. But Robert thinks that academics and credentialed doctors are the real experts on matters of MY mind and MY mood. We, the depressed, should listen to our betters.
Robert wants a dispassionate professional to rework my just indignation (and my concern for Claire Brosseau) into a politically correct format that won't rattle the medical establishment and which won't force his med-dependent followers to engage in the uncomfortable task of thinking. He wants to put Claire's story on hold until a distinguished academic is willing to stick out their neck to confront the verboten issues that I alone have raised. The problem is, of course, that this blue moon that Robert is waiting for will surely shine only long after we westerners have sacrificed Claire on the altar of the drug-hating ideology of the west, telling Claire by our silence that, "Yes, Claire, we agree with you on this at least, that if Big Pharma cannot help you, then nothing can." Although Robert, for his part, would probably add: "Have you ever thought of exercise and yoga, Claire?" as if Robert knows all about the vast array of inputs that makes Claire Claire and that he can therefore decide for Claire that the answer to all her problems is to become a Christian Scientist.
Robert will say that I do not have the proper credentials and that I have not consulted the noted authorities on my "condition." But that is only because (in my opinion) Robert does not understand how philosophy works. (Actually, I HAVE consulted our credentialed experts, but almost every single one of them has ghosted me. What do I know, after all? I'm a mere patient!) My arguments are all in the form of the argumentum ad absurdum. This is a democratic form of argument: no honorific titles required, just an ability to create valid syllogisms. I adduce facts that everyone agrees to be true -- and then I reveal the dubious assumptions that have brought about those facts, while showing the absurdity that ensues when we take those assumptions to their logical conclusions, thereby (hopefully) changing the minds of my opponents. And no news story illustrates this absurdity more clearly than the case of Claire Brosseau. It is terrifying to me that neither doctors, psychiatrists, ethicists, nor reporters see any connection between drug prohibition and assisted suicide. It shows how completely America has replaced concern about the depressed with the cold calculus of biochemical determinism. (Here's the connection in a nutshell, for the benefit of biochemical determinists and Christian Scientists who are still struggling with this subject: The propriety of assisted suicide is always thought to be contingent upon "perceived quality of life," and perceived quality of life is always contingent upon mental attitude, and drug use is all about improving one's mental attitude.)
We actually seem to believe that if Big Pharma meds cannot help the depressed, then no substances can. And this is just a complete lie. Fortunately for Big Pharma, it has been all but illegal to attempt to illustrate the benefits of demonized "drugs" (as opposed to the supposed benefits of the substances that we have been taught to revere as "meds"), let alone to profit from those drugs. But the truth is out there, even though it's hidden in disreputable and fringe places -- not because the truth itself is disreputable and fringe by nature, but because vicious laws have forced the proponents of common sense and progress to retreat to dubious neighborhoods. And this is just what the prohibitionists want. Our forced exile from the mainstream will, in the simple minds of our opponents, provide "proof" that we ourselves are guilty of all the sins that they have hitherto associated with our new and unsought-for neighbors in the bullet-riddled back streets of the body politic, bullet-riddled, that is, thanks to the perverse incentives created by the prohibitionist policies of our opponents.
American academics (and the journalists who flatter them) will not be free until they acknowledge the following home truths: that assisted suicide for the depressed has everything to do with drug prohibition; that shock therapy for the depressed has everything to do with drug prohibition; that inner-city gunfire has everything to do with drug prohibition; that the wars in Mexico have everything to do with drug prohibition; that the school shootings have everything to do with drug prohibition (see the subject of entheogens); that dementia has everything to do with drug prohibition (see Alexander Shulgin, Aleister Crowley and Freud for testimony about drugs that drastically improve cognition); and that academic censorship has everything to do with drug prohibition.
Until academics wake up and smell the poppies, they are just playing a game of make-believe in the age of drug prohibition, albeit one for which they are being handsomely remunerated. Our credentialed pundits in the Ivory Tower are like a bunch of grade schoolers who got together in a suburban attic wearing ridiculously oversized tweed suits and fake mustaches and said:
Kid 1: "Let's pretend that we are highly esteemed academics. [attempting ponderous-sounding voice] 'Good day, honorable colleagues, good day!'"
Kid 2: "Yeah, but let's pretend that Mother Nature's psychoactive substances do not exist -- except as traps to ensnare sinners."
Kid 3: "And let's pretend that human beings have no right to the bounty of Mother Nature and that there is nothing wrong with the government telling us which drug-related subjects we can study and which not."
Kid 4: "And let's pretend that drug prohibition has no downsides in the real world."
Kid 5: "Okay, I guess so. But let's retain all of the trappings of certitude and self-satisfaction that are typically associated with pedants, failing to even consciously notice the strictures in question, let alone the fact that those strictures totally bias the playing field as to what we can study and hence what conclusions we are even allowed to DRAW!"
Let me be clear. I do not blame Robert Whitaker for disagreeing with me. Everybody who's anybody disagrees with me (at least in those rare cases in which they do not simply ghost me). I am complaining about the fact that Robert sees no significance in this very debate that we are having via e-mail, the debate over who is the expert when it comes to my -- MY -- depression. Robert says it is the credentialed academic or scientist; I say that it is the depressed themselves and that academics and scientists have clear biases on these topics in the age of drug prohibition and biochemical determinism. It's fine for Robert to draw a different conclusion on that subject, but it's wrong for him to declare victory over my viewpoint by failing to even acknowledge publicly that a debate exists!
Key Takeaways:
Assisted suicide cannot be discussed advisedly without discussing drug prohibition.
No one has to be credentialed in order to deploy the argumentum ad absurdum.
Drug law has exiled common sense and human progress from the mainstream.
Censorship has everything to do with drug prohibition.
Academics are playing a big game of make-believe in the age of drug prohibition.
America needs a debate: who speaks for the depressed, self-interested scientists and doctors or the depressed themselves?
There's a run of addiction movies out there, like "Craving!" wherein they actually personify addiction as a screaming skeleton. Funny, drug warriors never call for a Manhattan Project to end addiction. Addiction is their golden goose.
Oregon's drug policy is incoherent and cruel. The rich and healthy spend $4,000 a week on psilocybin. The poor and chemically dependent are thrown in jail, unless they're on SSRIs, in which case they're congratulated for "taking their meds."
I could tell my psychiatrist EXACTLY what would "cure" my depression, even without getting addicted, but everything involved is illegal. It has to be. Otherwise I would have no need of the psychiatrist.
Someone needs to create a group called Drug Warriors Anonymous, a place where Americans can go to discuss their right to mind and mood medicine and to discuss the many ways in which our society trashes godsend medicines.
Trump supports the drug war and Big Pharma: the two forces that have turned me into a patient for life with dependence-causing antidepressants. Big Pharma makes the pills, and the drug war outlaws all viable alternatives.
Today's drug laws tell us that we must respect the historical use of sacred medicines, while denying us our personal right to use them unless our ancestors did so. That's a meta-injustice! It negatively affects the way that we are allowed to experience our world!
Psychedelic retreats tell us how scientific they are. But science is the problem. Science today insists that we ignore all obvious benefits of drugs.
Now the folks who helped Matthew get Ketamine must be sacrificed on the altar of the Drug War, lest people start thinking that the Drug War itself was at fault.y
Wade Davis wrote in Rolling Stone that cocaine was outlawed because 400 people consumed toxic doses worldwide. SO WHAT?! 178,000 people die from alcohol every year in America alone.
New article in Scientific American: "New hope for pain relief," that ignores the fact that we have outlawed the time-honored panacea. Scientists want a drug that won't run the risk of inspiring us.
(up)