Cocaine and Ecstasy are not evil

a review of essay number 2 in Hallucinogens: A Reader, edited by Charles Grob

by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher

June 25, 2025

The following remarks are part of a series of responses to the essays contained in the 2001 book "Hallucinogens: A Reader," edited by Charles Grob ¹. The comments below are in response to essay number 2: "The Role of Psychoactive Plant Medicines" by Ralph Metzner, PhD.

Sadly, Metzner has fallen prey to the Drug Warrior's invitation for us to self-righteously judge drugs up or down, based on our assessment of who uses them and why.

Thus, Metzner contrasts the blessed "Mother Coca" with supposedly evil cocaine , of which he writes:

"The concentrated extract cocaine , on the other hand, is purely a recreational drug, and its indiscriminate use as such causes numerous health problems.²"

It is just a lack of imagination that causes Metzner to make this statement. Suppose that I use cocaine on occasion because I like to have an amazingly focused mind? How exactly is that recreational use? What if I write songs or solve crimes (a la Sherlock Holmes) while under the influence? Is the use still recreational? Is drug use recreational as long as no utilitarian goals are achieved during inebriation? If so, why is recreational use wrong, considering that recreation itself can have physical benefits? The questions begged by Metzner's assumptions are legion. Metzner fails to realize that he has been shielded for a lifetime from any positive reports of cocaine use -- that he has only ever been able to see negative results. How might Metzner judge alcohol were he only to read, see and hear stories about the DTs and benders? This is the problem with most drug pundits, they fail to realize how thoroughly Drug Warriors enforce a pathological narrative about drug use through censorship.

Clearly, Metzner's judgment of cocaine is shallow indeed, and monstrously presumptuous, as he is setting himself up to tell the rest of the world whether or not it is worthwhile for them to be in a state of extraordinary mental concentration. This is not a question upon which Metzner has any expertise whatsoever. He can merely pass along his own biases on the topic of which mental states that he deems appropriate for Homo sapiens. If British talk show host Graham Norton praises cocaine and thrives on its use, this must be ignored -- because we have been taught to judge drugs "up" or "down," without regard to details. This is the problem, Ralph, NOT DRUGS! As Paracelsus told us 500 years ago, the difference between a medicine and a poison has to do with dosage and other details. Even Botox has safe uses. Drugs are not the problem, prohibition is the problem ³ , prohibition which encourages us to judge drugs based on our feelings about the sorts of people whom we see using them.

I sometimes wonder why I can see through the half-baked philosophy of drug pundits like Metzner so easily and no one else can. I claim this is because I have "skin in the game." I have a unique psychology such that I need only the proper push and motivation to thrive, a push that is usually absent in my sober life -- -- hence it is outrageous to me that arm-chair philosophers like Metzner, who have far more sanguine personalities than I do, can sit back in their chairs at home and insist that I have no valid reasons for using a drug like cocaine , no doubt making these grand pronouncements while they are quaffing a brew or smoking a pipe. What if I were to respond that they themselves have no valid use for caffeine or alcohol or tobacco? Does Metzner not see that this is the whole problem with the Drug War: that it encourages us to judge our neighbor's drug use up or down, as if we can play God and decide how they should be running their lives. As Chesterton writes in "Eugenics and Other Evils."

"It is said that the Government must safeguard the health of the community. And the moment that is said, there ceases to be the shadow of a difference between beer and tea. People can certainly spoil their health with tea or with tobacco or with twenty other things. And there is no escape for the hygienic logician except to restrain and regulate them all. If he is to control the health of the community, he must necessarily control all the habits of all the citizens."⁴

Metzner is one of the many drug pundits who fails to realize that the Drug Warrior's concern has never really been about safety: otherwise the FDA would never approve drugs whose published side effects include death itself! The problem is that drug use is associated with a lifestyle that a Christian nation, sold on militaristic monotheism and the domination of nature, cannot abide. The concern is not with safety, Ralph; otherwise there would be an emphasis on education and safe use. The concern is about the facilitation of worldviews that the mainstream refuses to tolerate. And so our very fears about the supposed dangers of these drugs are manufactured by the one-sided focus on downsides in our conglomerate media.

Bill Clinton claimed to be interested in safety when he supported the continued outlawing of cocaine , but this was based on a racist fallacy: the idea that his brother could be saved from cocaine use by subjecting inner city residents to drive-by shootings (and by undermining the rule of law in America, and by empowering drug cartels to "disappear" 60,000 in Mexico, etc.). So, if prohibition saved Roger Clinton from himself, it only did so by killing Black children in the no-go zones created by America's racist drug policy -- and by further sending enough minorities to jail to ensure the election of America's first fascist president. For more on this topic, see my essay entitled "The Bill Clinton Fallacy.⁵"

The idea that cocaine can never be used validly for excellent reasons is completely false!

Suppose I am depressed because I have been turned into an eternal patient and I am sitting on my steps at 2 in the morning contemplating suicide ⁶ because we have outlawed all the drugs that could help me get off of the dependence-causing Big Pharma ⁷ ⁸ antidepressants ⁹. Should I commit suicide, Ralph, rather than to use dirty evil cocaine -- a drug that could "pick me up" in real-time? Should I ask my materialist doctor for brain-damaging shock therapy instead, Ralph? is it more scientific for me to damage my brain than to use cocaine ?

This is what infuriates me about modern drug pundits -- they have fallen for the Drug War lie that drug use should be limited by our own biased and limited imaginations about what one should need in this life. This kind of absurd presumption is intolerable to someone who lives and breathes the anxieties foisted upon humankind via our prejudiced-based prohibitions.

Metzner goes on to show his lack of imagination in his demonization of MDMA .

"Its irresponsible and widespread use in this second category by increasing numbers of people understandably made the medical and law enforcement authorities nervous."

Understandably, Ralph? This nervousness is only understandable because the media and politicians focused exclusively on the downsides of Ecstasy while completely ignoring its obvious benefits!!! This is the problem with all lukewarm drug pundits: they are completely blind to how a Drug War society frames drug use as problematic and so controls the very discussion -- completely ignoring all obvious benefits to drug use.

With friends like Metzner in the drug re-legalization ¹⁰ debate, who needs enemies? MDMA brought unprecedented peace, love and understanding to the British dance floors -- and has proven to be phenomenally safe over the last half century, especially when we take into account the alcohol use that it has prevented while doing so. Ecstasy kills no one: the few Ecstasy-related deaths are always brought about by the prohibitionists' refusal to teach safe use. Moreover, we live in a world on the brink of nuclear armageddon ¹¹ ¹² ¹³ ¹⁴ thanks to our species' propensity to hate its fellows, and yet Ralph is going to tell us that the ravers' use of MDMA ¹⁵ was irresponsible? What enormous blindness on Metzner's part.

When Metzner demonizes Ecstasy, he is not just opining about a drug: he is implicitly telling us how much he values peace, love and understanding in life -- which is to say very little indeed. It is not even considered to be a benefit of Ecstasy use for Metzner. Safety comes first, which sounds great, perhaps, until we realize that Metzner requires a safety level for so-called drug use that we require for no other risky activity on earth, not hang-gliding, not free-diving, not free-climbing, and certainly not gun firing or liquor drinking.

Conclusion: Like many Drug War pundits, Metzner never sufficiently recognizes the crazed standards to which we hold drug use: standards that completely ignore obvious benefits. Metzner should have known better for he himself recognized that the Drug Warriors have a worldview that feels threatened by the empowering effects of drug use. Yet he takes the Drug Warriors at their word when they claim that they are interested in public health -- a claim that is bizarre given the Drug Warriors' acceptance of the psychiatric pill mill upon which 1 in 4 American women are dependent for life. How can the Drug Warrior be interested in public health when they loathe the idea of gun control and have no problem with liquor that kills 178,000 a year ¹⁶? These clowns are not interested in public health, Ralph. They are interested in limiting how and how much their neighbors can think and feel about the world!

Like Albert Hofmann, Ralph Metzner has fallen for the drug-war lie that safety is the big concern about drug approval. Ralph is so convinced of this lie, that he himself is blind to the obvious -- nay, glaringly obvious -- benefits of drugs like cocaine and Ecstasy. Yes, they are not panaceas, yes, they can be misused, but the idea that they cannot be used wisely is mere drug-war prejudice -- an anti-scientific prejudice and anti-progress prejudice at that. And if Ralph cannot personally find any positive uses for such drugs, I wish that he would stop trying to speak for humankind on this topic. That is the whole problem with the Drug War mentality: it encourages us all to judge drugs up and down based on our own prejudices -- whereas the propriety of drug use must always be judged on an individual basis in light of the specifics of any case -- which, of course, is why it was always folly to make the materialist medical establishment the gatekeepers for drug use in the first place: the drug users know best what works for them personally, as humbling and financially disempowering as this long-ignored truth may be for the status quo.

I am bothered by the fact that Metzner is speaking for me when it comes to cocaine ¹⁷ ¹⁸ , deciding in advance that a drug that drastically improves mental concentration can yet have no conceivable positive uses -- that it must always necessarily be misused. What does Metzner know about it? Has he been able to get inside my head and experience the psychological state that I experience in my sober mind? Has he decided that my sober state is all that I should need in life? Does he not see the enormous presumption of speaking for others when it comes to what incentives they should need in life, psychologically speaking?

This is no doubt why my essays are always ignored by the movers and shakers in the drug debates. Unlike most pundits, I have skin in the game -- and so I cannot be expected to accept their ex cathedra drug demonization with a good grace -- for it is this very attitude of theirs which has deprived me of godsends for a lifetime -- under the hateful notion that medical professionals and politicians know better than I do how and how much I should think and feel in this life.

Notes:

1: Hallucinogens: a reader (up)
2: Hallucinogens: a reader (up)
3: Drug Prohibition is the Problem, not Drugs: what the movers and shakers get wrong in the drug re-legalization debate (up)
4: Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument against the Scientifically Organized State (up)
5: The Bill Clinton Fallacy (up)
6: Why Americans Prefer Suicide to Drug Use (up)
7: How Drug Company Money Is Undermining Science (up)
8: Why Is Biopharma Paying 75% of The FDA’s Drug Division Budget? (up)
9: Antidepressants and the War on Drugs (up)
10: National Coalition for Drug Legalization (up)
11: 8 Nuclear Close Calls that Nearly Spelled Disaster (up)
12: 35 Facts About Goldsboro Accident (up)
13: A Darkening Horizon: Nuclear Dangers Around the World with Matthew Bunn (up)
14: Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety (up)
15: How the Drug War killed Leah Betts (up)
16: Deaths from Excessive Alcohol Use in the United States (up)
17: Sigmund Freud's real breakthrough was not psychoanalysis (up)
18: On Cocaine (up)

Hallucinogens: a Reader, edited by Charles Grob

Essays about the opinions expressed in Hallucinogens by Charles Grob.

Cocaine and Ecstasy are not evil

Drug Prohibition and the Metaphysical Search for 'Real' Religious Inspiration

How Ralph Metzner was bamboozled by the Drug War ideology of substance demonization

Sartre and Speed

The Drug War is One Big Branding Operation to Demonize Mind and Mood Medicine

The metaphysics of drug use and how the drug war outlaws religious liberty

The thin line between honesty and fearmongering in the age of the War on Drugs

Want to end freedom in America? Just terrify philosophically clueless parents about the boogieman called drugs

Why America cracked down on LSD

Ten Tweets

against the hateful war on US

Alexander Shulgin is a typical westerner when he speaks about cocaine. He moralizes about the drug, telling us that it does not give him "real" power. But so what? Does coffee give him "real" power? Coke helps some, others not. Stop holding it to this weird metaphysical standard.

Ketamine is like any other drug. It has good uses for certain people in certain situations. Nowadays, people insist that a drug be okay in every situation for everybody (especially American teens) before they will say that it's okay. That's crazy and anti-scientific.

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.

SSRIs are created based on the materialist notion that cures should be found under a microscope. That's why science is so slow in acknowledging the benefit of plant medicines. Anyone who chooses SSRIs over drugs like San Pedro cactus is simply uninformed.

Had the FDA been around in the Indus Valley 3,500 years ago, there would be no Hindu religion today, because they would have found some potential problem with the use of soma.

Drug prohibition began as a racist attempt to prevent so-called "miscegenation." The racist's fear was not that a white woman would use opium or marijuana or cocaine, but that she might actually fall in love with a Chinese, Hispanic or Black person respectively.

The drug war is a slow-motion coup against democracy.

I'm told antidepressant withdrawal is fine because it doesn't cause cravings. Why is it better to feel like hell than to have a craving? In any case, cravings are caused by prohibition. A sane world could also end cravings with the help of other drugs.

Drug War censorship is supported by our "science" magazines, which pretend that outlawed drugs do not exist, and so write what amount to lies about the supposed intransigence of things like depression and anxiety.

The scheduling system is a huge lie designed to give an aura of "science" to America's colonialist disdain for indigenous medicines, from opium, to coca, to shrooms.

Click here to see All Tweets against the hateful War on Us

Sartre and Speed
Why America cracked down on LSD

Copyright 2025 abolishthedea.com, Brian Quass

(up)