An open letter to apologists for the psychiatric pill mill
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
May 16, 2023
When you cut me do I not bleed, when I send you a 150-page book full of op-ed pictures in protest of the Drug War, do I not expect at least an acknowledgment of receipt?
I thought it would be easy to find like minds in the fight to end prohibition. Unfortunately, I'm finding some of the big-name advocates of pushback are also firm believers in the power of antidepressants 1 to treat depression. I personally do not think that anyone completely understands the Drug War if they do not realize that the psychiatric pill mill is a creation of that war, for prohibition gives psychiatry a monopoly on mind medicine. The supporters will tell you that some users say the meds are useful -- but if I've learned anything after 40 years of poorly treated depression, it's that a depressed person is the last person qualified to report on their own condition. I used to think I was not depressed -- until I stopped and looked at all the goals I had not accomplished in the past in spite of what I had considered to be my firm commitment to that end. Moreover, when I took a psychedelic in my early 20s, I was exposed to a world of such potential that I suddenly considered the ambition of psychiatry to be shabby. Their pills did not motivate by comparison, they tranquilized.
But the real problem is this: 1 in 4 American women are dependent on Big Pharma for life. That's a scandal! And a profitable one, apparently, because I'm one of the few who even mentions that it exists. (See Julie Holland for some more honesty on this score.)
Now, you're not going to tell me that 25% of American females are depressed enough to warrant turning them into wards of the healthcare state? Well, if they really ARE that depressed, then something is wrong with America, not with its female population.
Finally, there are two ways to view psychiatry today: one is the typical way, in which we ignore the Drug War, in which we might say that pill-popping is the only game in town. The other way to look at psychiatry today is realistically, by taking into account the War on Drugs by which we outlaw almost all psychoactive medicines. If psychiatrists saw their field in this true light -- as the expensive and demoralizing default option only because of tyrannical law that outlaws Mother Nature -- then they would (or at least they should) be the first to protest on behalf of patients and say to government: "We demand the right to prescribe anything that will work for our patients!"
Instead, psychiatrists have gone along with this game, pretending that antidepressants are good in and of themselves, telling patients to "take their meds," when the best one can say about those meds is that they're the only medicine the government will let people have for depression. That's a poor endorsement, indeed, especially since lifelong users like myself have been infantilized by these drugs, turned into a ward of the healthcare state and denied the meds that truly work, many of which grow at my very feet, the drugs that inspire rather than tranquilize.
So if they wish to ignore me, fine: But I'm not going to behave like Polonius and switch my opinions to suit the self-interested zeitgeist, even if it might encourage folks like Rick Doblin and DJ Nutt to respond to my letters, or at least to acknowledge receipt for the book of mine that I sent them two years ago now.
Who are these apologists for antidepressants? They're easy to identify. Just look for folks who use the term "treatment-resistant depression," for the use of that term implies that there is a legal treatment for depression that works -- namely, SSRIs and SNRIs -- and that those who do not profit from them are the oddballs with the quirky body chemistry that does not know a cure when it sees one.
The irony is that, even if SSRIs worked for me, their positive effect would be negated by the fact that psychiatry has turned me into a patient for life, with the demoralizing trips to the doctor every three months to see an LPN that is half my age (at best), to answer questions about my predilection for suicide and how much sleep I'm getting.
LPN: Have you considered suicide 2 in the last three months?
ME: Only when I think about the fact that psychiatry has turned me into an eternal patient.
May 19, 2023
I know, folks, I know. I told Brian he was being rash, but I'm just his editor, not his boss, as he himself is wont to remind me from time to time. I do want to clarify, however, that Rick Doblin is not a psychiatrist, as might be inferred from the above (ahem) no doubt interesting remarks. However, Rick IS playing ball with the DEA and the federal government, in which case he's probably forced to adhere to the well-funded fiction that SSRIs and SNRIs "have their place." I mean, who's going to help Rick with drug legalization 3 if he even SUGGESTS that such a step would render Big Pharma 45 's drugs unnecessary?
Still, I think it is fair to ask: would it have killed Rick to have at least acknowledged receipt of Brian's 150-page book with op-ed pics making points about the Drug War that no one else has even thought of, even if the book in question DID bash the psychiatric pill mill?
Hey, I don't know. I'm just a simple guy. Maybe it would have killed him. You tell me.
Editor's Comments:
May 13, 2025
I do not usually urge a writer to delete an essay, but you see, it's like this. Brian has another far longer essay pending publication in a MAPS6 newsletter (the MAPS Bulletin) , and I fear that the very existence of the essay above could deep-six that publication. True, Brian was not exactly being rude in the above essay, God bless him, and yet wasn't it Thomas Mann who said that most people are like children when it comes to receiving criticism of any kind, that they take it to heart, notwithstanding their determination to suggest otherwise by their outward appearance? Or was that Schopenhauer? Anyway, my fear is that Rick and his champions will be affronted by these admittedly good-natured sallies of Brian's and will therefore seek to bar him from joining in any reindeer games at MAPS.
Could they only know how many nights Brian has tossed and turned on his meager iron bed, wondering if he had not exceeded his philosophical remit in thus taking Rick Doblin to task. Why, this very morning, Brian entered the office with bleary eyes, muttering the now-familiar refrain: "No need to ask, Philomena: Yes, I was on the rack once again last night with respect to my perhaps overdone criticisms of Rick Doblin." That is my cue to shut up and start editing, though I am always tempted to say: "I told you so, cupcake. If you want to run with the pack, you have to refrain from criticizing the pack leader."
But then the point is moot. A month has transpired since I indited the previous paragraph, during which time the ongoing silence on the part of MAPS has eloquently apprised me of the fact that the once-ballyhooed publication of said essay is not going forward in any case. So, in the words of Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Never mind."
Katie MacBride's one-sided attack on MAPS reminds me of why I got into an argument with Vincent Rado. Yes, psychedelic hype can go too far, but let's solve the huge problem first by ending the drug war!!!
If I should die of some unusual concatenation of circumstances, I want my survivors to pass "Brian's Law," a law stating that we will no longer pass laws based on hard cases and so needlessly fill our prisons by taking common-sense discretion out of the hands of judges.
"They have called thee Soma-lover: here is the pressed juice. Drink thereof for rapture." -Rig Veda
(There would be no Hindu religion today had the drug war been in effect in the Punjab 3,500 years ago.)
The benefits of outlawed drugs read like the ultimate wish-list for psychiatrists. It's a shame that so many of them are still mounting a rear guard action to defend their psychiatric pill mill -- which demoralizes clients by turning them into lifetime patients.
I have nothing against science, BTW (altho' I might feel differently after a nuclear war!) I just want scientists to "stay in their lane" and stop pretending to be experts on my own personal mood and consciousness.
Drug testing labs should give high marks for those who manage to use drugs responsibly, notwithstanding the efforts of law enforcement to ruin their lives. The lab guy would be like: "Wow, you are using opium wisely, my friend! Congratulations! Your boss is lucky to have you!"
The UK just legalized assisted dying. This means that you can use drugs to kill a person, but you still can't use drugs to make that person want to live.
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.
In America, they save the depressed from cocaine and opium by turning them into patients for life with dependence-causing "meds." Now 30-year-old doctors get to treat 67-year-olds like children, with new visits every damn three months.
The drug war is the defeatist doctrine that we will never be able to use psychoactive drugs wisely. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy because the government does everything it can to make drug use dangerous.
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.
(up)