The ongoing failure of drug reformers to attack the DEA
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
April 24, 2020
Imagine there was a government agency that everybody agreed was telling lies. Not only that, but everyone knew that these lies had caused millions of depressed patients and wounded soldiers to go without godsend medicines for almost half a century. Now imagine that the agency in question was also known to have deliberately poisoned American citizens with weed killer, and that this weed killer was subsequently found to cause Parkinson's Disease1.
Now, imagine that this all occurred in a supposedly free democratic country and yet no one complained. To the contrary, movie studios cranked out propaganda in which this same lying and murderous agency was portrayed as a hero, a hero that clandestinely uses torture and murder to achieve its goals.2345
Sounds like fiction, huh?
Well, unfortunately, this is not an imaginary scenario. The agency described above is Richard Nixon's Drug Enforcement Agency, and even the most vocal drug policy reformers have been loath to criticize it. Sure, they may point out in passing that the agency is lying about psychoactive substances through their politically motivated drug scheduling system, but they never take the obvious next step and call loudly and clearly for the agency's abolition, let alone for a criminal trial that would hold its leaders responsible for the great unnecessary suffering that they have knowingly caused over the last four and a half decades.
That's the reason why I created the website AbolishTheDEA.com just over a year ago: to finally speak truth to power and tell the DEA in the words of Shakespeare's Laertes: 'Thus diddest thou!'
That's also why I fret over the MAPS' organizations approach of 'working through the system' to decriminalize psychedelics6, since it obliges them to cooperate with the DEA, thereby granting that agency a kind of moral street cred that it does not deserve. This, after all, is the agency that is fighting tooth and nail to keep godsend medications out of the hands of suffering Americans, and why? Merely in order to preserve its own jobs - which brings up another problem with the DEA about which Americans remain mostly silent: the fact that it has a glaringly obvious conflict of interest in establishing the legality of substances, since their whole raison d'etre is to crack down on illegal drugs. And they freely act on that interest, as was demonstrated in 1985 when the agency went against the advice of its own legal counsel and criminalized MDMA 7 , thus throwing thousands of soldiers under the bus by denying them a godsend therapy for PTSD8.
For those who need more reasons to hate the DEA, consider that former DEA Chief John C. Lawn poisoned marijuana with paraquat back in the 1980s, a weed killer that has subsequently been shown to cause Parkinson's Disease. That's the moral equivalent of genocide to punish those who violate a controversial and unpopular law. This is a ruthless agency that has no one's interests at heart but their own, an absurd nature-hating agency that requires researchers to protect supplies of drugs like psilocybin as if they were fissionable nuclear material rather than Godsend plant medicines from Mother Nature.
Such an agency should be a laughable dinosaur in 21st-century America and treated accordingly. It's time for the United States to do the same, preferably replacing it with the Drug EDUCATION Agency, an organization tasked with presenting the objective statistical facts about all psychoactive substances, including alcohol and Big Pharma 910 anti-depressants, including both their pros and cons.
But Goliath is still defiantly loitering in the Valley of Elah, taunting free-spirited Americans with his contempt for constitutional niceties and his disdain for human life, practically daring some modern David to come forth and topple him.
Are we going to rise to the challenge and set out, slingshot in hand, or is the DEA a modern-day Stasi that even rebel spirits are afraid to challenge head on?
Author's Follow-up:
May 17, 2025
There is something about substance prohibition that brings out the worst in human beings. Ronald Reagan and his DEA had no scruples about poisoning marijuana with the highly toxic weed killer called Paraquat, thereby bringing about heart, kidney, and/or liver failure in the smoker11. Neither did the bootleggers of yore have any scruples about "cutting" liquor with wood alcohol, thereby bringing about blindness and death in the drinker12. The Anti-Saloon League actually "insisted that industrial alcohol be made into an even more deadly compound by requiring that manufacturers add methanol, or wood alcohol, to it," under the criminally flawed assumption that liquor use would end if the government could poison the liquor supply. The latter outrage is explained as follows on the website "Prohibition: An Interactive History":
"Bootleggers started using denatured industrial alcohol disguised as whiskey - what would be called 'rotgut' for its effect on the drinker's internal organs13 - even in the months before Prohibition took effect. The magazine Literary Digest, in its January 10, 1920 issue, reported that scores of people had recently died, including 57 in Hartford, Connecticut, and hundreds of others blinded after drinking 'alleged whiskey' containing wood alcohol.14
Amazingly, however, most Americans have a nostalgic view of "rotgut" and just think of it as a kind of inferior liquor. Just search "rotgut liquor" online and see all the facetious references to the phrase, as if it's a joke. Modern liquor company's even incorporate the term in their brand names (like "Benny Boys Rotgut Whiskey"), so far is the word from evoking the pain, suffering, and death with which it was actually associated in the age of liquor Prohibition. This is a reminder that drug prohibition is all about the control of language. It is all about a branding campaign to convince us that alcohol is blessed while its endless psychoactive rivals are all cursed.
But then Americans live in a land of make-believe when it comes to substance prohibition. They actually believe that prohibition ended in 1933, when in reality prohibition has been in effect since 1914 and is still in effect to this very day. It is just that liquor has been given pride of place in America's psychoactive pantheon and shielded from all carping, while liquor's potential rivals have been demonized and criminalized via a multibillion-dollar crackdown.
America basically solved liquor prohibition by giving the liquor prohibitionists the biggest consolation prize of all time: namely, the right to demonize and outlaw every single one of alcohol's less dangerous competitors. Far from ending, then, prohibition is omnipresent today and is a way of life. It is considered a natural baseline for life in America, as can be seen from the fact that this wholesale outlawing of medicines is not even mentioned in science magazines (nor in the vast majority of non-fiction books on our library shelves), even though the effects of the outlawed drugs have obvious implications and ramifications in the study of a wide variety of fields, including religion, psychology, and the nature of human consciousness.
Americans have inherited the wind for this harebrained and superstitious approach to psychoactive substances. But they are in deep denial. That is why we never see the media connect the dots between inner-city violence and the Drug War which armed the 'hood to the teeth in the first place. That is why we never see the media connect the dots between suicide 15 and the fact that we have outlawed all the drugs that could cheer the chronic depressive. That is why we never see the media connect the dots between the civil wars south of the border and the fact that the Drug War has destroyed the rule of law in Latin America.
Worse yet, this is not simply blindness, but it is imperialist blindness, because America insists that the entire world share its violence-causing jaundiced view about substances that inspire and elate -- failing to realize that this represents the outlawing of religion on their part, insofar as the Hindu religion exists today thanks to the power of psychoactive substances to inspire and elate.
How much more unnecessary suffering needs to occur before Goliath finally takes up the slingshot of inconvenient truths and sends the Philistines packing?
Answer? Things will never change until Americans stop blaming drugs for social problems and realize the following inconvenient truth:
namely, that saying things like "Fentanyl 16 kills!" and "Crack kills!" makes no more sense than saying "Fire bad!" All such statements are based on the superstitious idea that we should fear potentially dangerous substances rather than learning how to use them as wisely as possible for the benefit of suffering humanity.
Pro-psychedelic websites tell me to check with my "doctor" before using Mother Nature. But WHY? I'm the expert on my own psychology, damn it. These "doctors" are the ones who got me hooked on synthetic drugs, because they honor microscopic evidence, not time-honored usage.
The "acceptable risk" for psychoactive drugs can only be decided by the user, based on what they prioritize in life. Science just assumes that all users should want to live forever, self-fulfilled or not.
There is an absurd safety standard for "drugs." The cost/benefit analysis of the FDA & co. never takes into account the costs of NOT prescribing nor the benefits of a productive life well lived. The "users" are not considered stakeholders.
Meanwhile, no imaginable downside could persuade westerners that guns and alcohol were too dangerous. Yet the DEA lies about almost all psychoactive drugs, saying there are no good uses. That's a lie! Then they pass laws that keep us from disproving their puritanical conclusion.
For most drugs, dependency is a bug. For Big Pharma antidepressants, it is a feature.
We drastically limit drug choices, we refuse to teach safe use, and then we discover there's a gene to explain why some people have trouble with drugs. Science loves to find simple solutions to complex problems.
That's why we damage the brains of the depressed with shock therapy rather than let them use coca or opium. That's why many regions allow folks to kill themselves but not to take drugs that would make them want to live. The Drug War is a perversion of social priorities.
When people tell us there's nothing to be gained from using mind-improving drugs, they are embarrassing themselves. Users benefit from such drugs precisely to the extent that they are educated and open-minded. Loudmouth abstainers are telling us that they lack these traits.
If there is an epidemic of "self-harm," prohibitionists never think of outlawing razor blades. They ask: "Why the self-harm?" But if there is an epidemic of drug use which they CLAIM is self-harm, they never ask "Why the self-harm?" They say: "Let's prohibit and punish!"
Here's one problem that supporters of the psychiatric pill mill never address: the fact that Big Pharma antidepressants demoralize users by turning them into patients for life.
(up)