why scientists are the slow kids in the class when it comes to drugs
by Brian Ballard Quass, the Drug War Philosopher
February 23, 2025
I recently asked myself the following question:
Why is the western world so far behind the curve when it comes to common sense? Why are we so slow in recognizing the obvious?
It wasn't until the 18th century that we realized that ultimate realities could not be explained in human words, something that tribal people had known for millennia. It wasn't until the 20th century that we transcended Cartesian dogma long enough to admit that animals felt pain, a fact that the average person had never even thought to question. And we are still behind the curve in the 21st century. Scientists of our time claim to see no benefits in drugs that have been called panaceas in the past, some of which have inspired entire religions.
Are these scientists kidding us? Why are westerners always the slow kid in the class when it comes to the things that really matter in life?
Let me suggest at least the beginning to a possible answer. It has to do with epistemology. It was always a mistake to assume that the understanding of non-quantitative phenomena could be grasped and described using the inherently fallible and eternally incomplete communication medium called human language. I write here just to get the ball rolling on this topic, mind, because this is a new train of thought that I am developing here.
I would add, however, that this is far from a "merely philosophical" issue. For the Drug War itself is justified based on the support that it receives from the kind of dogmatic dullards that I have described above, the many scientists who are dogmatically blind to both common sense and the testimony of saints and psychonauts alike. These are the folks who know all about chemical pathways and neuronal mechanisms in the brain but do not have the first clue about holistic medicine. This means that they can only sign off on a drug by finding a specific way that it treats a specific condition. In other words, they are applying a materialist standard to non-western medicine, which is a kind of pharmacological imperialism. This is how they get away with slowing down the drug approval process: they ignore the benefits that drug-induced positivity has on overall health, demanding instead that the drug demonstrate a specific ability to fix specific problems separately and in a causally identifiable manner.
Even if a drug is approved for treating condition A, those suffering from conditions B or C are out of luck until researchers find funding and time to go back to the lab and prove the existence of a separate causally relevant chemical pathway for THOSE ailments as well. This is what I call "death by a thousand approvals." It is the way that the FDA ensures that the few psychoactive medicines that pass the drug approval process will only have a marginal effect on the drug market. Not only is the newly approved drug still denied to most sufferers, but many of them will not be able to afford it thanks to the high price point created by the economics of the situation.
Again, this is all super relevant because this dogmatic foot dragging helps the DEA and the FDA keep godsend medicines out of the hands of the suffering. This injustice is all the more outrageous in light of the fact that the drugs in question often grow at our very feet and some of them have even inspired entire religions.
I fear we may need to start handing out dunce caps to modern scientists until they realize that they are totally out of touch with reality when it comes to the subject of drugs. Nor am I being mean here. If I were being mean, I would suggest that the scientists' lack of common sense was a result of cowardice, of their craven desire to toe the line when it comes to the Drug War ideology of substance demonization. But that's not what I am saying here. I am merely suggesting that such scientists have been misled by a slavish adherence to the obsolete and inhumane tenets of behaviorism, that their reductive approach is inappropriate for the study of mind and mood medicines altogether.
But what can we expect? It was always a category error to place materialist scientists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place.
The DEA should be tried for crimes against humanity. They have been lying about drugs for 50 years and running interference between human beings and Mother Nature in violation of natural law, depriving us of countless potential and known godsends in order to create more DEA jobs.
Scientists are not the experts on psychoactive medicines. The experts are painters and artists and spiritualists -- and anyone else who simply wants to be all they can be in life. Scientists understand nothing of such goals and aspirations.
Two of the biggest promoters of the psychedelic renaissance shuffle their feet when you ask them about substance prohibition. Michael Pollan and Rick Strassman just don't get it: prohibition kills.
My local community store here in the sticks sells Trump "dollar bills" at the checkout counter. I don't know what's worse: a president encouraging insurrection or an electorate that does not see that as a problem.
A pharmacologically savvy drug dealer would have no problem getting someone off one drug because they would use the common sense practice of fighting drugs with drugs. But materialist doctors would rather that the patient suffer than to use such psychologically obvious methods.
Psychedelic retreats tell us how scientific they are. But science is the problem. Science today insists that we ignore all obvious benefits of drugs. It's even illegal to suggest that psilocybin has health benefits: that's "unproven" according to the Dr. Spocks of science.
"Can I use poppies, coca, laughing gas, MDMA?" "NO," says the materialist, "We must be SCIENTIFIC! We must fry your brain and give you a lobotomy and make you a patient for life with the psychiatric pill mill! That's true SCIENCE!"
Now drug warriors have nitrous oxide in their sights, the substance that inspired the philosophy of William James. They're using the same tired MO: focusing exclusively on potential downsides and never mentioning the benefits of use, and/or denying that any exist.
America never ended prohibition. It just redirected prohibition from alcohol to all of alcohol's competitors.
In a free future, newspapers will have philosophers on their staffs to ensure that said papers are not inciting consequence-riddled hysteria through a biased coverage of drug-related mishaps.
The DEA should be tried for crimes against humanity. They have been lying about drugs for 50 years and running interference between human beings and Mother Nature in violation of natural law, depriving us of countless potential and known godsends in order to create more DEA jobs.
