how materialists collude with drug warriors to keep us from using godsend medicine
by Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
June 6, 2023
n my philosophical review of "Opium for the Masses" by Jim Hogshire1, I took materialists to task for failing to recognize what we pedants would call the potential ontological significance of the opium dream experience -- which is to say the fact that opium dreams may tell us something about reality writ large. It's since occurred to me that the rap sheet for materialists is far longer than this seemingly isolated criticism might suggest. Materialists are, in fact, unindicted co-conspirators in the War on Drugs.
Here's where Shakespeare's Mistress Quickly would blurt out the following challenge: "Make that good!"
To which I reply: "Peace, my lady, give ear and perpend!"
It is the materialist reductionist outlook that keeps us from recognizing the therapeutic value of all sorts of godsend medicines, and not just opium.
Consider the astonishing proposition that such medicines have no therapeutic value whatsoever. How could that be? No positive uses for a drug that Avicenna himself considered to be a panacea? That statement, if it's to have any truth value at all, has to presuppose the ideology of materialism.
You see, to the materialist, the proof of efficacy has to reside in molecules and chemicals, not in undeniable anecdotes and human history. You say millions have found opium wonderful and it has inspired great poetry? That means nothing to the materialist. He wants molecular proof that can be added to a PowerPoint presentation, figures that can be quoted in a grant application, objective numbers that can be added to a database. The materialist is deaf to any subjective evidence.
It's this myopic lack of common sense that causes otherwise brainy people like Dr. Robert Glatter to ask silly questions, like "Can laughing gas help people with treatment-resistant depression?2", in an article of that title in the June 2021 edition of Forbes magazine. Of course laughing gas can help the depressed, by definition even! The reason Glatter doubts it is because he's a materialist and only accepts reductive explanations of efficacy.
This is why Descartes denied that animals could experience pain, because reductive evidence did not prove it. Sure, dogs will howl when you hurt them, but Descartes tells us that's just noise. Likewise laughing, for materialists like Glatter, is just noise.
The fact is, however, that common sense is not that problematic! Happiness -- drug induced or otherwise -- is happiness. What's more, happiness -- and the anticipation of happiness -- are health-producing.
For this reason, any drug in the world that provides a pleasant feeling can be valuable in treating depression. Any drug in the world. Even opium. Nor is the possibility of dependency a reason to ignore opium, for with opium, dependency might be called a bug, but for modern anti-depressants (upon which 1 in 4 American women are hooked for life), dependency is a feature. This is why doctors keep unabashedly telling such women to "keep taking your meds." We see then the outlawing of opium is based on an aesthetic judgment about what constitutes the good life, not on some scientific evidence that shows us what does and does not actually work for the "user."
It must be remembered, moreover, that the Hindu religion owes its very existence to the use of a drug that elated and inspired. From this fact alone, it follows that the outlawing of psychoactive substances is the outlawing of religion -- nay, of the religious impulse itself3.
Author's Follow-up: June 7, 2023
In "Opium for the Masses," Jim Hogshire includes a section entitled "the Role of Pain in Freedom." I hope Michael Pollan reads this part carefully and that it helps him reconsider his view expressed in "How to Change Your Mind" that outlawing Mother Nature makes any kind of sense in a free society. For if Pollan thinks outlawing marijuana makes sense, he's certainly onboard with outlawing the poppy.
The poppy's central and indispensable position in our civilization makes access to it important, and thus forbidding public access to the poppy is staggeringly cruel. Ceding control of opiates means ceding control of pain relief to the State... which has shown truly morbid interest in inflicting pain and denying its relief in order to effect social change and maintain social control. This is power that free people should never relinquish easily or without a fight.
Again, I call on Michael to repent. Outlawing Mother Nature is a violation of both common sense and natural law. It is a wrong way of looking at the world. The book of Genesis tells us that God's creation is good. The Drug War represents a religious view that mother nature is evil until proven otherwise. In orthodox Christianity, however, there are no evil things: only evil people and the evil policies that they create. When we think in terms of evil things, like evil drugs, we go astray and hence the endless downsides of prohibition, including inner-city shootings, civil wars overseas and the suppression and censorship (usually self-censorship) of scientific research. Substance demonization and prohibition is unbecoming of a free country, Michael. Please repent! Teach, don't punish.
Author's Follow-up: February 4, 2025
In the Age of the Drug War, it's a big no-no for regular people to have any ideas about medicines. This is because we all make the assumption that psychoactive medicine is the same as physical medicine and should be governed by the same rules: namely, that our doctors know best. But the use of psychoactive medicines cannot be judged in this way. That is a huge bias. This is why the FDA can get away with telling us that drugs like MDMA have no positive uses, because they evaluate psychoactive drugs the same way that they evaluate physical drugs, without regard for the feelings of the 'patient,' which, however, in the case of mind and mood medicine are of paramount importance.
I can still, however, sense that the behaviorists in the audience are shocked that I would seem to be giving medical advice, so let me state explicitly what would be obvious in a sane world in which we were not all loaded with presuppositions about so-called drugs.
As Alfred North Whitehead reminds us, all English sentences are elliptical. That is, they assume some knowledge on the part of the reader. For instance, if I say, "I love cathedrals," I am really saying that, "I love cathedrals when they exist in appropriate places and are built in a style that I associate with cathedrals," etc.
Just so, when I write that doctors should prescribe opium for the depressed, I have an elliptical statement in mind, which would run something like this:
"Doctors should prescribe opium as appropriate in particular cases based on the depressed patient's psychological predilections and physical sensitivities in order to help them through a variety of creative drug-aided protocols, as opposed to limiting their therapies for the depressed to those suggested by the inhumane philosophy of behaviorism, which denies the importance of actual felt experience," etc.
Any faithful and educated readers of my essays (assuming there were any) would understand my initial spare sentence to mean the same thing as the verbose rendition above. It's true that those who do not bother to learn my overall philosophy of drugs and drug use might reach a wrong conclusion about my intentions, but then they have no business reading philosophy if they are looking only for soundbites. If anyone is to blame for such misunderstandings, it is society and their parents, neither of which taught them any better.
Nevertheless, I hope that the verbose statement just provided will make my meaning clear even to those who cannot be bothered with learning the philosophy with which I approach the whole subject of drugs and drug use.
Author's Follow-up:
April 16, 2025
Of course, doctors should not have to prescribe opium. I am a big boy. I should be able to use it on my own without a prescription. That said, however, in a free world, any friend should be able to recommend the safe use of opium. Materialist doctors have no expertise in the subject of what actually works for people in terms of mind and mood. To the contrary, they have a mental block on the subject thanks to their adherence to the inhumane doctrine of behaviorism, which tells them to ignore all obvious emotional displays and just focus on quantifiable data.
What I am trying to say here is that the utility of opium in fighting depression (for certain people in certain situations) is dead obvious to normal human beings -- but, alas, has to be explained very slowly and carefully to materialists. In their world, you look under microscopes to find out what works, you see. Hell, I could live a whole lifetime laughing and being kind to my neighbors, but they would still tell me that I am not "really" enjoying my life -- at least not until they can prove that using a PowerPoint presentation that would pass muster with the FDA.
Look, it's simple. One enjoys mental freedom and dreaming and one looks forward to such things. Anticipation is health-producing and boosts mood, by definition. Modern drug science is all about gaslighting us into thinking that happiness is not happiness and that drugs that work do not "really" work -- which is a metaphysical statement, by the way, not a logical one. It is a claim about the ontological correctness of the reductionist mindset when it comes to human emotions; whereas, it was always a category error to place materialists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place. The proof of that statement lies in the absurdum to which so doing has led us: a world in which materialists can look at us with a straight face and tell us that laughing gas has no positive uses for the depressed4. The truth is that all substances that elate have obvious uses for the depressed -- uses that are limited only by the human imagination.
Antidepressants
Suppose you lived in the Punjab in 1500 BCE and were told that Soma was illegal but that the mental health establishment had medicines which you could take every day of your life for your depression. Would it not be an enormous violation of your liberty to be told that you could not worship Soma and its attendant gods and incarnations? Would it not be an enormous violation of your liberty to be told that you cannot partake of the drink of the Gods themselves, the Soma juice?
Well, guess what? Your liberty is suppressed in that very fashion by modern drug prohibition: you are denied access to all medicines that inspire and elate. Seen in this light, antidepressants are a slap in the face to a freedom-loving people. They are a prohibitionist replacement for a host of obvious treatments, none of which need turn the user into a patient for life, and some of which could even inspire new religions.
The Hindu religion would not exist today had the DEA been active in the Punjab in 1500 BCE.
So do antidepressants make sense?
This question has two very different answers, depending on whether you recognize that prohibition exists or not. Of course, most Americans pretend that drug war prohibition does not exist, or at least that it has no effect on their lives -- and so they happily become Big Pharma patients for life. They flatter themselves that they are thereby treating their problems "scientifically." What they fail to realize, of course, is that it is a category error for materialist scientists to treat mind and mood conditions in the first place.
Why? Because scientists are behaviorists when it comes to drugs, which means that they ignore all obvious positive effects of drugs: all anecdote, all history and all psychological common sense -- and instead try to cure you biochemically. And what has been the result of this purblind approach to mind and moods, this search for the Holy Grail of materialist cures for depression? The result has been the greatest mass pharmacological dystopia of all time, thanks to which 1 in 4 American women are dependent on Big Pharma pills for life.
Young people were not dying in the streets when opiates were legal in the United States. It took drug laws to accomplish that. By outlawing opium and refusing to teach safe use, the drug warrior has subjected users to contaminated product of uncertain dosage, thereby causing thousands of unnecessary overdoses.
Currently, I myself am chemically dependent on a Big Pharma drug for depression, that I have to take every day of my life. There is no rational reason why I should not be able to smoke opium daily instead. It is only drug-war fearmongering that has demonized that choice -- for obvious racist, economic and political reasons.
You have been lied to your entire life about opium. In fact, the drug war has done its best to excise the very word "opium" from the English vocabulary. That's why the Thomas Jefferson Foundation refuses to talk about the 1987 raid on Monticello in which Reagan's DEA confiscated Thomas Jefferson's poppy plants in violation of everything he stood for, politically speaking. It's just plain impolite to bring up that subject these days.
It's hard to learn the truth about opium because the few books on the subject demonize it rather than discuss it dispassionately. Take the book by John Halpern: "Opium: How an ancient flower shaped and poisoned our world." It's a typical Drug Warrior title. A flower did not poison our world, John: our world was poisoned by bad laws: laws that were inspired first and foremost by racism, followed closely by commercial interests, politics, misinformation and lies.
To learn something approaching to "the truth about Opium," read the book of that name by William Brereton, written to defend the time-honored panacea from the uninformed and libelous attacks of Christian missionaries.
A Pennsylvanian politician now wants the US Army to "fight fentanyl." The guy is anthropomorphizing a damn drug! No wonder pols don't want to spend money on education, because any educated country would laugh a superstitious guy like that right out of public office.
I looked up the company: it's all about the damn stock market and money. The FDA outlaws LSD until we remove all the euphoria and the visions. That's ideology, not science. Just relegalize drugs and stop telling me how much ecstasy and insight I can have in my life!!
I'm looking for a United Healthcare doctor now that I'm 66 years old. When I searched my zip code and typed "alternative medicine," I got one single solitary return... for a chiropractor, no less. Some choice. Guess everyone else wants me to "keep taking my meds."
"Arrest made in Matthew Perry death." Oh, yeah? Did they arrest the drug warriors who prioritized propaganda over education?
The 2024 Colorado bill was withdrawn -- but only when pols realized that they had been caught in the act of outlawing free speech. They did not let opponents speak, however, because they knew the speeches would make the pols look like the anti-democratic jerks that they were.
Being a lifetime patient is not the issue: that could make perfect sense in certain cases. But if I am to be "using" for life, I demand the drug of MY CHOICE, not that of Big Pharma and mainstream psychiatry, who are dogmatically deaf to the benefits of hated substances.
Politicians protect a drug that kills 178,000 a year via a constitutional amendment, and then they outlaw all less lethal alternatives. To enforce the ban, they abrogate the 4th amendment and encourage drug testing to ensure that drug war heretics starve.
Let's arrest drug warriors, confiscate their houses, and deny them jobs in America -- until such time as they renounce their belief in the demonstrably ruinous policy of substance prohibition.
Attention People's magazine editorial staff:
Matthew Perry was a big boy who made his own decisions. He didn't die because of ketamine or because of evil rotten drug dealers, he died because of America's enforced ignorance about psychoactive drugs.
Addiction thrives BECAUSE of prohibition, which limits drug choice and discourages education about psychoactive substances and how to use them wisely.
Buy the Drug War Comic Book by the Drug War Philosopher Brian Quass, featuring 150 hilarious op-ed pics about America's disgraceful war on Americans
You have been reading an article entitled, Why doctors should prescribe opium for depression: how materialists collude with drug warriors to keep us from using godsend medicine, published on June 6, 2023 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
n my philosophical review of "Opium for the Masses" by Jim Hogshire1, I took materialists to task for failing to recognize what we pedants would call the potential ontological significance of the opium dream experience -- which is to say the fact that opium dreams may tell us something about reality writ large. It's since occurred to me that the rap sheet for materialists is far longer than this seemingly isolated criticism might suggest. Materialists are, in fact, unindicted co-conspirators in the War on Drugs.
You have been reading an article entitled, Why doctors should prescribe opium for depression: how materialists collude with drug warriors to keep us from using godsend medicine, published on June 6, 2023 on AbolishTheDEA.com. For more information about America's disgraceful drug war, which is anti-patient, anti-minority, anti-scientific, anti-mother nature, imperialistic, the establishment of the Christian Science religion, a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded, and a childish and counterproductive way of looking at the world, one which causes all of the problems that it purports to solve, and then some, visit the drug war philosopher, at abolishTheDEA.com. (philosopher's bio; go to top of this page)
