the philosophical problems with 'Blitzed' by Norman Ohler
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
December 7, 2022
It's becoming fashionable lately to ascribe Nazi madness to drug abuse, thanks in large part to the 2017 publication of "Blitzed," by novelist Norman Ohler. But this implicit scapegoating of drugs for homicidal madness is problematic. First because, taken to extremes, this line of argument could be seen as excusing Nazi atrocity. "They were 'on drugs,' after all, and did not know what they were doing." But there is another troubling (though very telling) problem with this attribution as well.
Hitler was like Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson when it came to drugs. He did not consider himself a drug abuser or an addict. Why not? Because he was receiving substances from a physician, not a "dealer." He was, he believed, therefore receiving medicine, not drugs. In other words, Hitler was a hypocritical drug prude just like modern Americans. He shared our modern drug-war belief in what Julian Buchanan calls a "drug apartheid," a world in which there are God-blessed "medicines" that we are obliged to take every day of our life and devil-sent "drugs" that we are obliged to never take, ever. Hitler believed that he only took the former kinds of medicines and therefore was simply looking out for his own health. He would be the first to agree with us that there were lousy drug addicts out there, but he would never have counted himself as one of them. In this way, Hitler is like the 1 in 4 American women who are dependent upon Big Pharma meds for life: they, too, would never consider themselves to be addicts. Why not? Because in the age of a Drug War, the term 'addicts' is an aesthetic term. This is clear when we consider the relevant Drug War Newspeak. Addicts go to dealers to get their "fixes." American women go to doctors to receive "their maintenance meds."
The Drug Warrior might argue, "Well, still, at least we can all agree that morphine really screws people up, Hermann Goering included." But that conclusion is wrong as well. Yes, Goering was a boor and no doubt used morphine in excess, that is to say, to the detriment of his duties; but the mere regular use of morphine does not destroy lives (unless the Drug War is on hand to ensure that outcome by withdrawing supply and demonizing and incarcerating the user). Dr. William Halstead, a founder of Johns Hopkins University, used morphine for a lifetime1, and that use was so far from interfering with his work that his colleagues were not even aware of it until after his death -- at which point they asked naive questions amounting to: "How could he have accomplished so much while using a dirty evil drug called morphine ?" Of course, as Thomas Szasz would point out over a half century later, it never occurred to those baffled colleagues that Halstead might have accomplished so much THANKS to the morphine use.
Why not? Because it is a firm tenet of the Drug War religion that criminalized substances can have no positive uses whatsoever. It is therefore anathema for the Drug Warrior to think that cocaine could have helped Robin Williams be funny or that coca wine could have helped HG Wells write great short stories. In fact, the Drug Warrior is so oblivious to common sense psychology that they will tell us that these self-actualized individuals would have been so much more successful had they only said "no" to today's long list of demonized substances. But this belief is just that: a belief, a tenet, a faith. It is anything but a prima facie conclusion to which all unbiased minds would naturally accede.
The title of Ohler's book shows his drug-warrior bias. The title is "Blitzed," suggesting that drug use can only lead to scatterbrained and distracted mental states. This is far from the truth, however. Did Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's great detective, Sherlock Holmes, use cocaine 23 in order that he might think less clearly? But Ohler is under the spell of Drug War ideology as promulgated by America's Office of National Drug Control Policy, which says that "drug use" must be a sign of pointless hedonism and can have no positive outcomes, like greater mental clarity, for instance, or self-insight. In reality, one might have WANTED the Germans to get "blitzed," if they did so by using entactogens such as MDMA 4 and psilocybin, which might have taught them how to feel empathy for their fellow human beings.
There is another problem with referring to the Nazi leadership as being "blitzed" on "drugs." It is hypocritical. As Thomas Szasz reports, JFK and his wife were routinely prescribed what we would call "speed" today by their doctor. But there are no books out there provocatively describing how that drug use could have impacted his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Indeed, most American writers will not even acknowledge that drug use, let alone speculate extravagantly about how it might have affected his abilities to keep us out of World War III. This is not to say that I blame or condemn that use. To the contrary, I think that it is likely to have helped him in trying circumstances (not by "blitzing" his mind but by focusing it). My point here is only to underline the hypocritical selectivity with which modern Drug Warriors employ the phrase "drug abuse." The term seems to be a weapon that we reserve for use against someone of whom we disapprove, rather than a concept that we apply according to some objective criteria.
While we're on this subject, how does the frequent and often excessive use of alcohol, coffee, tobacco, chocolate, sugar and caffeine affect world leaders and their decision making? That's a question that the Norman Ohlers of the world will never ask, because the world they live in considers substances like these to be like water, substances whose use may be considered a baseline condition of all modern societies. Meanwhile, the substances of which we disapprove can be allowed no positive uses whatsoever and are to be demonized in every way possible, with all past episodes of positive use being censored from historical accounts and biographies.
But the popularity of the book "Blitzed" is not surprising given that American's have been taught for many decades now to blame all social problems on the boogieman called "drugs." It makes learning 20th-century history so much easier for us, after all. "Oh, the Nazis were on DRUGS," we cry. "Why didn't you say so? Now I understand everything!"
But this naive way of viewing the world makes sense only in light of Drug War lies.
The fact is, people are always on "drugs," many of which intensely focus the mind rather than "blitzing" it. Some of us use coffee in excess, many of us use sugar in excess, some of us drink in excess, and some of us (myself included, alas) are dependent on Big Pharma 56 meds for a lifetime. So, why are WE not blitzed? Answer: because Norman Ohler is a typical Drug Warrior: he ascribes the apparently negative outcome of getting "blitzed" only to the use of the substances of which American politicians disapprove, not to any of America's "favorite poisons." The success of his book merely demonstrates how bamboozled Americans have become by the insidious Drug War logic of substance demonziation.
Author's Follow-up: September 14, 2023
I have recently given a detailed critique of the term addiction in my essay entitled "Prohibition Spectrum Disorder, where I parsed the definition given by Webster's and found at least four reasons why the term is more political than scientific.
September 28, 2023The above post originally identified Johns Hopkins founder William Henry Welch as the morphine 7 user, whereas it was founder William Stewart Halsted who availed himself of the substance in question. Welch invited Halsted to join in founding Johns Hopkins. (Don't worry, folks: heads have rolled! Heads have definitely rolled!) What? I pay my extensive editorial team to catch these things!
At best, antidepressants make depression bearable. We need not settle for such drugs, especially when they are notorious for causing dependence. There are many drugs that elate and inspire. It is both cruel and criminal to outlaw them.
It wasn't until western prudery and racism came along that we started to judge people by the substances that they chose to ingest, rather than by their actual behavior in the world.
The December Scientific American features a story called "The New Nuclear Age," about a trillion-dollar plan to add 100s of ICBM's to 5 states, which an SA editorial calls "kick me" signs. This Neanderthal plan comes from pols who think that compassion-boosting drugs are evil!
The drug war is a scare campaign to teach us to distrust mother nature and to rely on pharmaceuticals instead.
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.
Anyone who has read Pihkal by Alexander Shulgin knows that the drug warriors have it exactly backwards. Drugs are our friends. We need to find safe ways to use them to improve ourselves psychologically, spiritually and mentally.
Using the billions now spent on caging users, we could end the whole phenomena of both physical and psychological addiction by using "drugs to fight drugs." But drug warriors do not want to end addiction, they want to keep using it as an excuse to ban drugs.
After over a hundred years of prohibition, America has developed a kind of faux science in which despised substances are completely ignored. This is why Sci Am is making a new argument for shock therapy in 2023, because they ignore all the stuff that OBVIOUSLY cheers one up.
If drug warriors were serious about saving lives, they'd outlaw guns, cars, and all pleasure trips to Mars.
Besides, why should I listen to the views of a microbe?
(up)