It is humbling to read "Ceremonial Chemistry" by Thomas Szasz1. Szasz captures all the philosophical, logical and psychological niceties that our modern drug pundits completely miss when it comes to button-pushing topics like "drug abuse" and addiction. Indeed, it is amazing to compare the nuanced and fact-based observations of Szasz with the intolerant cut-and-paste substance demonization of self-interested parties in the world of politics, medicine and the media. In comparing Szasz's brain power with the feeble groupthink of these pundits, I am reminded of the childish query of the school brat: "Where were you when they were handing out brains?" I ask myself, "Where were all these pundits when they were handing out brains on the subject of drug use -- and why has almost all power of deep insight on these topics been so lopsidedly apportioned to a single Hungarian-American psychiatrist from the 20th century?"
This book is depressing, too, however, for it begs the following question: namely, "If a credentialed academic of erudition and clarity like Szasz cannot wake America up to the folly of its drug-hating madness, then what hope do I have as an untenured outsider? How can I possibly hope to make a difference?"
The only misunderstanding that Szasz seems to betray in this 1973 classic is his notion that all drugs that create elation must necessarily be potentially addictive in nature. This was a logical enough conclusion for a Westerner writing in America in the intoxiphobic 1970s, but subsequent research -- especially in the field of ethnobotany -- has made it clear that certain kinds of drugs, those generally classified as psychedelics, are inherently non-addictive, notwithstanding their power to elate. They provide an experience that needs to be processed mentally, and that takes time. It is as if the drug were a kind of food. The partaker becomes replete after consuming this "food." They are replete with new ideas to contemplate, with new ways of seeing the world; they therefore feel no need to binge on the substance that inspired that repletion in the first place.
Also, before we worry about our tendency to "obsess on" any given drug, we must remember that drug prohibition (and the intoxiphobic mindset which it represents) deprives us of a world of alternatives to any given drug. We should not discuss fears about addiction, therefore, without acknowledging the way that drug prohibition limits choice, therefore helping to ensure unintentional dependency on specific substances. Drug laws thus promote addiction and dependency. Kevin Sabet criticizes what he considers to be the overuse of marijuana in America, but then what can he expect in a country that outlaws all other ways of transcending self! It's as if I were to outlaw all meat except chicken and then complained that Americans had too much poultry in their diet.
I would also personally wish to provide a clarification, or a caveat, to the following statement made by Szasz in his introduction to his concise and informative "Synoptic history of the promotion and prohibition of drugs" located in the book's appendix. Szasz writes:
"I hope that this material will not only inform and instruct the reader, but also shame and shock him into a fuller realization of the horrifying intemperance of both those who zealously promote and those who zealously prohibit drugs."
I agree with this statement -- or rather with this sentiment -- but only with the proviso that we first define what we mean by "zealous" promotion when it comes to outlawed substances. For we live in a world wherein all promotion of disapproved drugs is considered evil, whether that promotion is zealous or not. Indeed, in such an environment, all drug promotion is construed as being zealous. If you doubt this fact, just calmly mention the possibility of re-legalizing opium as an alcohol alternative at the average dinner table. Chances are you will be viewed as a wide-eyed Rasputin, notwithstanding your outward appearance of sangfroid. This hysterical fear of mentioning beneficial drug use has resulted in the censorship of American academia, and indeed of literature in general. This is why libraries today are afloat in books about drug abuse and misuse with nary any books about positive drug uses whatsoever.
Drug promotion is no doubt wrong to the extent that it is knowingly counterfactual, but the idea that we should not "promote" drug use at all -- at least as adults -- is a still greater wrong because it outlaws human progress. It is the mindset that encourages us to completely ignore all obvious benefits of drug use. When we do this, we create drug policy based on accepted prejudices and not on reality.
The drug prohibitionist leverages this fear of "zealous promotion" to effectively outlaw free speech about outlawed substances2. Not content to outlaw the drugs themselves, they outlaw all positive talk about those drugs, no matter how factual that talk may be. The real answer is not to abrogate time-honored freedoms, however, as American politicians have done over the years in the name of the War on Drugs -- the answer is to educate youngsters in the principles of safe drug use -- and to establish a new field of actual drug-use experts with whom they can confer as adults, should they feel moved to do so. I call these experts "psychologically savvy empaths,3" and I trust that the title is self-explanatory. These would be modern counselors with the freedom to use -- or suggest the use -- of any psychoactive substances on the planet, provided only that they have a potential for aiding their client given that client's unique circumstances in life, including their hopes and dreams and their goals in life. The advice thus proffered would be based on anecdotal and historical drug use, as well as on psychological common sense -- as opposed to the passion-scorning psychology of behaviorism.
Speaking of promoting drugs, consider the following description of morphine use in A Tale of the Ragged Mountains by Edgar Allan Poe:
"In the meantime the morphine had its customary effect- that of enduing all the external world with an intensity of interest. In the quivering of a leaf- in the hue of a blade of grass- in the shape of a trefoil- in the humming of a bee- in the gleaming of a dew-drop- in the breathing of the wind- in the faint odors that came from the forest- there came a whole universe of suggestion- a gay and motley train of rhapsodical and immethodical thought.4"
I insist that in a sane world, we would react to this citation as follows: "Wow! Just imagine! There exist natural chemical means by which we can vastly increase our appreciation of Mother Nature! We must work day and night to find ways to safely and wisely use such substances for human benefit, so that we can learn to be at home in the natural world that surrounds us!"
Is this "zealous promotion"? Only in the minds of folks with very different philosophical viewpoints than my own. This of course illustrates the whole problem with drug prohibition, the fact that we outlaw far more than drugs when we pass drug laws: we outlaw entire ways of what Heidegger would have called "being in the world." We thereby place an interest in abstract "safety" ahead of any and all drug benefits whatsoever, without even bothering to acknowledge the benefits in question.
Indeed, the Poe quotation by itself will be read as zealous drug promotion by certain brainwashed Westerners and so banned from school curriculums.
Of course, the typical reaction to the Poe quote above is quite different to mine. The prohibitionist who reads the quotation will either 1) completely ignore the glaringly obvious drug benefits elucidated by Poe, or 2) jump to some non-sequitur conclusion such as: "Whoa! This drug is dangerous because it provides a beneficial experience and therefore must be used addictively!"
Again, these reactions to the effects of morphine are not determined by science or logic -- they are expressions of what the speaker considers to be important in life: as, for instance, a marked preference for physical safety over human progress.
I would end this discussion on this topic here, were it not for the fact that my average reader has been shielded for a lifetime from positive news about drugs and so will naturally be obsessing about the dangers as contrasted to the benefits of morphine 5 use. I would simply point out that most people use drugs wisely, as Carl Hart reports in "Drug Use for Grown-Ups,6" this despite the fact that our government does everything it can to ensure that use will be deadly: by failing to educate about safe use, failing to regulate product, and failing to provide true drug choice, thereby increasing the likelihood of unwanted dependencies on any one substance. Imagine, actually teaching users that they should not use certain drugs on a daily basis UNLESS they wish to become dependent upon them -- and then providing determined users with alternatives so that daily drug use does not result in unwanted dependency.
There are education-based ways for the vast majority of us to avoid addiction. One can only conclude that the Drug Warrior does not want to end addiction, however; they prefer to leverage addiction as a bugaboo to frighten American parents into supporting the militarization of police and the medicalization of morality.
Szasz cites various prohibitionist politicians and professionals from the 20th century who seem to be vying with each other to be the most intolerant when it comes to drugs and drug use. In a letter to the editor in the New York Times, a university doctor likens drug dealers to mosquitos, that is, to vectors of disease.
"Heroin7 addiction in particular is much like a communicable disease, even though noninfectious. There are a host, man, an agent, heroin, and identifiable environmental factors, just like there are in infectious communicable diseases. Furthermore, there is a vector, or carrier, or the agent, the pusher (and dealer), who may or may not be infected himself."
Szasz responds to this hateful drug-bashing with typical clarity:
A physician who is a professor in a medical school here asserts that heroin addiction is like malaria, that heroin is like a parasite, and that the person who sells heroin is like a mosquito. The verminization of the human being, begun by the Health Ministry of National Socialist Germany, is thus continued— without any public recognition that it is— through the American war on 'drug abuse.'"
Had Szasz written this book today (in 2025), he would surely have discussed the psychiatric pill mill 8 to flesh out the deep hypocrisy of this drug-hating attitude.
Take myself, for instance. I was started on drugs that caused a lifelong dependency -- without having been told that lifetime use was required. When it became clear that the drugs I was taking were almost impossible to quit, I received no apology. Instead, I was told that I had a medical duty to take those drugs for a lifetime. Now, had that drug been provided by a "dealer," that dealer would have been considered vermin by the mainstream -- and yet when they are provided by a medical doctor, I am told I have a medical duty to consume them: a medical duty!
Why is this hypocrisy not clear to one and all?
Answer? It is thanks to America's naive faith in modern science as having "solved" human problems like human sadness. This was the ultimate category error, to consider materialist scientists to be the experts when it comes to mind and mood medicine. Placing the materialist scientist in charge of human emotions is like placing Dr. Spock of Star Trek in charge of conducting a scientific investigation of the benefits of human hugging. Spock just would not "get it" -- he is, as it were, congenitally incapable of experiencing and hence appreciating the benefits for which he is searching.
CONCLUSION
In words that could serve as a summary for his book, Szasz writes the following in his preface:
"We have thus managed to replace racial, religious, and military coercions and colonialisms, which now seem to us dishonorable, with medical and therapeutic coercions and colonialisms, which now seem to us honorable. Because these latter controls are ostensibly based on Science and aim to secure only Health, and because those who are so coerced and colonized often worship the idols of medical and therapeutic scientism as ardently as do the coercers and colonizers, the victims cannot even articulate their predicament and are therefore quite powerless to resist their victimizers. "
This is my view precisely. Although drug prohibition was originally all about racism9 and xenophobia, it is now supported wholeheartedly by medical science, which has found billions of dollars' worth of business opportunities in this arrangement. They now profit from treating the many indispositions that the disempowered layperson is no longer allowed to treat at home. Cui bono? Not the patient, of course. I often say in this connection that our drug policies tell us more about our society than they do about drugs. Szasz throws light on this idea as well when he writes:
The more man’s view of human nature emphasizes spiritual values, free will, and human differentiation and self-determination, the greater will be the scope of controlling conduct through self-control. And the more man’s view of human nature emphasizes material values, scientific determinism, and human equality and perfectibility, the greater will be the scope of controlling conduct through external coercion.
In other words, a "materialist" world (in both the popular and philosophical sense of that word) is inherently friendly to drug prohibition.
The modern imperative of profit-making in a materialist society only strengthens the impulse to control. Holistic wonder cures like opium have to be illegal in such societies so that we consumers will be forced to shop for discrete materialist remedies for strategically reified "illnesses" at CVS Pharmacy. And yet Szasz reminds us of the existence of a much more patient-friendly past. "In Galenic practice," he writes, "the most useful medicine was a theriaca, or antidote, named Electuarium theriacale magnum, a compound composed of several ingredients, among them opium 10 and wine."
Imagine a world with such a panacea! Imagine a world in which most indispositions did not require a trip to the doctor and where temporary bouts of sadness and debilitating uncertainty can be overcome "on the fly" with the as-needed use of a time-honored godsend! This is the medical establishment's worst nightmare, and this is why we have to look outside the medical industry for support of our right to take care of our own health. Indeed, we will need to claw back our rights from that industry, since their very livelihood depends on our infantilization when it comes to mental and emotional healthcare11.
People say shrooms should not be used by those with a history of "mental illness." But that's one of the greatest potential benefits of shrooms! (They cured Stamets' teenage stuttering.) Some folks place safety first, but if I did that, I'd die long before using mother nature.
I knew all along that Measure 110 in Oregon was going to be blamed for the problems that the drug war causes. Drug warriors never take responsibility, despite all the blood that they have on their hands.
Drug warriors are too selfish and short-sighted to fight real problems, so they blame everything on drugs.
There are a potentially vast number of non-addictive drugs that could be used strategically in therapy. They elate and "free the tongue" to help talk therapy really work. Even "addictive" drugs can be used non-addictively, prohibitionist propaganda notwithstanding.
An Englishman's home is his castle.
An American's home is a bouncy castle for the DEA.
All drugs have potential positive uses for somebody, at some dose, in some circumstance, alone or in combination. To decide in advance that a drug is completely useless is an offense to reason and to human liberty.
All drugs have positive uses at some dose, for some reason, at some time -- but prohibitionists have the absurd idea that drugs can be voted up or down. This anti-scientific notion deprives the modern world of countless godsends.
The Drug Warriors say: "Don't tread on me! (That said, please continue to tell me what plants I can use, how much pain relief I can get, and whether my religion is true or not.)"
Prohibitionists have blood on their hands. People do not naturally die in the tens of thousands from opioid use, notwithstanding the lies of 19th-century missionaries in China. It takes bad drug policy to accomplish that.
Suicidal people should be given drugs that cheer them up immediately and whose use they can look forward to. The truth is, we would rather such people die than to give them such drugs, that's just how bamboozled we are by the war against drugs.
People say shrooms should not be used by those with a history of "mental illness." But that's one of the greatest potential benefits of shrooms! (They cured Stamets' teenage stuttering.) Some folks place safety first, but if I did that, I'd die long before using mother nature.